For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
while this statement maybe correct i fail to see how it applies. So he's using concepts from separate time periods. As long as the concepts are being applied appropriately i fail to see the problem
The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
Copyright aims to control, for a duration that for a single generation might as well be permanent, the spread of all ideas including new ones . Censorship is just a bit more extreme in that when it tries to exert control over an idea it tries to squash it entirely, instead of controlling it. And Censorship has no issue going after old ideas, thats why so many christian holidays were basically written over older pagan holidays.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
And of course now its getting harder and harder to create because you might step on someones ancient copyright and be hugely liable.
I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are.
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
Yes but unlike copyrights i will see children grow up in my lifetime, or at least my son will. My son probably won't see the recently deceased Michael Jacksons works in public domain in his lifetime. He probably won't even know who he is beyond some vague zamani-ish concept. But his works will be protected.
A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
Well if its a nicely designed house it will raise both property values by improving the neighborhood. Weird how when we share everyone can benefit sometimes.