Jericho wrote
Come on now, you're playing cheap intellectual games.
Please don't resort to statements like this. I'm doing nothing of the kind.
You said why would anyone invent something if it could be copied. I said because somethings cannot be copied. The copyright you are talking about is protection for Clapton's recorded music. His skill, creativity and effort are not copyrighted. They cannot also be copied so it was not wasteful of him to develop and create music.
But they CAN be copied dude. Copied and "bettered" and embellished and ripped off. For every Elvis and every Hendrix, there are a million impersonators stealing a little of their magic to make their own living. I don't have a problem with that, as long as the original chap gets his due.
The whole idea is that if creative people feel that they have some protection, then there will be more people able to make a living out of creative pursuits like music and literature. This, for me, is a great thing. It means that my little girl, if she wants to, could have a very real prospect at being an author or a musician if the talent is there. Rather than simply living on a wing and a prayer until she is "discovered", she could send her manuscripts to publishers for assessment, knowing that they can't (in theory) simply rip off her ideas and sell them on for their own profits.
And of course, if nobody is going to pay for music because it's all "free", well then we're going to see fewer people choosing music as a career. And certainly, those careers will be less sustainable in the long run.
