Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

If I get the argument right, you don't want to pay for things that you believe should be free.
So you steal them.
Health care should be free right ?
So, does that make it OK for me to defraud a doctor ?
The doctor just gave me advice, nothing tangible there so it is not a crime ?

Assuming you responded to the last post: No, you don't get the argument at all.

Artistic performance, painting and writing for thousands of years were individual works with no way to copy without intensive labor by hand. With the advent of the printing press and other advancements in industries there was a movement to promote creativity by rewarding it with a limited time where someone would have control over their ideas to make money from that idea so that more ideas and arts would be available to society as a whole after that time. This is why we have the public domain. Patents are held for short periods of time before anyone can copy them (generic drugs, economy versions of soap, cloth, TVs, and anything else you can think of) to encourage this innovation. Copyright started as 17 years plus 17 if renewed but required the person file the copyright to show that they intended to use that limited time to make money from the work.

Now, everything can be copyrighted for life of the author plus decades, and is extended each time it is to expire so nothing can legally fall into the public domain. Additionally, registration is only required for making back the punitive damages past lost income, so while this post is technically copyrighted by me, I would only be able to collect lost income if someone quoted it. Quoting me without permission however is still technically a copyright violation and this post is copyrighted for my lifetime plus decades after my death. If I could somehow make money off this post to live the rest of my life, how does that encourage innovation? If I could pull that off shouldn't my post become available in the public domain within a reasonable amount of time? Shouldn't 50 year old works of music that most people know by heart become part of our culture in a real sense, and not just as an inclusion in a movie that wanted period music for a historical film?

Copyright infringement is not theft, that is why it is a civil issue and not a criminal one outside of forged copies being sold as the original. I don't believe that copyright should have a shorter duration, that is how the entire concept of limited duration to encourage innovation works and removes the part where it becomes public domain for everyone's benefit. You shouldn't steal a CD from a store, that costs them money. You shouldn't download songs from the recent past, even 10 years is plenty for movies and music which make most of their money in the first few years, and it costs less to do an album than to make a medication that gets a shorter patent. At the end of 2010, shouldn't the 90's be in the public domain? Groups that have songs from that time period always have the option to perform and offer a physical distribution of the music with extra features ala limited editions. Nothing prevents someone from making money off their works once they fall into the public domain, and many people will voluntarily pay to listen to the original band even when they have the albums at home right?