Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Those that own the movie have made the choice to not make it available in the location you currently live for one reason or another, and as it's their property, they're entitled to make that choice without your consent being necessary to do so.
|
And that's the point I'm in doubt about.
Do copyrights give one the (moral, not legal) right to completely control all forms of distribution?
Movies, music and books are all basically information. To what extent can the flow of information be regulated or restricted based on the rather abstract concept of intellectual ownership? Moreover, is such regulation justifiable?
Remember the original argument for the implementation of copyrights: to promote the production of intellectual works. Basically, some rights were taken away from the populace in order to serve the greater good.
Since then, however, copyrights have been expanded immensely in both width and duration, and seemingly, they are being used not merely to protect the production of intellectual works, but more and more to enforce marketing strategies (such as globally staggered releases of movies).
To me, it seems as if current copyrights might be overreaching, up to the point where they directly conflict with what should be basic civil rights (like the right to resell goods wherever you want, the right to lend things owned by you to others, etc).
I have a suspicion that that is one of the reasons for the popularity of torrents - to escape the legal stranglehold media companies have over intellectual property.