IMHO the copyright system originated as a means of protecting the intellectual property created by individuals, which to me seems a nobel cause. Anyone who has ever had anything of thier own plagarised knows the bitter feeling of others getting credit for your efforts. Of course, over time capitalism has seen it fit to turn this into a monster that has snowballed into an out of hand mess that serves big buisness better than the individuals it was created to protect, and badly needs reform with consideration to modern means of one-to-many distribution. Comission and work for hire are a fine model for a one-to-few market approach, but impractical for a one-to-many mass media or mass market approach as we cant all ring up Disney or Led Zeppelin with our specifications for a film or album, which is where the more speculative model of "make something and charge people to access it if they wish" model has come from, which fits free market economics. IN fact, IIRC, isnt that how production generally works? A publishing body comissions someone to make something, then tries to get rich off that creation? The problem there is the middle man, clearly.
I dont get why anyone should feel entitled to the fruits of another labours without some kind of exchange.
If I copy a file, the artist is not giving me anything. His picture that he made is still in his studio. The paint he used to make it is still on canvas in his possession. Then somebody else came along and used their tools and labor to create a digital copy, and I'm using my tools and labor to create a digital copy of the digital copy.
Why do you expect me to give the artist something when he's not giving me anything?
By wanting to access the media.
I'm not accessing his media. I'm not touching it. I don't have it. He still does. No transfer of ownership occurs, and not one atom, not one electron that I have access to at any point was ever in his possession.
Maybe I should clarify my thinking
That is my intent.
can I make it clear I am only in favour of making sure that
content creators are justly rewarded for thier efforts
Ok. So then if you create a song, put it on CD and sell it to Bob for $20, you have received just reward for your effort. Right? And then Bob makes a copy for me.
Why should you be rewarded for Bob's labor?
Oh, now I get why we disagree. Right. I shouldnt be rewarded for Bobs efforts - Bob should. I was under the misconception that you thought that the person who created the material in the first place deserves no compensation
at all. I think we were referring to different entities when we were referring to content creators. Of course, in your first example, the artist should have the right to control the image as he sees fit in the first instance - if he decides nobody should take a copy, it is his right as creator. But once he allows one copy in exchange for whatever he sees fit, it is hard for them to backtrack and say that there should be no subsequent copies. The creator can sure as hell try and stipulate (as would be thier right, after all it would not exists without thier work) that they are entitled to subsequent payments, but free market economics would surely favour those that do not require such an approach.
I guess the trick here is for the content originator could provide thier work directly at a more competetive price/exchange than those trying to make a profit from obtaining it then selling it on - dealing direct with thier consumer base, rather than through publishers, which seems to be the way grass roots stuff is going nowadays more and more. Many people do not want copies - they want legitimate originals as many content creators have some kind of "worth" or prestiege (spelling?) attached to them, and as people will want to support the creators they wish to see create more in the future. However If people undercut content creators, eventually there would be no content to make a profit from.