| liquidninja said: @Zucas Copyright is permitted in the Constitution to benefit us not the creators. Large companies have been lobbying for more control through Copyright law that disregard it's intended purpose, and they've been getting it under false assumptions. So it's not necessarily just anymore. |
Copyrights where created to give the people that created thing the rights to that product for a designated time. It was made to ensure competition stayed fair. So of course large companies would want to to disregard its from intended purpose as competition is not necessarily a good thing for them. Monopolies are of course a better route for them. Copyrights, in practice though, are better for the consumer in a capitalist market as it does help to prevent the formation of monopolies. But it holds most of the benefits to the creators such that they are ensure they are the sole rights holders in any relation to their creation/work/etc. If this didn't exist, smaller companies could create something, larger companies would sell the same thing at lower prices, and then the smaller one would lose.
I don't know where you are getting this but copyrights are a foundation for fueling and maintaining competition in a capitalist market and benefit consumers withing that market. Now I know the original founders did not know of the existence and extent of the internet (obviously) but this comes back to bite not only small but large companies as well. Thus why they want to get some more controls because they have to fight off other parasites. If they aren't able to sell their products competively because someone who lives in his mom's basement can sell it for half the price as a download on the internet, if not free, then the whole system gets hurt.
I really don't know how this is a discussion. It's quite clear. If the original creators don't have the rights to something they created exclusively, then they suffer. And with the extent of the internet nowadays, this applies to small and large companies.
