Originally Posted by Unknown_K
A long time ago craftsmen would copy works from other countries down to the finest detail and that was ok, these days if you try that it is illegal (hell even reverse engineering something can be illegal). So I wanted to distinguish that theft of somebodies physical item is a crime, while making a duplicate of that item is a copyright violation. I think one goes to a criminal court and the other is a civil matter? I guess it depends where you live, laws here make it both depending on if you resell it or not (since you can go to jail).
yep, that's an interesting fact, the difference between the two things you say: copy rights, the right of an author to decide how and when utilize and or spread his intellectual property, those rights for instance are deeper and more articulate than common laws states (imho). an author should be more protected about that, BUT the money revenues of an authored object to his sponsores or even author are handled in a consumistic way that make the actual object or idea incredibly less fresh and powerful than it could be, and the betterment of audience, almost null.
what is in fact the reason an author should be protected by the society if not the particular and rare value he add to the society itself? from a very human point of view, you could also say that he's to be commended, retained in the collective memory anyway, as a pulse of everybody human is to be able to live on. then anyone accords the favour to anyone else according it, by that action, to himself too. moreover, the remembering is the one that make possible to the remembered to live on, and both of them are required for the equation.
but the main reason of the protection of the authorial capabilities, is in fact the renewal of that capabilities both in new object or ideas and in the comunication of said capabilities to other. in facts: authors inspires.
but 1) what's the squilibre of protection, computed in money, in regards of people or entities (put here your favorite corporation, tycoon, artist...) and the human growth of theirs customers? 2) how come that growth has become more and more of no consequence at all, indipendently of the money or aknowledgement to authors? (imho, again) 3) what's the difference between production revenues and copy right revenues? why i have the feeling they are too mixed up? 4) most important. who's the author? who decide who will enjoy his production and how he discrimines?
for all these reasons and questions, i don't see immoral use of objects and informations to an extent, while, you cannot dispute it, it's in the law, that it's illegal! law protects fairness of the society, and perversely, fairness equals money, to a large extent.