Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9282016" data-attributes="member: 1008">I am not an expert on IP Law. Some of what follows may not be completely accurate, but I'm confident about the broad strokes.Copyright was designed to be literally what it says -- it conveys the right to copy something.When copyright was being developed, the following points were taken as axiomatic:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The creation and existence of artistic works is a good thing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Artistic works provide the most value to society if as many people as possible have access to them. Limiting access and use to certain people is a bad thing.</li> </ul>It was determined that, although limiting access is bad, providing creators a temporary monopoly on making and distributing copies of their work would help them earn money for their efforts, and encourage more creation. However, this right to copy should be kept as brief as possible -- it's not an inherent right we want to encourage, it's a concession we're making to encourage creation, with the ultimate goal being the enrichment of the public domain.This original intent has now been warped, in no small part due to Disney and their unwillingness to let their cash <s>cow</s> mouse be released into the public domain.But this idea that people own ideas is very new, and stands in stark contrast to what copyright was designed to do.Many people still believe that good and interesting ideas and art should be shared across society, and that the only restrictions that should be applied to that spread should be whatever the minimum is to ensure that art continues to be created. I, and several others in this thread who oppose ownership of PCs, agree with this philosophy.Giving someone "ownership" of their former PC, even when they're not involved in a game, is actively at odds with that philosophy that ideas should be shared rather than owned, and is a perspective that some of us genuinely and honestly consider to be damaging to society as a whole.I wholeheartedly oppose the notion that ideas should be owned and controlled by individuals, and that includes your PC. The people who created the first copyright laws were broadly in agreement with me. The people who fought to change those laws, to make them more restrictive and to enforce ownership are almost universal large corporations who consider their personal profits more important than enriching the public domain.I'm quite comfortable in the belief that I'm on the side of right and good in this one.</blockquote>

Verification