I haven't read all comments yet, but some commenters seem to make the presumption that copyright is about artists. It is not. It is about the rightsholder which may in- or exclude artists. I'm writing this on my commute so I don't have the research to back it up at the moment, but I remember research has been done on the rightsholders and if I remember correctly only a small percentage were creators and thus actively contributed to culture. The larger percentage of the rightsholders were merely parasiting on ip rights created by creators already dead or who (had to) sold their ip-rights off for a meager sum.
Copyright is therefor also less about incentive since it mostly benefits those holding on the 'old' creations and milking it instead of creating new works. I recommend reading the essays of Dutch professor Joost Smiers. He makes some interesting (and some wacky) points and is an interesting read.
From their manifesto:<p>"All non-commercial acquiring, using, bettering and spread of culture should be actively encouraged. The Internet is filling the same function today as popular education did a hundred years ago. It is something positive and good for the development of society.<p>The copyright legislation must be changes so that it is made perfectly clear that it only regulate use and copying of works done for commercial purposes. To share copies, or in any other way spread or use someone else’s work, should never be forbidden as long as it is done on an idealistic basis without the purposes of commercial gain."<p>So, what's the motivation for me the author of a book or software to actually write a book or software. Believe me that monetary gain is part of the motivation.<p>If you take this route and say that all works must be freely shared then you have to ask where 'artists' get their money from. If you do not give them a supply of some money then you end up going back to the middle ages and requiring that artists have benefactors who keep them alive.<p>Sharing a copy of my 'work' may well be non-commercial for the sharer, but it's not non-commercial for me. In fact, I may well have lost money (of course, there are some people who would never have spent the money in the first place).<p>And the idealistic part about cultural works being good for people seems valid to me, that's why we have art galleries, museums, education and libraries (of books, CDs and DVDs) funded with public money.
I'm really happy they are bringing online people worries (privacy, narrower copyright, less patents) to the european political level. I think this is an important turning point, just like when the ecological ideas popped up.<p>Looks like they are organizing themselves to conquer the world : <a href="http://www.pp-international.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pp-international.net/</a>
Before y'all go celebrate the mainstreaming of copyright reform, keep in mind that the white-only British National Party won <i>two</i> seats in the same election (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8088607.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8088607.stm</a>).<p>So neo-Nazis are twice as well represented in the European Parliament as copyright reformers.<p>Sigh.
Innovation is defined as taking an existing idea and improving it.<p>Copyright inhibits innovation by putting up legal barriers to innovation.<p>This is the main reason why copyright is bad for innovation.<p>Making original ideas is a good thing, but improving existing ideas is much more common, and useful. Copyright fails to help this, and indeed places significant blocks to this.
The Open Rights Group (like an UK EFF) sent a survey to all British MEP candidates to find out their opinions on copyright extension, data protection, etc:<p><a href="http://euelection.openrightsgroup.org/" rel="nofollow">http://euelection.openrightsgroup.org/</a><p>They found the Green party did very well.
It's a trivial, and a solved problem. You might as well vote for the anti-prohibitionist party. Really pathetic. The kids today have way too much time on their hands.