@lispi314 @chucker @kkarhan @ajsadauskas @technology @[email protected] @[email protected] @senficon I think a lot of musicians (cf. R.E.M.) with sizable back catalogs to which they own the rights would disagree with you, and honestly, I don't know what the right answer is.
That said, if you would, please explain why you mean by "copyright also inherently assumes you have a right to control the minds of others." I'm not following.
@kkarhan @lispi314 @ajsadauskas @technology @[email protected] @[email protected] @senficon No argument here.
@lispi314 @kkarhan @ajsadauskas @technology @[email protected] @[email protected] @senficon Agreed. My 2 cents is that it's a reasonable compromise, but I get that people may disagree.
@kkarhan @ajsadauskas @technology @[email protected] @[email protected] @senficon Oh, I quite agree. Coble's hometown paper editorialized against the copyright changes Disney bought through him at the time, but nobody else listened. Coble certainly didn't.
@kkarhan @ajsadauskas @technology @[email protected] @[email protected] @senficon Oh, I know. I did some reading on Coble and Disney in the late 1990s, and I was stunned to learn about how much stuff they were squatting on. But money talks loudly enough to drown out all other voices.
@kkarhan @ajsadauskas @technology @[email protected] @[email protected] @senficon My late congresscritter, Howard Coble, was responsible for that. A product of north-central North Carolina, he was nicknamed "The Congressman from Disney" in the district (and in Washington) because of all the water he carried for that corporation on IP matters.
@lispi314 @chucker @kkarhan @ajsadauskas @technology @[email protected] @[email protected] @senficon OK. So let's say there were no such thing as copyright law. How, then, would artists, writers, musicians, etc., make a living?