> Copyrights exist for consumers, at least according to the US > constitution: <snip>
And? I'm talking about the simple fact that the producer has the right to earn money from his creation. Copyright is just a tool. > Copyrights do not exist for the benefit of producers; that is only a > means to an end. The point of the copyright system is to benefit the > general public. Exactly. So, in your own words, producers are at a loss. > ...which is not the same as their right to prevent you from making > copies of their work. Oh come on. Who are you trying to feed that to? You know damn well current court cases target 'copyright infringement' for non-personal use....such as copying such material and selling it for profit. Why don't you just admit many people out there are afraid of loosing their little racket? > Then tell me what they lost. Can you prove that someone who downloaded > a song would have spent money on the song if it had not been available > for download? The argument that losses are incurred for every download > has always been baseless and always will be. Can you prove that a company/group can live on by handing out free copies of their song on the internet? How many companies out there do that? > Industries need to adapt to the times, or else they die. What makes > recording, movie production, etc. so special? Lets turn this to a different parallel issue, open source. Last I checked, income for opensource projects tend to come from one of the following: - advertisements - paid support - training How many such activities play well with records companies? _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
