Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie
Wrong. The same digital technologies you rely on to permit unfettered fair use (posting the ENTIRE content for so-called commentary) permit unlimited creation and distribution by ANYBODY.
You can't have it both ways. If digital delivery puts content into everyone's hands, then everyone can contribute. The playing field is leveled and *competition* forces set market conditions. A monopoly cannot exist.
True monopolies limit consumer choice. So what if the so-called government-granted "monopoly" (a term of convenience, not legal doctrine) puts limits on the taking of copyright works without remuneration. The consumer now has a boundless selection, made possible by the very technologies you rely on for your copyright anarchy.
With unlimited choice a monopoly cannot exist. Get over it.
|
you finally get it
IF fair use of commentary is allowed to the point i described then yes there is no monopoly
however
IF you need to get permission to make commentary then that control "fetters" "unlimited creation and distribution by ANYBODY".
copyright holders are arguing to close the "loophole" that allows that level of commentary.
They want to crush that level of comentary, put it in a box and therefore limit unlimited creation that would destroy the monopoly (need permission to create).