RE: All information at your hands is yours. You can use it how you like. But they will try to stop you.
I agree with some of what you are saying. Part of this is down to how our society is set up. Everything must be monetised.
I think a lot of people (myself included) would be happy to get more people to see our work through other people making use of it and highlighting it.
I think if people using other people's material at least asked first they might be surprised how many people would be happy for their work to be used by others.
That's why a lot of us put out material under creative commons.
I also see the other side too.
It is not cheap in terms of time or money to produce most kinds of art and any money that people make off it helps to fund the next project.
I also think we can all agree that trying to take credit from or monetise other people's work (a step beyond just using it) is at least in some ways morally wrong.
Both sides of the argument have merit. There is no simple black or white solution.
You're simply wrong. =3
There is a black or white solution, and that solution is Steemit, or at least a modified version of Steemit.
Being able to upvote content such as music, video games, movies, art, etc, can give people money, huge amounts, on the orders of ten thousand dollars or more, without any actual need to pay anything.
Although Steemit is still small, if it was given official media attention and the government invested the same amount of money into it as it does enforcing copyright law, we could see the value of Steemit or a Steemit-like system go way up.
This would solve the problem, allowing content creators to make money, while still distributing their work for free.
I'm adding this to my post, seeing as I think it's wise. Thanks for inspiring me.
I hadn't thought about that but I doubt things will change. We will see.
This is a misunderstanding. It may seem like you are not paying but the community is paying for it collectively.
This is true, but even so, a person without any money can still read the content here and benefit. There's no restrictions regarding who can and can't access content.
Income-class restrictions currently prevent some people from accessing certain information.
Scientific journals, for example, are often hidden behind a paywall.
The poor cannot access up-to-date science information because they need to pay for it.
This is quite a tragedy in the name of profit! What if they have a really good invention idea, but can't access specific information regarding some necessary components? No invention.
Same with movies, books or video games. People without money can't gain access.
However, they often demand access by simply pirating it.
Steemit can eliminate this, while still allowing profits to flow towards the source of information or content.
But the real issue isn't content being free in price.
It's that it's free in the sense of freedom.