Neutrality of the Internet

[Shabbaman]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Artists are free to do their stuff as a living and get paid for their work. But immaterial goods are not the only stuff they can deliver.

CBA about artists, I'm more concerned with big pharmaceutical companies, or, well, other scientists. If you quote my reports without at least referencing the source, my company will sue you. They might even do that if you quote without consent, though I doubt that. Research costs money. Writing songs/books/movies/software costs money. If I copy a song without consent, or plagiarize a song for my own gain, then I expect to be sued. As it is, there's not much legal difference between my reports, a blockbuster movie, or anti-aids medicine. Someone paid for it, and expecting to get it for free is naive. There is no free lunch.

What you are referring to is a different revenue model. A lot of artists don't care if you copy their work, as long as you pay to see them. Getting your work copied is basically free promotion. Good for musicians, still not good for pharmaceutical companies. Good for me though, as long as you use references. While this example clearly works for musicians, I seriously doubt this works for major Hollywood movies. Or pharmaceutical companies. It's hard to make distinctions between these obviously different categories with intellectual property as a starting point.

However, all of these "categories" were filthy rich in the past, and are filthy rich now. The damage done by copying can't be that bad. I think the damage done to society by intellectual property laws are larger than the damage done to the intellectual proprietors (?) by copying. Think excessive costs for medicine, patent trolling etc.