Laws that choke creativity | Larry Lessig

I've seen many people say that if RIAA and MPAA keep trying to introduce new censorship laws like that, eventually the "camel's back will break", and people will demand a total overhaul of the copyright system, or perhaps completely eliminate it. I tend to agree. The more they will push this, the more people will rise up and speak against it, and many people will start questioning if copyright should even exist in the first place. Through their aggressiveness on this issue, they will put the spotlight on it, and I don't think it will end up being in their favor. I believe the people will eventually win this one, even if in the mean time they manage to introduce one or two more Internet censorship laws. I like this TED video on this: [this video]

I agree. I think the solution to SOPA and PIPA is nothing , not a "lesser evil" or a "compromise". The music labels may die, but I don't think it's the Government's job to save them, just like it's not the Government's job to save the print media against Internet bloggers. I also don't think that there will be less music if the current music labels die. Copyright extensions have become ridiculous, and I think the labels have had their way for way too long in influencing the Government against the public and against the new creators. I think it's time to be reminded once again of Larry Lassig's TED video: [this video] Also when you watch it, and see the airplane example, think about it how it could've been if they "compromised" on saying "Airplanes are free to pass over properties, but helicopters not". It would've still been just as ridiculous. Perhaps not the perfect analogy, but something to think about.

You're right. You do sound like a copyright hawk. Now. Why is the first point about the size of the industry relevant? Unless you're talking about their ability to bribe...I'm sorry..."lobby" Congress to pass the laws they like? That shouldn't happen anyway, regardless of their size. Laws should be passed on common sense and what's good for the people at large, not based on how big is your bank account. What is dubious about his argument about copyright? First off, copyright is not "property", and shouldn't be treated as property. It's more like a permit. The government allows you to use a certain idea for a "limited time period" as it says in the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of the bribing..sorry, again, I meant lobbying...the "limited time period" turned from 14 years to almost 10x more. That doesn't sound limited at all to me. Copyright was meant as an "incentive" system - not as a welfare system. Ideas can and should be reused. Whoever gets something copyright, most definitely got "inspired" or copied parts of someone else' ideas. That's why there isn't really something like "intellectual property", because nobody owns an idea 100%. And since you used someone else' ideas, you have to get paid for whatever you added only for a limited period of time, and then allow others to benefit from it, too, and expand the public knowledge. The whole point of the copyright system was to benefit the "public". It doesn't say "the creators" in the Constitution. The fact that you