Serious Discussion
 

Skitz and I were having a serious discussion about internet law.

I personally believe enforcing copyright law on the internet is unviable and just deprives people of the right to free information. I personally would love to have access to a library of books or pictures or music. I don't think the internet should be turned into a corporate playground.

There are a million ways to inovate and make money on a free, self regulating internet. Napster was the first in a long series of battles. And the world, i mean the united states, seems to be on the side of copyright holders.

The internet was created so that guys could send each other scans stolen out of porno mags. Without pornographic webmasters the Internet wouldn't be where it is today. The whole concept of e-commerce came from internet porn. I want the all the worlds books scanned and posted on the net. I want all the worlds music available on the net. And I want all the worlds porn at my fingertips. What happened to all that "global village" shit?

you sound like a pretty cheap bastard.

OK, I didn't know we were having a serious discussion... You just came off and lambasted anyone who thought that there should be some protection for artistic works, and I was replying to that. I can handle the skittles post... http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/board/wink.gif It was the namecalling regarding copyright that got on my nerves. No hard feelings, Dude....

/* sKiTz turns off piss mode */


OK so here's my SERIOUS reply.

My first foray into content was about four years ago. Bruce Zell answered an ad that I posted looking for photographers who needed help developing CD masters.

I flew down to Ft. Lauderdale (I lived in Queens at the time) and spend a marathon five days with Bruce digitizing and color correcting images, putting them on a CD, and developing a website to sell them from.

Should I have not gotten paid for that?


Should Bruce not be paid for HIS work producing the CDs? (every shoot took him a bare minimum of six hours or more)

If everything were free like you desire, why would anyone produce intellectual works?


Writers would not write any more, because all their stuff would be given away free, and the MONTHS of work that goes into novel production would not be worth it.


No TV shows, because producers wouldn't be able to make a living doing it.


No professional photography, because photographers would have no motivation to take pictures.

You get the drift.....


In Cuba, a doctor only makes slightly more than a janitor. You think that people are lining up to attend medical school in Cuba? What benefit is there to going to school for eight years, if you get paid basically the same as someone who doesn't go to school at all?


I think you're aspiration is noble, but not possible in a capitalistic society.

Your not looking at the big picture. Nobody is ever going to post all your content for free. It would take to much time and effort as well as cost alot of bandwidth. If you had only your dotcom address on your pics and they were a real hot commodity that was being shared online. I would probably order that cd from you. The time I spend trying to find and download would exceed the value of just ordering the cd especially if i was on 56k.

Alot of artists are in fear of the new technology when they should be embracing it. The people that are posting your pics are doing you a favor by advertising your work. If you took the time to advertise your dot.com address on your pics.

lambasted? Your crazy skitz i remember your "kiddie porn keywords" post. You're always stirring the shit.

Sweet Jimmy is still the pimp daddy.

"I want all the worlds music available on the net. And I want all the worlds porn at my fingertips."

I agree. But I also don't think it's such a bad thing to agree to pay a small fee to access the "global village". I personally wouldn't mind paying a small monthly fee to access an online library of every published book in the world. The same goes for music, etc.

I realize that seems hard to choke down after we've been given a taste of that same thing for free. But people have to make money to survive. That's the way our civilization works. Who's going to write a book if they can't make money off of it?

ROFL, well, yeah, I've been guilty of stirring shit on occasion. Guess your posts regarding protecting content got under my skin more than it should have........ I can handle the "skittles" thing much better.


And actually, I do exactly what you're saying....

free-transsexual-shemales-chicks-with-dicks-pics.com
free-transexual-ladyboys-she-males-video-mpegs-pics.com
shemalepicsandvideo.com
freesexpicsofyoungteengirlsrapinghairylesbians.com
freegaysexvideoofnudeasianmenrapingyounghairylesbi ans.com
free-nude-bondage-pics.com
free-sex-gay-stories-teen.com


Every one of those sites, I've put a different volume of our content, with urls on the bottom of the pics, HOPING, EXPECTING that they will get "stolen" and linked on password sites, newsgroups, etc... yes, it's GREAT advertising, that I think people don't realize......

BUT, that's a choice I made.... if I wanted to have those images protected from theft, I'd want that option too...


OK, I think I left all smileys out too... as a peace gesture....

Here's interesting read on net copyright,


The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright

by Attorney David L. Amkraut
WARNING: The following is a summary of important information regarding the use and misuse of photos on the Internet. It is not specific legal advice. Copyright is a specialized field of law, and there are sometimes exceptions to the rules. If you have a specific copyright concern, you should consult a lawyer with expertise in copyright issues concerning the use and misuse of photos on the Internet.

AN EXCELLENT RULE OF THUMB: If you do not have specific permission (preferably written!) from the owner of a photo, you cannot legally display it on a website, post it to the Usenet, copy it, send it around by Email or other means, make photos derived from it, sell it, or otherwise exploit it.

MYTH # 1.
"I do not need to register my photos with the copyright office, because I 'automatically' have copyright at the instant I snap the shutter."

This is a serious misunderstanding of the law. Yes, you do own copyright without registration. BUT if you want to protect your photos from theft, you should register them with the Copyright Office, before you publish or distribute them. If you register your photos, you gain powerful remedies against infringers. These can include:

* Civil penalties ("damages"). The pirate is on the hook for up to $150,000 for each misused photo;

* Attorney's fees: the infringer has to pay your attorney's hourly fees and all costs such as copies, postage, filing fees, etc.

* Restraining orders, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions against the infringer, and even seizure of the pirate's computer equipment in some cases.

An important practical point is that if the photos are registered, you might find an attorney to take the case on "contingency," which means he takes the risk of gambling on a win, rather than you paying him by the hour. Faced with a lawsuit over registered images-and an injunction which would likely mean being put out of business forever-many pirates will quickly settle up and pay.

By contrast, if you did not register your photos, it is almost impossible, as a practical matter, to nail an infringer. To get any damages at all, you have to prove how much the pirate made off your particular photos, or exactly how much money the theft cost you. Either is almost impossible to prove. And you do not recover attorney's fees, so the cost of the lawsuit would far outweigh your possible recovery.

So-if you have registered your work, you are in good shape to "convince" an infringer to stop, or to successfully sue him. If you have not registered, you probably cannot do anything about pirates.

MYTH # 2.
"I got the photo off the Usenet (newsgroups) so it is in the 'Public Domain'."

The above shows a misunderstanding of the term "Public Domain." The term has the specific legal meaning that no one controls the photo; anyone can use it as he wishes. There are two ways for a photo to fall into in the public domain.

* the owner clearly gives up his rights, such as by signing a document saying, "I now give up my copyright and irrevocably place this work in the public domain." OR

* 75 Years have passed since the owner died.

When an owner posts a photo to Usenet, he does not lose his rights, any more than publishing the photo in a magazine or on his own website would. When an owner posts to Usenet, the only license he gives is for replication and transmission within the Usenet system. There have been many copyright cases involving websites which got their content from the Usenet-and courts have awarded fines in the millions of dollars against the pirates.

In addition, photos are often posted to Usenet against the owner's wishes. Eg., the many infringing copies of work owned by Playboy, Penthouse, and top photographers. Such posts are themselves violations of copyright. Obviously if the original post to Usenet was illegal-as many are-subsequent copying and misuse is equally illegal.

In short, taking photos from Usenet and using them elsewhere such as on a website is copyright infringement, and you risk the severe penalties of piracy.

MYTH # 3.
"My [website use, posting, whatever] is 'Fair Use' so I haven't violated copyright"

"Fair use" is a legal "defense" to copyright. It was created to allow use of copyright material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright holder. A typical instance would be a brief quotation from a book as part of a book review. Uses allowed by "Fair Use" are normally a small part of a work and include an author credit and attribution. Fair uses are generally for non-profit purposes.

Fair use is rarely allowed where the use competes directly with the work or harms its commercial value.

Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any situation involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could claim the fair use defense. In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to Usenet, stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy magazine, or simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine does not apply. Because the pirate is taking 100% of the work, not acknowledging the creator, hurting the work's market value, competing directly with the creator or licensed users of the work, and for other reasons.

So if you are a photo pirate, do not even think about the fair use doctrine. In your context it is a myth. Your lawyer will laugh at you, and the judge might not have a sense of humor where thievery is concerned.

MYTH # 4.
"If it does not have a copyright notice on it, it is not copyrighted-so I can use it freely."

This myth results from past law, and misunderstandings of past law being passed along. In virtually all cases, photo copyright is valid whether or not there is a copyright notice.

A copyright notice has two main functions. First, it warns off at least a few would-be pirates that the work is not to be stolen. Second, it has some useful legal effects, because it prevents the infringer from claiming he was making an "innocent" mistake.

The copyright notice may be omitted because the owner or legitimate user does not want to deface the photo, or even because an intermediary infringer has deliberately removed the notice. (Removing a copyright notice is itself a serious legal violation.) And of course, if someone has illegally scanned and posted Playboy pictures or the like, there will not be a notice. However, the absence of a copyright notice does not change the fact that a work is copyrighted.

We are reminded of an anecdote about a thief who stole a bicycle from a public place. When caught by the owner, the thief protested, "I didn't know that it was your bike." Replied the owner, "You sure as blazes knew that it wasn't yours!"

A proper notice has the ? mark, or word "Copyright" or abbreviation "Copr."; the year, and the name of the owner. For example, if this author took and published a photo in 2000, it might be marked "? 2000 David L. Amkraut" or "Copyright 2000 David L. Amkraut" or "Copr. 2000 David L. Amkraut." You can add "All Rights Reserved" if you want-it has no real significance in the U.S. and most countries but has a bit in several 3rd world countries.

The commonly-seen parenthesis "(c)" instead of the proper copyright mark "?" has no legal significance and may invalidate the notice. So, if you do not see a copyright notice, do not assume the photo is yours to use; someone owns copyright and you have to get his permission before using it.

MYTH # 5.
"If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some reason other than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion that an individual's creative work "should be free for all to share." These are the typical motives of some people who post thousands of Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may fine you more or treat you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can still get punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of the infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly" or "willfully." Or if the judge thinks it appropriate to "send a warning" to discourage other would-be infringers.

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love, competitive advantage, malice, or any other reason.

MYTH # 6.
"I'll win. I have a lot of rights in court. And they can not do much to me anyhow."

Very wrong. A pirate is far more likely to be sued in civil court than to be arrested and criminally charged. As a civil defendant you have far fewer rights than in a criminal case. The Plaintiff only has to convince the judge that he is more right than you. He does not have the heavy burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in a criminal case.

A copyright Plaintiff does not have to prove much to win. He just needs to show two things: (1) Ownership of the copied work; and (2) Copying or other misuse by the Defendant. He proves the first by showing his Certificate of Registration from the copyright office. He proves the second by showing his photos and your infringing copy side-by-side. End of story.

And a copyright suit, in federal court, moves surprisingly quickly. You could be slapped with a restraining order immediately after the suit is filed, meaning an end to your infringements under threat of arrest for contempt of court. For technical reasons having to do with the copyright law and federal rules of procedure, final judgments may be reached within a few months.

Perhaps you think you can charm or fool a jury? If the facts and issues are clear-and they generally are in such cases-the judge will decide the case. You will never see a jury.

Think you can fight it? Talk to a copyright specialist attorney and think of paying by the hour for what will probably be a hopeless defense. And do not forget, Mr. Pirate, that when you lose you will also be stuck for the Plaintiff's legal fees.

Can they "do much" to you? Copyright penalties have been called "nuclear." Penalties of up to $150,000 per photo are permitted. And an injunction which, depending on your business method, may put you out of business forever, is likely.

Do not assume you can successfully defend a legitimate copyright case, especially when registered photos are concerned. As a rule of thumb, if you get caught, better try to settle cheap and quickly.

MYTH # 7.
"Copyright violation is not a crime-it is just a quarrel between two businessmen."

Wrong. Copyright violation is a crime as well as a civil wrong. Read the splash screen disclaimer at the start of any video you rent if you think otherwise. Or talk with an FBI agent. Most of the copyright cases we see are federal felonies, as well as civil law violations.

In addition to the severe civil and criminal penalties of copyright violations, the same acts leave the pirate open to additional civil and criminal charges, for wrongdoing like "unfair competition," and violation of the "No Electronic Theft" law and other statutes.

We are not saying that a pirate can expect to be arrested by FBI agents for his theft of photos. But it is a possibility, especially if the FBI responds to demands for action against Internet pirates and begins pursuing such cases more actively. And especially if the pirate is infringing on a large scale or infringing work owned by a large corporation.

------
SUMMARY

Unless you have specific permission, you can not distribute, copy, publicly display, sell, or otherwise exploit or commercially use someone else's photos.

Photos posted on newsgroups are not yours to use. They are not in the "public domain." In fact, with extremely rare exceptions, no recently-created photo is in the public domain.

The "Fair Use" doctrine almost never excuses infringement of a photograph, particularly where the infringing use is commercial or where it hurts the market for the photo.

Copyright is normally valid with or without a copyright notice.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement regardless of the infringer's motive.

People who infringe photographs are likely to be crushed in Court, and even have their businesses closed down.

Copyright violation may be treated as a serious crime, as well as a civil wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David L. Amkraut is a Los Angeles-based Attorney at law. His practice emphasizes cutting-edge Internet-related copyright matters, especially cases involving photographs. He was attorney for the Plaintiffs in Louder v. CompuServe, a class-action case involving publication of 930 photographs of models by the 2nd-largest Internet Service Provider in the world. Recently he served as counsel in KNB v. Matthews, an important case about the relationship between copyright and the "Right of Publicity." He has repeatedly obtained judgments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and represents some of the best-known glamour photographers against web sites which infringe their work.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: [email protected]
Fax: (818) 637-7809

Mail: Law Offices of David L. Amkraut
2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228
Los Angeles, CA 90041

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

? 2000 David L. Amkraut - All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce this document provided the document is reproduced in its entirety, including the information about the author and his contact information, and this copyright notice. Quotations for review, reportage, etc. are permitted as long as there is proper attribution and full contact information as follows:

"From The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright, by Los Angeles Attorney David L. Amkraut

Email: [email protected]
Fax: (818) 637-7809

Law Offices of David L. Amkraut
2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228
Los Angeles, CA 90041"

Here's a smiley for you sweet jimmy: http://www.plauder-smilies.de/rough/schuss.gif

sweetjimmy,

ok lets look at the big picture as you call it.
You mentioned nobody is going to post your whole content. as it would eat up their bandwidth, correct??

ok this sounds plausable. but now lets say lensmans opens up his paid section for all of us to promote his stuff. he spends the time to stamp it all with his url and such.

ok now I am going to search for some pics that I like to use. and the next webmaster is going to use the ones he likes, then another is going to use the ones he is going to use. lets say this goes on for 1,000 webmasters. I will about bet my last dollar that none of us are going to pick exactly the same photos. sure we will get some dups. but the point is now there is on the net all over the world using his content. why in the world would anybody pay him to see it on his server or to have hinm send a cd when the can surf all over the net to see it?

Whats your anser to that. That they won't want to spend the time looking for it????

people will spend money to save a buck or 2. if they think they can get it for free they will search hell and high water for it.

------------------
Thumper The Amatuer next door!

First of all, all that copyright law is well and good and enforcable if you're in the U.S. But we're on the WORLD WIDE WEB remember? Do you think your lawyer is going to go to Serbia or Russia and file a lawsuit? Good Luck.

Anyway by the time global internet law IS created and we're all living under the capitalist oppression of giant media conglomerates like AOL, we'll probably have colonized other planets. And then we'd have to start all over again because some fucker on Planet Starbucks has got his server setup and no one can shut him down.

Why would anyone buy a cd of Pics if they're free on the net? First of all you would have a complete set. You wouldn't have to wait days to download the contents of a 700 mb CD.
Do you know how long 700 megs is on a dsl line? Never mind 56k. The only people who actually subscribe to pay picture sites are on 56k and are tired of having their browsers fucked over by popups. Anyone with cable or dsl is looking to subscribe to an mpeg site with high download speeds.

Lensman could give away all his amateur pics and no one would post them all. If one of lensmans girls was really hot she might become the next internet "it" girl. Then there might be alot of duplicate sites. But people don't join amateur pages for the pics. they join because they think theres a chance they'll actually score with one of the amateurs.

People don't join pic sites anymore unless they have huge libraries of content. And there is no way these huge libraries do not infringe on any copyrights. It's not possible for a site featuring 10,000 mpegs and 200,000 pics to not infringe on copyrights. But who is going to pay for a membership and check it out?

That was a whole lot of reading. The one thing everyone needs to remember is to cover their own ass. If you don't have something saying you are free to use this. Then don't! Pretty simple. We need more simplicity in this world.
www.zap-man.com

sweetjimmy,

we may be on the WORLD WIDE WEB, but if you have stolen content and you host in the USA, then guess what...yep, your still shit outa luck when APIC gets your host to turn off your site.
I dont know what would happen if your sites were hosted outside the USA, but I'm sure organizations like APIC have connections with other similar organizations all over the world and could call on them to get either your hosting cut or you slapped with a lawsuit.

I wouldn't go so far to demand everythin for free... but napster was ok, and some cool ppl like Prince, David Bowie, RHCP were givin their new albums for free at their sites,
i think the best solution would be a mp3 player with commercial ads which would provide money for the artists

regarding free porn I wouldn't agree, ppl who make porn deserv each dime they can get, and don't worry there will be some porn for free as allways has been

------------------
Proffesional wrestling is real, everything else is a setup

The internet was created so that guys could send each other scans stolen out of porno mags

wth?? You belong with Dubya and his staff. The internet has been around for decades in one form or another. It surely wasn't released to the general population for porn. lol And there is another 'secret' internet as we type. It was a military / scientific idea and they have another all their own now too.

And yes their will always be CI thieves, but we sure can make life h*ll for them as fast as catch em. A crime is a crime. Simple understandable common sense. Kill someone and go to jail. Trash their car, steal their tv or whatever. Its all the same. Maybe different penalties, but still wrong. Freedom only means you can go as far as you can withOUT bothering others rights.

I've read that article too, and really had to laugh at how threatening it sounds. Here are a few myths that it didn't address:

1) If you infringe a copyright, you're basically screwed and are going to be prosecuted.

- Yes, if you infringe a copyright, you are in the wrong. Unless you can pull off a fair use or de minimus (too minor to be significant) defense, you would, in theory, be convicted in a court of law.

- Are you going to be prosecuted? Probably not. The reality of the legal system is that hiring an attorney, especially to pursue a real trial, is entirely too expensive to be worthwhile. Unless you're making some serious cash off of infringement, thereby enabling you to pay for judgments entered against you, a copyright owner is simply not going to bother. It's just too damned expensive. Most people who infringe copyrights on the adult web are small-time operations or newbies that run sites for beer money - how can a copyright owner financially justify hiring a lawyer at $300 an hour to pursue a claim against such a person?

2) The US is at the forefront of copyright law, and everyone looking for a free ride should move to some European country.

- Err, not really. While the US is certainly one of the more stringent enforcers of copyrights, much of our law comes from following the lead of Europe. For example, the fairly recent addition of default renewal periods was taken from French and German laws (basically, you don't have to renew copyrights anymore, they last for the full 70-someodd year time period by default). Anyone else remember the hoopla over TNT colorizing "It's a Wonderful Life?" The family of the writer lost their case against the network in the US, but won in Europe, where they extend copyright protection to the entire creative work essentially forever. Certainly, America is better than places like developing Asia and the Middle East as far as copyright enforcement is concerned, but we are by no means at the forefront.

3) Lin Milano won judgments against webmasters for violating an arcane portion of the California Civil Code, which protects a celebrity's "right of publicity".

- This one hits close to home, as I run celebrity sites. In actuality, Milano settled out of court in every case. Why? Because she was going after pioneer webmasters who were making serious bank in the early days of the web, but yet didn't have the money to fight in court. These days, she uses scare tactics like quoting "substantial judgments" (funny, I thought judges had to enter judgments). If you've ever read a Cybertrackers notice you'll know what I'm talking about. What's funny is if you click the link she includes in her email, it's an article written by HER LAWYER claming that most webmasters are unsophisticaed and will respond to the same scare tactics she uses.

I'm attempting to boil this down as much as possible, but as in everything, there is no black and white. As a 2nd year law student myself, I've become familiar with the sort of tactics that attorneys use to coerce others and drum up business for themselves. It's sometimes sad that some folks can use their ability to write legalese to scare the shit out of people, but such is what you will probably encounter at some point in your career or personal life.

------------------
50/50 Celebrity Partnership Program

I don't like the gestapo tactics apic uses with their threatening letters. I didn't actually get one from them but I did have my free server shutdown for having unlicensed suze randall pics.

I don't see a problem with people scanning pictures from magazines and posting them online. I think its the next logical step for the internet. It's just a shame that a few people are too small minded to see that the benefits of sharing information outweigh the costs.

The whole napster thing just shows that if you give a little free stuff they come back and buy more. If your a musician or artist and if your good, you'll get paid in the end. And if you have an easy cost effective way to promote yourself to millions of people you'll have a better chance.

It's always the shitty artists or the ultra rich artists who blame napster for their declining record sales.

As for sharing porn. I haven't see one good online porno magazine. It seems no one wants to innovate. An online porno mag could have new content and would cost nothing to produce since there is no paper. A really good mag could get millions of readers and would make millions of dollars if they picked good advertisers. If any of the major porno mags on the shelf right now had brains enough to have a decent free emag they could make millions.

I just think there's too many old farts out there who are too obstinate to embrace technology. The internet has been turned into an e-circus instead of having any educational value whatsoever. Its nice to see that even the internet isn't exempt from human corruption.

The killer app will be made and there will be no central server and there will be no one to sue. Your pictures will be traded. You're movies. And your music. You can hide underneath the covers and ask grandma if everything is gonna be ok, but it won't be.

You guys can call it whatever you want. You can call it stealing. You can call it borrowing. But Napster style file sharing will only get better and faster.

Well, I'm neither ultra-rich or shitty and I don't like Napster, so don't go gettin' all high and mighty.

Let's say all my music is available for free. Where do I make money? Not on record sales (or very little), not on performance or writers royalties from ASCAP because nobody will have an ascap license. That leaves live performance (which does not contain any RESIDUAL income) and theatrical placements. If every artists were looking for those, 95% of us would be ass out. So that means I get to live on the road for the rest of my life in order to make a living?

Unless you'd like to supply me with about $120,000 a year to support myself, I'd rather not hear any more of you "I want everything for free" bullshit. Tell you what..I want you to come and paint my house and I'm not going to pay you. How's that? Remember, labor=money. If I'm going to spend the hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars it takes to record a record, I damn well want a return on my investment and compensation for my labor.

And yes, Prince did do some giveaway stuff and has worked every angle he can come up with on the net. Guess what...his newest site http://www.npgonlineltd.com/ is a paysite. Yep, like a fanclub with lots of good new stuff that you get to pay for. Not expensive but enough to pay the bills.

Worldwide whatever, I hold a worldwide trademark on my band's name and I get performance royalties worldwide through ASCAP's contracts with other world performing rights organizations. So don't give me that shit. You're not paying for my art, you're paying for the labor that it took to put my art in a tangible form for you to enjoy. Otherwise, I might as well just enjoy my music in my own head.

I've wasted more than enough time on this. i have to go put up some pictures you'll probably steal anyway, since you don't want to pay to hear my music. Nice.

sweetjimmy was the best gfy character ever!

I'm not sure how you could have a very serious discussion, with so many facts wrong.

"The internet was created so that guys could send each other scans stolen out of porno mags." Wrong. Depending on how you define the "Internet", its creation was still related to the exchange of research data in some shape or form.

"The whole concept of e-commerce came from internet porn". Wrong again. I was buying and selling via my PC before I ever came across anything except free porn.

And there is no "right to free information". Why would anyone bother producing something if they could only make money from it by flying banners around their work? Okay, some would, hobbyists and the like. But don't scientists, musicians, etc., have a right to make a living directly from their efforts?

The Internet is a corporate playground. You may as well get used to it. There are many downsides, but if - for example - a record company didn't pick up the tab for making records and buying new equipment, now famous bands would have remained in obscurity, playing in local clubs and bars. So whose records would you be listening to on the 'Net? Whose books would you be reading? Come to that, who would fund the 'Net itself, or would you have the backbone providers and the ISPs all promoting Amazon or whatever?