View Single Post
Old 2011-06-19, 13:51   Link #54
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Age: 29
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Those rules are explicitly written to protect profits, not creativity. There is always a premise for creativity because doing what you like gives more emotional satisfaction than the monetary satisfaction it comes with. And most artistes do it for the emotional satisfaction rather than the monetary one, and the former makes better music and shows than those after the latter.

If they wanted to protect creativity, they would have attacked censorship laws instead.
That's the assumption that the creative process is solely of an individual, in that case yes copyright would be more to then the monetary benefit, but with our current economic structure, the creative process is no longer dictated by the individual, it is those with capital that incentivize the process of being creative and with the exchange of money they accumulate the rights, the risk is greater to some extent but patent and copyright law if done in a fair manner isn't bad, it just recognoizes the risk. If you take medical research for instance, it's quite understandable why these patents would be valueable, because research isn't cheap, the funds required to get a lab going, to hire the right people, to invest in the right tests, etc, all cost money and if everything entered public domain, then there would be pause to just going on researching, because research would be much less valueable than production of a synthetic material or even just raising the animals necessary for research.

@Vexx, yep it is the erosion of the consumers rights, is the just merely a step to elevate the corporations above humans.
Nosauz is offline   Reply With Quote