Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asmor" data-source="post: 4682054" data-attributes="member: 1154">Whoa, I don't think I could possibly disagree with that more.A movie company isn't paid to make a movie, for example. They make the movie at their expense, and then try to recoup that expense afterward.I agree that the movie company isn't fundamentally entitled to recoup their costs or make a profit, but they certainly should have the exclusive rights to sell that movie for a reasonable amount of time.The arts are strange; they're similar to other professions in that they must produce something to make a living. The problem is, all the difficulty is in the original production; once something is created, it is trivial to recreate it. Anyone can re-type a best selling novel, for example, or make a movie which is virtually identical to a blockbuster hit (never mind literally copying the movie...).This might not seem like such a big problem for a major movie or album. Even without copyright law, it would have been foolish for someone to try and copy Schindler's List, for example, since that movie saw a major worldwide release and was well known already. At the very least, people have already seen it, diminishing the potential audience; even worse, the copycat studio could suffer some bad PR for the stunt.The problem is when someone tries to make a large, wide-scale re-release of a small project, or even a small-scale one in a different market. If I take a great photograph, it might make me some money and get me a bit of fame in my local area. If the New York Times then published that photo without attributing it to me, they'd get all the credit everywhere else for it and make all the money off my work.</blockquote>

Verification