Should copyright be banned even if you put the authors and other creators and actors?

  • I don't know

    I don't really know so that's why I am asking you guys. So hope you can see that as soon as possible to help me out. Write as much as comment as you want because I need No's and Yes's to try to get the positive side and the negative side

  • This is stupid copyright exists for a reason. Why should it be banned when it is a very important law protecting peoples intellectual property?

    The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, is the current UK copyright law. It gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works the right to control the ways in which their material may be used. The rights cover: Broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public. In many cases, the creator will also have the right to be identified as the author and to object to distortions of his work.

    Copyright arises when an individual or organisation creates a work, and applies to a work if it is regarded as original, and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement.

    Interpretation is related to the independent creation rather than the idea behind the creation. For example, your idea for a book would not itself be protected, but the actual content of a book you write would be. In other words, someone else is still entitled to write their own book around the same idea, provided they do not directly copy or adapt yours to do so.

    Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be.

    Normally the individual or collective who authored the work will exclusively own the rights. However, if a work is produced as part of employment then normally the work belongs to the person/company who hired the individual. For freelance or commissioned work, rights will usually belong to the author of the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, (i.E. In a contract for service).

    Only the owner, or his exclusive licensee can bring proceedings in the courts against an infringement.

    A full copy, with amendments of the act can be found at

    If it could just be banned, I could sneak a leak to the web page at the end and it would practically look like I wrote the thing. Copyright is incredibly important otherwise you can make money off of other peoples work by just "crediting" them. Giving them credit would not give them as much money as buying the rights and they would make less money off of the thing they wrote or made. It is completely stupid to ban copyright. How would movies make money? I can pirate a copy and then credit the actors. They wouldnt get paid. This is a very stupid debate.

    Posted by: sssb

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.