Zachary Amaranth said:
Entitled said:
If it's their "property", then what happens to it is their call to the absolute. It's that simple.
That's not even the case of physical property, so I'm not sure why Jim's wrong for intellectual property where usages are already detailed.
If you own a car, you are not obliged to share bits of it with others, not even if they are unintrusive and not costing you any harm so it is "Fair Use".
And even in cases where property rights are indeed legally limited (for example by taxation), their functioning is entirely the opposite of copyright.
Property is a moral right by default, and it's limitations need special, extra-imortant justifications, such as even bigger public benefits.
Publishers use the same logic to argue why every sound bite, every character design, every paragraph, and every plot that they come up with, needs to be absolutely controlled by them
by default, unless there is a special, extra-imortant justification such as the public's need for basic communication through Fair Use or Public Domain.
They look at a video, and ask "It is mine. What could justify giving it away to the public?" Instead of "This is the public's communication. How can I justify asking for a necessary copyright control over it?"
They entirely ignore that free communication is also a moral good by default, as if it would all be a form of asking for "free stuff" out of other people's property, rather than a
freedom which their control blocks by it's presence.
This is the same reason why copyright has been extended to artist's life + 70 years. They shifted the argument from "Is there a need to control this?" to "Is there a justification NOT TO control this?", and kept rationalizing all expansion with that attitude, as if a writer's grandchildren no longer controlling a literary classic's fate would be a tragic case of them "losing property", rather than them losing a market monopoly (that was granted to incentivize writing).