First off, you have yet to answer the question of why precisely copyright should be capped at five years, other than by "people have rights". What
rights are those? Why do they have them? Why do they supersede the rights of those who create content?
Now responding in order:
Supply and demand has led to the recording industry being what it is, and artists making the amount of money they do. So why is that bad, and supply and demand
under a different system good?
No, thinking there are problems with the recording industry does not equate to thinking copyright must be destroyed, and saying it does does not make it so.
They are separate issues. Not every country, nor every artist, is under the jurisdiction of the RIAA (or any related body). But all are under jurisdiction of
copyright laws as they currently exist.
Your argument about Tolkien is irrelevant. Sword and sorcery fantasy may or may not be fanfiction in whatever personal definition you choose to use, but the
law as it stands defines what is and isn't a derivative work. However much the Sword of Shannara drew from Tolkien in inspiration, it does not fall under
the legal category of a derivative work, therefore does not violate Tolkien's copyright, therefore is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are also
completely wrong that it is "impossible" to use fairy tales. The fairy tales are not under copyright. That is why every Disney movie is immediately
followed by cheap animated retellings of the same story. Disney can sue anyone they like. If the work is not derivative of theirs, they will lose. It is
certainly true they could get some movie withdrawn because the distributor does not have the resources to fight Disney in court even if they are legally
correct, but that is a separate flaw of the American legal system and has no bearing on copyright law.
There is no thoroughly vetted research that draws the conclusions you say it does. What research there is is on a significantly smaller scale. None of it is
convincing in the face of the real-world examples of what happens to intellectual property when copyright becomes meaningless. None of it is convincing in the
face of the simple fact that every single industry affected by filesharing, regardless of media or country, has suffered significant overall losses of sales
during that time period. Bluntly, if it was the done deal you and other apologists think it was, the industry would support it. They don't because they
know damn well that filesharing does not increase overall sales.
Roads have a concrete and obvious benefit for the common good. The reduction of copyright does not.
What fines there are for filesharing is also completely irrelevant. Please stick to the topic at hand.
rights are those? Why do they have them? Why do they supersede the rights of those who create content?
Now responding in order:
Supply and demand has led to the recording industry being what it is, and artists making the amount of money they do. So why is that bad, and supply and demand
under a different system good?
No, thinking there are problems with the recording industry does not equate to thinking copyright must be destroyed, and saying it does does not make it so.
They are separate issues. Not every country, nor every artist, is under the jurisdiction of the RIAA (or any related body). But all are under jurisdiction of
copyright laws as they currently exist.
Your argument about Tolkien is irrelevant. Sword and sorcery fantasy may or may not be fanfiction in whatever personal definition you choose to use, but the
law as it stands defines what is and isn't a derivative work. However much the Sword of Shannara drew from Tolkien in inspiration, it does not fall under
the legal category of a derivative work, therefore does not violate Tolkien's copyright, therefore is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are also
completely wrong that it is "impossible" to use fairy tales. The fairy tales are not under copyright. That is why every Disney movie is immediately
followed by cheap animated retellings of the same story. Disney can sue anyone they like. If the work is not derivative of theirs, they will lose. It is
certainly true they could get some movie withdrawn because the distributor does not have the resources to fight Disney in court even if they are legally
correct, but that is a separate flaw of the American legal system and has no bearing on copyright law.
There is no thoroughly vetted research that draws the conclusions you say it does. What research there is is on a significantly smaller scale. None of it is
convincing in the face of the real-world examples of what happens to intellectual property when copyright becomes meaningless. None of it is convincing in the
face of the simple fact that every single industry affected by filesharing, regardless of media or country, has suffered significant overall losses of sales
during that time period. Bluntly, if it was the done deal you and other apologists think it was, the industry would support it. They don't because they
know damn well that filesharing does not increase overall sales.
Roads have a concrete and obvious benefit for the common good. The reduction of copyright does not.
What fines there are for filesharing is also completely irrelevant. Please stick to the topic at hand.