Because you can't infinitely create copyrights.
Older books that are out of copyright can be digitally copied unlimited times.
Without copyrights, why would anybody write anything meaningful and time consuming (like a novel)? Everything will just be shitty 300 word blog posts.
Faggot. Suck the big government teat because before government nobody ever made anything. .
Interesting… I did not know that the Mises Institute was primarily against copyrights. Thank you for the link.
His complaint, I think, is about having to borrow books that are in the public domain.
What do you think about Warner/Chapel suing thousands of people for the use of the birthday song? Or Walmart suing over the yellow happy face?
As despicable as the American brand called themselves Ugg© then promptly tried to sue everyone who makes ugg boots.
Oooh. If I create a shoe brand called Sneaker can I sue Nike and everyone else? *intense hand rubbing *
Because you can't infinitely create copyrights.
Yes. Yes you can. (((copyright))) is just a jew idea that an idea can be owned.
Without copyrights, why would anybody write anything meaningful and time consuming (like a novel)? Everything will just be shitty 300 word blog posts.
Then how the fuck did humanity operate for the thousands of years before (((copyright)))? Oh. Wait, they had far more creativity because ideas were shared.
People don't get inspired to write a novel from the money.
We don't? Have you written a novel?
Homer didn't copyright the Iliad Steven King copyrighted every single thing he wrote
Which is better?
You're committing a genetic fallacy. The Illiad survived to this time because it was one of the best writings from that ancient period.
Making such a comparison is about as useful as comparing Arcangelo Corelli to Britney Spears.
Instead, let's take the very best writing from this era and compare it to the very best rating of that era, volumetrically. Self interest motivates people to write, and so instead of having one great piece of work in 500 years we have tens of thousands per year. Now, is most of what's written trash? Sure. But that's because we're swimming in a sea of content. Whatever survives this era and his remembered later, aside from the artificially boosted trash, will surely be of great quality.
Also, I mean what's to stop somebody from writing something great and putting it into the public domain? Unless you're trying to compel others to give you stuff for free, I don't really understand the argument… It's not like copyright rules prevent you from giving away your work for free. Perhaps copyrights should be reduced in length, and certainly they should not be extended for the benefit of one corporation (like was the case for Disney). But getting rid of copyrights all together would just reduce the amount of written content to cheaply produced trash in the odd masterpiece Also, I mean what's to stop somebody from writing something great and putting it into the public domain? Unless you're trying to compel others to give you stuff for free, I don't really understand the argument… It's not like copyright rules prevent you from giving away your work for free. Perhaps copyrights should be reduced in length, and certainly they should not be extended for the benefit of one corporation (like was the case for Disney). But getting rid of copyrights all together would just reduce the amount of written content to mostly cheaply produced trash and then the odd masterpiece.
(post is archived)