Should creators insist on technology that will restrict the copying and transmission of copyrighted works? Any lock can eventually be picked. Do these restrictions provide speed bumps to help keep honest people honest? Or do they create a permanent war between creators and users that may hurt everyone?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ile/index.html

If everyone was honest, copyright wouldn't be needed. But everyone isn't honest.

We tend to only hear that a film star or pop star has made x amount of millions this year. Or big studios or labels are making obscene amounts of money. It's all true of course, but we tend to forget about the little people. People like the writer of a song or session musicians etc etc. Who maybe only get a percentage of sales.

Without copyright, how much do you think the little people would earn?

There is not enough milk, and too much moo ...

Is it any wonder no-one wants to buy the cow?

Which is why the Writers Guild Association is on strike

As much as with it. The big bozo's are pretty egocentric.

Copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property are three forms of very well executed capitalism.

Session musicians supporting actors and extra's get paid a set sum for their work and usually get no further payments. It's the actor or star(s) that negotiate a percentage that lose out, we have had this debate many times. How many times did you get paid for your working week's last year etc.
A painter sculptor or performing artist gets paid once for their work. If a piece of work (song etc) is used by another artist to make money afresh then it is only right that the writer should be paid again, but should he be paid again and again for work they did 50 years ago. Really at this length of time it should be public domain.
However it is the studios and record producers that force this upon us due to greed and historical reasons.