If copyright were just to protect the investment of a company in development of an artist or product I'd broadly agree with this argument.
Where copyright seems objectionable to me, is where the initial cost of development was non-existent or large profits have been made for years. For example:
For some copyright to last 95 years seems more like profiteering than protection of the creative industries considering creation is often based on the work of others.
I don't condone piracy, but I think piracy would be far less socially acceptable if:
- the creator can be seen to benefit from their work
- copyright better resembled its original intent of protecting investment in the creation of something new and not staking ownership over the work of others.
That's an opinion. Stating opinion as fact is a worthless contribution, in fact a detriment, to healthy discussion.
I wouldn't argue that there's moral high ground here, I'd simply put it this way:
Anyone who thinks there is a better way to keep people from pirating music than to make the legal means of acquisition simple, affordable, and to not play games with release dates, is a fucking idiot.
Where copyright seems objectionable to me, is where the initial cost of development was non-existent or large profits have been made for years. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Royalty_a...
For some copyright to last 95 years seems more like profiteering than protection of the creative industries considering creation is often based on the work of others.
I don't condone piracy, but I think piracy would be far less socially acceptable if: - the creator can be seen to benefit from their work - copyright better resembled its original intent of protecting investment in the creation of something new and not staking ownership over the work of others.