The Copyright laws, and the obscene rights and wrongs of it

I  just want to ask those that caved  in to those people  who  earn so much money from owning so much copyright  material  from the publishing  and Music Industry, to name the most obvious ones,   that again they have ruined this new format that has become ”
” the internet   and now is and has become an extension of the world we hoped we had left behind and that they should have put up a better fight, because the Internet is a new format, and because it is a new format, all the publishing rights that were written before, do not apply to this new format.

I know it is a spurious argument, but I still think it is valid, for most people write in one way or another, but this reasonably new Digital age, comes with many new important differences for instance the paying of these copyright monies of yesterday is completely different in the way it’s paid out now, (I write this with no real experience of how the copyright laws work) but from a lay persons point of view I now there must be differences, for example the taking of a picture now is almost instantaneous, and it’s out there , and I would have thought that it is up to the host’s of sites, to make the decision of who and what to pay , for if someone is writing for his or her own blog and is not earning from it ,then I would say it is up to (whoever is benefitting ) and who is publishing, for if  say I put a picture up and I put it up only as a (what the picture was meant for in it’s taken in the first place) then I’m sorry it’s who is benefitting from said picture that should feel obliged to pay,  For  say (the picture I wanted to put up) a news picture where the photographer took it to inform the general public, and I as a continuation of his action am only allowing that action to continue further and am earning nothing from it

As I see it, it’s people sitting in plush offices with so much money in their portfolio’s (excuse my ignorance of the Jargon used) and these portfolios contain the rights of such n such Authors, Band’s, Jingles, and many other rights that escape me at the moment.

It came into my radar because I wanted to publish a picture on my Blog of this man pointing a gun and in the next picture was the bleeding Palestinian who he had just shot, and I thought I could put the picture up to emphasise a point that I wanted to make in a post, and I was gently reminded of the publishing rights by my Blog host (who are themselves just another publishing company), and I got angry as I can not afford paying some fat ass…e in some office about who I know nothing and which only has the rights of that picture to censor it, (I’m not saying it was the case) I’m just making a point around big business and big publishing houses  controlling the media or as in this case say my rights to make sure everybody that reads my Blog knows about such things as  the murder of innocent people who are  having their land stolen and are protesting peacefully , but because the cost’s to me of publishing this picture  may be outside my Budget, or maybe the Chappie with the Gun in his hand get’s his friends to make this picture go away by buying up the right’s from who owns the rights to the picture,  you get the drift… well there is the argument from say the photographer who took the picture who says look I make a living from photography, saying’ I took that picture and want paid, that’s the arguments made by the lawyers of these big conglomerates or media companies to keep control of what goes out, or just keep the competition at bay, I’ve put it into pretty simple language and given pretty basic examples of what I mean.

But what makes the publishing and media industry different from say someone who has designed a garden, and people admire the garden as they walk by, do I have the right to charge them ? does the Bricklayer who has built a good wall, a wall that keeps people safe and is of more importance to society , than some Chappie who put a few lines down on paper, but he gets paid for the rest of his life, and the gardener doesn’t , a pretty basic point I grant you , but it makes my point up to a point.

Why I’m going into this,  apart from the point of putting up that picture,   was to show just how much “we the people that use the internet” Have lost another freedom, and they will use the usual point of , Oh we are only doing this to protect the poor Chappie in the bedsit so that he can strum his guitar safe in the knowing—— Yeah alright, but this Chappie in the bedsit, will have to sell off his or her  rights to some Trust fund or hedge fund manager ,  just so that they can pay this month’s rent , but  “they” will lock that right away  as it will make them richer as they place pressure on other  media outlets to use those  lines or music in some Jingle, that will make them even richer, so you see it is highly incestuous the copyright business,  some of these jingles make millions, and they have bastardised the original to make more money and it’s the same for everything in the publishing and the picture and media industries, and if you listen to their lawyers Hmm’ , you’d swear they were all doing for societies benefit or their poor  client’s so that they can eat again Hmm.

The obscene part of copyright laws is’ that say,  that famous  picture of the little girl running away crying naked, as her little body showed her skin falling from her little body, well I myself have in my pictures album of another little boy lying on a hospital bed and his little suffering body had the very same burns and his little body had skin falling from it, and this picture was taken so recent of the Afghanistan invasion and NATO’s bombing a village where again little children hunkered under their beds and their bodies showed the signs almost identical to that what  little Vietnamese girl had

But I know me Writing this here will never be read, and the points I’ve raised will dissipate into the ether, because those that sit in plush offices in Mayfair or in the city only to laugh all the way to the Bank  and just go on thinking up ways to make more money, that does absolutely nothing for the betterment of society  as a whole,   I am only trying to point out, that 99% of what is raised in most cases only helps keeps the apex of society in funds to go on funding their lifestyles , and that little person in the bedsit their lawyers may be harping on about, does not exist anymore.

But I’m angry at how say some music little ditty,  certain notes played in a certain fashion can be owned, for anyone with any knowledge of music knows full well that popular music is generally  only a certain few notes played with different beats that is proven to be so lucrative, ask any session musician, because the music industry knows this,  and that’s why they seek to control as many rights and notes as possible.

This copyright nonsense does more harm in the long run , I say that now in the age of the digital , we throw out all these'” Hedge fund” owned copyright  laws, and all the other unfair copyright abuses, that are used by the very rich, to make them all even richer, without even getting out of bed.

Sorry a little rant of mine that will flutter away into the ether, but seriously I do feel strongly about this because the internet, as we knew it is nearly gone, it’s becoming what is wrong with the world, slowly I watch all the controls coming in and internet providers falling like flies as they cave in to those with the rules and agendas , Oh it’s all done with such good intentions, but in the end the internet and the freedoms it brought, will only be a thing of the past, for Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Google and maybe a couple of more Like Yahoo and Mozilla will have joined the Establishment and be more concerned with rules and regulations, and I for one will mourn it’s demise