I think the Arctic Monkeys were the band that became popular on the net first - though as I sometimes remind people (when I remember), memory gets a bit flaky at my age.
Seriously, I read what you wrote expecting to find points to debate and ended up thinking "Yes, that all makes perfect sense".
Here is a slightly off topic comment: At the 2006 world SF con, I went to a panel on the subject of intellectual property. The least agreed-with panelist was arguing that the extension of copyright to 70 years after author's death is barely adequate and she couldn't really see why it should ever expire.
People in the audience debated with her whether it would be better if Shakespeare's copyright was owned by a company somewhere and everyone had to pay them to make movies, put on plays and so on, and she maintained that it would be better because then there would be a commercial incentive to commercialise Shakespeare.
Later I suggested to her that if real property were to be treated the way she wanted intellectual property to be treated, a very few people would own almost everything, and most people would be bulldozed off the private land into the sea. She replied saying she didn't see why intellectual property should not be treated the same as real property.
Attitudes like this and legal departments like rottweilers possibly works against the chance for any real ownership of culture by most people.
no subject
Seriously, I read what you wrote expecting to find points to debate and ended up thinking "Yes, that all makes perfect sense".
Here is a slightly off topic comment: At the 2006 world SF con, I went to a panel on the subject of intellectual property. The least agreed-with panelist was arguing that the extension of copyright to 70 years after author's death is barely adequate and she couldn't really see why it should ever expire.
People in the audience debated with her whether it would be better if Shakespeare's copyright was owned by a company somewhere and everyone had to pay them to make movies, put on plays and so on, and she maintained that it would be better because then there would be a commercial incentive to commercialise Shakespeare.
Later I suggested to her that if real property were to be treated the way she wanted intellectual property to be treated, a very few people would own almost everything, and most people would be bulldozed off the private land into the sea. She replied saying she didn't see why intellectual property should not be treated the same as real property.
Attitudes like this and legal departments like rottweilers possibly works against the chance for any real ownership of culture by most people.