Copyrights

The ambiguity that surrounds the controversy of digital violation of copyright is a topic that has spawned many argumentative discussions throughout the world. It seems that each side of the argument is based on rights. The question becomes, “whose rights are more controlling than the others?” Orson Scott Card made a solid argument when he mentioned that the record companies who fight against digital copying may not even have the best interest of their artists in mind. Who benefits most from these copyright laws? Card also pointed out several effective arguments about how beneficial music sharing can be. It can lead to increased advertising, and thus purchasing. He also mentions that if the record companies really want their music to be fully paid for, they are focusing on the wrong group. Rather than targeting young people who don’t have real salaries, they should focus on those who do--those who can afford music and who feel comfortable paying for it. I agreed with many of Card’s arguments, but I still believe it is important to follow the law until the changes are made. It is obvious that this topic needs to be thought about, talked through, and laid out so that the laws are enforceable and protect the right principles. However, until that happens, each of us is still under obligation to live the law. Just because times change we cannot ignore the current rules. The Constitution is successful, in part, because people don’t just ignore it when something in society changes. Laws are what protect us, but they are also adaptable and flexible to the world in which we live. Adjustments to the law must be instituted officially before we are free to live them, however. Our job is to respect and follow the laws while acting to inspire change until the laws are in line with the desires of the people.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html