Ayiekie Wrote:Under the schemes of those who would destroy copyright, artists who want to retain control over their own creations have no such recourse; it is stripped from them regardless of their wishes.
Here you are completely wrong, if they choose never to release it they can retain perfect control. By the act of releasing it they open their work up to modification. Regardless, it was their choice. what they wanted to get paid for it and that is why they published it? Tough shit they choose to release it so that was more important to them than control over the work.
As to releasing stuff into the public domain, I might argue that certain taxbreaks, on say paying mortage vs paying rent are stupid and unfair to those who rent but that would't stop me from taking advantage of those breaks.
Just because you believe something is bad public policy it does not mean that you have to not use it, because the converse is not true. If you believe taxes are bad public policy that does not excuse you from paying them. we as a soceity decide on the rules and it is not hypocritical to take advantage of the rules while pointing out they are stupid.
If those artists released all their copyright to the public domain after 5 years, would they get to use other peoples copyright in their works if those works are at least 5 years old? Nope, and that is why one can argue it is bad while still taking advantage of it.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."