I believe copyright was originally a means of censorship to allow the state (monarchs and the church) to control what could be published. It was originally introduced because of the printing press which resulted in much easier distribution of dissenting opinions. It was later reformed into something much more reasonable with the intention of promoting the creation of literature, but is now just a tool to prevent people from having any semblance of ownership. It needs major reform.
Particularly, the abilities for the copyright holder to restrict what can be done with the IP and restrictions strictly non-commercial use. For example, I don’t believe it should be legal for the copyright holder to restrict people from viewing a copyrighted work together by streaming it similar to if they were in the same room in a non-commercial setting.
I believe copyright was originally a means of censorship to allow the state (monarchs and the church) to control what could be published. It was originally introduced because of the printing press which resulted in much easier distribution of dissenting opinions. It was later reformed into something much more reasonable with the intention of promoting the creation of literature, but is now just a tool to prevent people from having any semblance of ownership. It needs major reform.
Particularly, the abilities for the copyright holder to restrict what can be done with the IP and restrictions strictly non-commercial use. For example, I don’t believe it should be legal for the copyright holder to restrict people from viewing a copyrighted work together by streaming it similar to if they were in the same room in a non-commercial setting.