This type of thinking always seems very entitled. Just because you can't obtain a copy of something in a convenient manner it should be distributed for free?
It's ok for things to die. It's ok for things to be hard to get. The world doesn't need all media available at all times to everyone.
It's not okay for things to be impossible to get after it expires from copyright. That was the entire deal that was struck to allow copyright to exist. The entire bargain is that the creator gets an exclusive protection in exchange for the work entering the public domain.
If the work doesn't enter the public domain, then it shouldn't have received a copyright protection.
> The world doesn't need all media available at all times to everyone.
The world also doesn't need any more media created, the amount of good - no, great - media that I'd like to consume that already exists is vastly greater than the amount of time I have in my life to consume it.
Given that state of affairs, why do we even need any laws that encourage the production of new media?
I mean, I'm highly sympathetic to the situation of the starving artist, but I'm not at all sympathetic to the situation of his publisher. If copyright, and the creative industry, and all of its production of new works disappeared tomorrow, it would have no meaningful impact on my life.
Art is a reflection of society and culture. We absolutely NEED more art created. It drives humanity forward.
> If copyright, and the creative industry, and all of its production of new works disappeared tomorrow, it would have no meaningful impact on my life.
In relation to my previous point, no new art being created would have a massive negative affect on all of society. Everyone, including you, would be impacted. It also comes off as shortsighted and unsympathetic to the starving artist to say that their lively-hoods being impacted/eliminated would have no impact on your life.
> I mean, I'm highly sympathetic to the situation of the starving artist, but I'm not at all sympathetic to the situation of his publisher.
A publisher offers an artist many benefits, ranging from distribution reach, legal protections, and other benefits that a single artist would have a hard time managing on their own.
Reforming the copyright system and the relationships between artists and publishers requires a very nuanced look at all of the issues to allow art, artists, and society as a whole to flourish.
Entitlement isn't an inherently bad word. Current copyright law has limits, facilitating the removal of distribution monopolies of works once an expiry date is hit, after which the law entitles me to do whatever I want with those works.
Your second paragraph could only be written by someone blind or ignorant to historical analysis and it's importance.
It's ok for things to die. It's ok for things to be hard to get. The world doesn't need all media available at all times to everyone.