US copyright laws have been proliferated around the world. Copyright was originally intended to be a limited-time monopoly which allowed consumers the ability to trust creators and creators the ability to share without worry that their idea would be stolen by other businesses. It was never intended to limit the rights of consumers, it's been warped into that by Disney which rewrote the laws to protect Mickey. Copyright as it is goes against the very purpose of creation preventing any new works from ever being created.
>ability to share without worry that their idea would be stolen by other businesses.
Presumably so because consumers stealing the final products was already prohibited / a crime. The final product was generally physical, and consumers would have to physically break into stores to get their copy of whatever was produced and it was already illegal. And even if the consumers obtained their copy by legitimate means, them sharing with other would mean they would lose their own copy. For consumable-ish items (things you only need to experience once to get the value out of the product) this is still a problem of course but there is no easy way of preventing it - but the idea is still there and the limits can be enforced. With digital information, the barrier for entry for such theft is greatly reduced. You don't lose your copy when you share, and stealing is a lot easier too. Doesn't mean it is right or it is in line with the spirit of what we thought ownership meant back in the day.
>Copyright as it is goes against the very purpose of creation preventing any new works from ever being created.
Again, I don't get this. EVERYONE has the OPTION to create works for public domain. Why is this not enough for you? Everything you want is already there. It's just that there is another option for others that don't want to create works for public domain. Why does that bother you?
My guess is that if you were entirely happy with what people create without a motive for profit, you wouldn't care that other people had a copyright option. But you are not happy with what that economic model (free, copyleft etc.) produces by itself. You are aware that that economic model doesn't work. You want free access to information that people with economic incentives create with a price tag attached to it, because you know information generated with profit in mind tends to be more valuable.
Me personally I'm not against the idea of copyright but the length of copyright has completely perverted the purpose. I do generally create for the public domain, but when you can lock up parts of culture you're stealing from the public. Once you share something it's no longer just yours. The idea that copyright has gone from 7 years to the perpetual state that it's gone to literally means that there were years where almost nothing has entered the public domain through copyrights expiring. Something from almost 100 years ago will only enter the public domain this year. That's wrong and a perversion of copyright, and has stolen something from the public for years because of retroactively changing the copyright rules.
