Do you believe that every single Christian has the same goals in life and shares the same beliefs? Do you believe that every single Christian is working together for an agreed-upon agenda?
Creative works used to be funded by either patronage or live performances
If you think about it, they still are. The recording industry are those patrons. However, the patrons these days are businesses. They fund a lot of people who end up failing, but they try to make up for their losses by making fortunes off of the few who succeed.
You just "composed" the above comment. FOR FREE. Why?
People volunteer all of the time. But they have a side job that they need to make money. Much less music would get composed if composers could not earn a living.
The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Here's the part where you're supposed to explain why that's a bad thing.
Do you enjoy listening to music? Do you enjoy having a huge selection of songs to choose from?
When? When do copyrights expire?
I wonder how hard it would be to computer generate every possible combination of music in music sheet form.
Let's assume that the smallest increment used was a 16th note and the range is that of a piano (88 notes). In one measure of only 16th notes, there are 88^16 possibilities (about 10^31). If each note took up 2 bytes (note and length taken into account), then that one simple measure would take up about 2*10^22 gigabytes. Where are you ever going to find that space? Now let's vary that measure with quarter notes, half notes, triplets, etc. And also add multiple notes at a time (harmonies). The possibilities are endless. Combine that with mixing/matching measures, having many measures in a song, and adding every possible combination of lyrics, and there is not enough space on the surface of the earth to store the harddrives required for this task.
Copyright isn't an inalienable right.
There are very few inalienable rights. I do not see why this is relevant
Copyright is a recent concept. As recent as the Renaissance.
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.
Before that, you could own physical property, but Ideas were free. If you created a magnanimous work of art, that work of art belonged to the human kind. Then, you could earn a living by performing live, doing work for hire, etc.
Yes, and the playwrights were dirt-poor.
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.
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.
Now, there is a hugI de difference between the NEED to make a living, and some stupid god-given right to be given money just because we create.
Wow. I don't even have a response to that. Just wow...
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.
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?
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982