Yet again I can't believe they waste my license fee on such a shoddy excuse for journalism.
Let me summarise that article.
1. There didn't used to be copyright and people wondered if it would be a good idea
2. Stealing music doesn't feel like theft
3. Magnum are really clever people
4. That bloke who took the picture of the guy with the tank still makes money out of it
5. Any image theft is the "industry"'s fault (huh?)
6. Cutting pics out of a magazine is theft (um, no it's not....)
7. Some bloke reckons there are loads of pictures in the world and only some should be copyright
Once again, your license fee hard at work keeping the incompetent and ill informed in work.
I make my living from selling pictures. In a similar way to the BBC making their living selling TV (oh no, wait a minute, some of their money comes from a government handout...). I bet they ain't "flattered" when some guy in a back room in Peckham makes dodgy copies of Attenborough's latest epic.
Anybody else think this "article" has been planted by somebody wanting to drum up support for the nasty nasty DEBill? For intelligent debate on the subject start with http://stop43.org.uk/