(08-05-2010 11:14 AM)Some Other Jackass Wrote:  Boy some of these arguments sure seem to demonstrate a sense of entitlement. "Why should I pay for something when I can have it for free?"
Regardless of if the record labels and big business are the ones who profit the most or if an artist is dead...
Some of my remarks are certainly hypocritical. I think some of us can say we have borrowed an album or disc from a friend and made a copy for ourselves which perhaps resulted in a soft loss of revenue. But to regularly over indulge in file sharing, in this instance is getting something of value without proper compensation.

The problem with the law, and with the general public's misunderstanding of copyright, is that they misattribute the owner of a copy of a copyrighted work. Copyright is often mistakenly equated to property (and the use of the propaganda term "intellectual property" doesn't help this misunderstanding), which leads people to believe that all copies of an album belong to the copyright holder.

It makes a lot more sense to consider each copy of an album the property of the person who bought it. If they choose to make that copy available online and I choose to download it, then yes, maybe I am getting something of value without paying for it, but the owner of that copy has chosen to make it available to me. It's no more wrong than if I decided to give away my computer at no cost.

Property being what copyright is not, what copyright is is a means of encouraging creative expression by granting the publisher a temporary monopoly over the distribution of copyrighted works. Unfortunately, over time copyright terms have been extended so that they are now permanent for all practical purposes, and copyright has also been broadened to prohibit harmless activities like sharing CDs with friends.

Thus, I propose fairer copyright terms to be a temporary monopoly only on commercial sales, and only for a period of five years from the date of publication. This allows sufficient time for the artist to make a profit from the sale of a copyrighted work without imposing harsh restrictions on the public, and after five years the work lapses into the public domain.

I hope this has helped to clarify that my argument stems not from a sense of entitlement, but from a consideration of what is fair use of another person's published work. Of course, they are free not to publish it and then none of this would apply.