The idea behind copyright is in the US Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, cl. 8:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

This "exclusive right" is an incentive to create. Of course it would be nicer if people created art spontaneously for art's sake, but a guy has to eat. I don't think I would like it if I worked very hard on a novel and then, before I could realize anything for my labors, someone started copying and selling it.

IMHO, the copyright has been extended much too far. It is something around lifetime of the author plus 70 years, which is ridiculous. Originally, it was 14 years and renewable for 14 more. In 1909 the length was increased to 28 renewable for 28 more.

I like renewable idea because someone who doesn't keep track of his CR will lose it. Project Gutenberg, which puts out of print books on the web for all to read, can only use books that are no longer protected by CR. A book may be out of print, but still protected by CR. Now that the CR is lifetime + 70 years, that will be more and more the case. Because CR violations allow the holder to sue for actual damages or statutory damages, even posting on the net without a profit scheme could lead to damages.

(Of course, I hope none of the shows I watch on youtube will be taken down. Lately, I've been watching episodes of the Venture Bros.)

Sumner Redstone, the billionaire Zionist Jew who owns Viacom, is unhappy with all those YouTube videos that show Israeli atrocities. Most of those videos are not his, but there will now be wave after wave of video purges. Zionist maggots don't want young Americans and Europeans seeing the truth about the Israeli genocide against Palestinians.

Unfortunatly, too many people have already seen them. Israel's days are numbered. One day soon the human race will look back at the entire Zionist project and regard it as a bizarre and unfortunate time of madness, like the black death in medieval Europe, or the Stalinist era in Russia. Mankind will reflect on the Israeli era and ask, "How could so many people have bought into so much evil?"

This author: Nafeez Ahmed presents an erudite summary of US/UK and western-backed terrorist intrigue in the service of Empire, from WWII to the present.

you can listen to him here:

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/loudblog/index.php?id=60

He does not mention Zionists much, just Israel, US and UK.

He thinks from the research he has done that the machine is in inexorable decline because of 3 problems identified and affirmed by many academics and scientists.

1) peak oil will mean oil and energy will become harder to extract and exploit.

2) the financial system will collapse in the next few years.

3)some environmental 'tipping point' will be reached leading to widespread destruction.

The rulers and elites know this and are attempting to prolong their system and grab resources for when they need them and to gain total control. They may find alternative energy sources but dislike this idea and prevent research into the search because they would lose their hold and power if they did and society would be re-configured along different lines.

They think there will be large scale destruction and death, they are willing to let billions die, so long as they remain in power. This would explain the increase in Police and prisons etc. A bit grim but he seems to have plenty of evidence to back himself up.

AZ- You read my mind about Redstone. He's a worried old fart alright, but I don't think Brin and Page are quite at the worryin' stage yet. That purge will come once they get all nestled in to their new op center in Tel Aviv, and will just be another inevitable protocol when it happens. What are these suckers gonna do when nobody pumps in any more fresh content ? My solution is simple, if they want to play the "Intellectual Property Game" ( new pilot game show ? ) fine. We can play the BOYCOTT VIACOM FRESH PRODUCT and CONTENT GAME !

No doubt they will try to block anything exposing the zionist agenda. Too late, because what google video and YouTube do is easily imitated and will be done better. The winner in this format will allow capture of downloaded video to personal storage very easily.

Their real wet dream is the passage of a Hate Crimes bill.

For anyone who has ever run a business or created something of value to profit from, the right to profit from it is a given.

When corporations got involved, they started messing with this right.

Can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The technology to make a YouTube or a GoogleVideo is freely available, and there are hundreds of sites out there now. Nothing stops creative folks from creating something.

Copyright allows the 'fair use' of corporate content - but one cannot benefit financially from another's creation.

It is such common sense, I wonder why we bring it up here again and again. Let's have a discussion on it.

but, it's not likely that you or anyone else who is emotionally or economically invested in copyright will change their minds.

I am well aware that many readers feel the way that you and Claymore do. Indeed, everytime I post something about copyright and voice my ardent opposition to it, I invariably suffer a torrent of criticism and dissent - which is fine by me. Actually, very useful, though admittedly strenuous.

Since I don't have too much time today, I will republish the position I expressed some time ago which remains unchanged.

When [people] describe the copying of an artist's idea as "theft" [they] begin from the premise that copying it is a crime. While the idea is appealing, it is not [an] open shut case[.]

Granted a “creator” initially comes up with a creative idea. But, that doesn't mean that they're entitled to “exclusive” ownership of it. Exclusive rights to copyrights and patents are an instrumental legal fiction intended (by the Constitution) to 'promote the progress of science and the arts.'

But an artist’s "creativity" is not spawned in a vacuum. They build on the images and stimuli that are available all around them. In fact, most people are creative, if they bother to try.

Contrary to popular belief, extraordinary creativity is NOT what gives popular artists of today the commercial edge that they have. It’s largely the industrial and capital power behind them that enables them to saturate the market with "their creative product," such that it becomes part of the cultural landscape and an attractive idea to “steal.”

Once market penetration reaches critical mass, the creative product picks up exponential momentum, propelled by the natural desire of all humans to share their culture.

It is not only obscene, but indefensible that a handful of individuals should benefit both from the labor and assets of hundreds of millions of others AND the momentum of humanity’s need [and desire] to share culture, facilitated exponentially by industry and technology.

It does not promote the progress of science and arts. It promotes a culture of monopoly and greed, the PRINCIPAL BENEFACTORS being industrial capitalists (a.k.a., bankers and moneylenders), the ones that we know and love – the same ones who monopolize the money supply.

In fact, the way IP laws are set up, artists would be BETTER off if copyright laws were abolished because that would place more value on the artist and their original works (i.e, their LABOR). Now, artists are a dime a dozen and their copyrights automatically vest in their employers - by law.

I do not care if anyone and EVERYONE copies my posts verbatim as long as they do NOT copyright it and then attempt to limit its circulation to monopolize its benefit.

This is not to say that I do not support a FAIR compensation to artists or anyone for contributing to human civilization.

I simply reject the notion that anyone "BY RIGHT" can prevent other human beings from copying.

When they do it, they do it BY FORCE. So, let's call a spade a spade.

both copyright and patents are limitations of freedom of speech.
They also endanger human progress.

qrs, you said:

Now, artists are a dime a dozen and their copyrights automatically vest in their employers - by law.

Yes, by all means change those laws, and change the laws for software patents - these are all corporate creations.

Second Issue
============
Very strangely, you equate copyright with 'copy' - one is a legal term and the other is replication.

Each time anything on the Internet is accessed, at least 1, and usually more than 5 copies are made on the way. In the web server cache, in proxy servers, and in your local computer's cache.

This is copying - but not against copyright. Was I to spend 5 years writing a textbook, only for it to be copied and *sold* or *distributed* by another for pecuniary profit or other gain, why would I write one? You do not answer those questions.

All copyright laws that I am aware of allow you to copy portions of that book for personal use, note sharing, teaching in class, criticism etc.

It is not about 'copy' and 'right' - it is about 'copyright' and to equate a legal term with two common words - is in a much shadier realm of credibility.

Please read about Fair Use. I know you have, and include it in your discussion when you have time:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a...

It says:
There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.