>>5980628Yeah, I believe anything that can be Ctrl+C Ctrl+V'd for 0 cost should be so, as I consider the diffusion of culture/knowledge more important than personal gain.
The copyright I'm against in this case would be the power to produce artificial scarcity, to block the spread of information.
Of course, I still think people should be recognized for their authorship and paid to produce art - just not encouraged to resell the same piece over and over, forever.
I know this is a huge kick on the nuts for the market, but the market is bloated with undeserving garbage anyway, so a "only liked authors get paid to make their next project" system would be welcome.
That's what companies do already, they try to figure out who are the good authors, and maybe even with a no-copyright system we would devolve back into having this middle man to handle creation, but I wouldn't oppose it as long as we still had the content being available for free, and the focus of making a profit were moved to the production stage, not residual sales.
If anyone thinks I'm a Communist, bear in mind copyright is enforced by the (((UN))), if anything I'm against the bignose mindset of milking something dry in chase of a millionaire life instead of working accordingly in order to get a fitting profit.
>>5980629Illiterate nigger.
