I don't believe the corporate lies. The whole meaning of copyright has been destroyed due to the industry, they even replaced the word "copy" with "pirate". You and most people are believing the corporate brainwashing to keep the current system making others richer. Copying is only duplicate what exists, the original copy exists - you are not removing it. Read this:
http://questioncopyright.org/promise and you will see for over 400 years the "industry" has lied to the people about how copyright was designed. It all started with
And another one "
To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands. The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them. And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful. They have managed to substitute the loaded terms "piracy" and "theft" for the more accurate "copying" as if there were no difference between stealing your bicycle (now you have no bicycle) and copying your song (now we both have it). Most importantly, industry propaganda has made it a commonplace belief that copyright is how most creators earn a living that without copyright, the engines of intellectual production would grind to a halt, and artists would have neither means nor motivation to produce new works."
Excerpt "
Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England. There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery. The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: commissions, teaching jobs, grants or stipends, patronage, etc. The introduction of copyright did not change this situation. What it did was allow a particular business model mass pressings with centralized distribution to make a few lucky works available to a wider audience, at considerable profit to the distributors."
The big companies are afraid of losing distribution rights to creative works they don't own but distribute, and this threatens their jobs. They don't want the system to change because their wallets get lighter. Torrents etc mean music can be distributed for almost no cost, no agents, no controlling entities, goes from from creation to the world at no cost.
