Not quite. First off, its not illegal to reproduce or copy products and services. Its illegal to redistribute copies or reproductions. As a matter of a fact the "fair use" is a big part of copyright law, that is we are allowed to make copies and reproductions of copyright material that we own, but we are just not allowed to redistribute them.
Next software programs are instructions, the same as if I wrote a cook book with instructions in how to make food, or a book on instructions on how to do mathematics to solve problems, the diffrence is that the computer is the one who following these instructions. Instructions are information on how to do things.
Music Videos and Film (herein after entertainment), are indirect ways of communicating ways of thinking (instructions in how to think about things). Final Fantasy the movie for example, conveys many ideas, one of the main ones was that of not over reacting, because the general of that movie had lost his family and was so angry he wanted to destroy the invaders and not listening to reason that his actions would result in the destruction of the earth. Many movies try to express these things. Music also is used to express things like emotions and messages, like anger or depression (rock, alternative), or not to screw with people (rap), classic music is most notible for the emotion it portrays.
There is one part of copyrights that holds stronger then the rest and that of visual uniqueness, like the copyright of Mickey Mouse for example. But then again, visual appearance is also an expression, you can make a character look cute and innocent, or you can make them look ugly and mean, in that way they are indirectly controlling these expressions via copyright, the reality of the matter is a mouse is a mouse, there is diffrent ways to draw/distort a mouse but eventually they look similar or dont look like a mouse at all.
The expresses of ideas, instructions, emotional state and many others, are all the expression of information. So copyright law may be limited to particular kinds of information but that does not mean it is not to do with information.
Admittedly words like "information" were not necesarily the basis of copyright law, but neither were words like products and services, you will find terminology like "good will" to be used often, which is to do with the fact that the author allowed their work to be "public" but to have their work protected from preditory printing presses that will reproduce and redistribute their work with out payment.
The idea is almost Darwinistic, in that the introduction of a foriegn animal (printing presses in the case of copyright) into an ecosystem will cause many species to die and the over all ecosystem will have to rebalance itself, except rather then let these new animals go wild and alter the ecosystem they decided to preserve the other animals by controling the foreign ones. But as the captilist say, the market will work itself out, that is if they let the problem alter the land scape eventually it will rebalance itself and a solution to the problems will arise. But again since copyright law only worked to surpress the problem (not get rid of it), its only coming to pass that eventually the land scape will change. Just because progress doesnt benefit you, doesnt mean its going to stop because you slap a few laws down, again surpression just means its going to happen in the back ground. Gnutella is just that, its the thing that was surpressed and now has become so easy to do and there is no feeling of guilt or remorse in copying and distributing something, definetly the feeling is not the same as breaking into someones house and stealing from them, and you will never see people treat it as such as some people would like.
That is just the thing, there is other ways in which to earn money (contrasted to the word "profit") for your work besides having to call out the national guard to control peoples distribution of information. The biggest advantage that individuals will have, will be first releases. If you are a reputable content creator, then people could bid to distribute your work. When they get your work they in turn sell it to others who will redistribute it, and on and on again until the work has been distributed to all who want it and the price they are willing to pay for it. The competition prevents corruption (like that from media giants), because if someone gets to greedy, they will find that no one wants to work with them, both the content creators and the consumers.
This can be done through networks like Gnutella, if you add a pay to download feature, mixed with bidding. A reputible writer could create a book, and before releasing the book, have his computer inform other computers via a gnutella like network, that he has a new book and looking for distributors. Many of these systems will know that he produces a great seller, that is if were one of the first to get a hold of his work, they could sell it to several people through the gnutella like network. There fore many of these systems will bid to be amongst the first wave to download his book, and willing to pay high prices. The author doesnt have to choose one system to redistribute his work, he can take the top bidders and based upon his bandwidth send it to them, after they download his work, they in turn start informing other systems that they now have his work for sale, those systems will also be able to inform consumer systems. Eventually what happens is that the people who are willing to pay the highest prices will be the first to get a hold of the book, the people who dont want to be a high price will be among the last to recieve his book, those who want it for free will probably be the ones waiting the longest and they may have to put up with advertisement getting it for free and all.
Yeah, but lets not leave it unsaid that they also dont have a right to control my mind, or extensions to my mind like my hard drive, or the right to control the conversations/exchanges of information I have with other people whether its through the computer or not.
The problem is, you dont know that. That is called speculation. Even Thomas Jefferson said that there is no evidence that copyrights would in fact help the advancements of the arts and sciences. There was no evidence then there is no evidence now. If you look at the past, there was no incentive for many of the things that people did, as a matter of a fact most incentives were direct by usage, not through public manipulation.
Yes but under that context, all human beings are FREELOADERS!! Think about it, what have we ever done for the sun? What have we ever done for the rain? What have we ever done for the oil and minerals we extract from the earth? We are getting these thigns for free from nature, and we dont do anything in return...
