So basically, the article says "art people make you pay for is good, art people want to give you is bad". Which is crap. There is good art, and bad art, and it has nothing to do with what's profitable or popular. If "art" is what is popular, "MacDonalds" is the height of the culinary art world. If "art" is what sells, "pet rocks" are more art than Rodin. So much for that premise.

This seems to be some sort of vague attack on one persons contribution, while taking a swing at protecting copyright. By someone who probably never heard of the Statute of Anne or the London Company of Stationers, and is more than willing defend our slow return to the time before copyRIGHT, when terms or ownership were unlimited and there was no right to copy. Ever. We're getting there with copyright up to 100 years now (up from the original 19) and rampant DRM and legislation around it that effectively makes copyright unlimited for those DRMd works by making the DRM illegal to tamper with EVEN IF THE WORK IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Not to mention that the social contract - the one that says society will protect the work in exchange for it then being added to the public domain - has been broken as no works have done that since 1923. Not to mention the concerted attack on the concept of "fair use" that was created by the original copyRIGHT legislation in 1710.

Copyright was meant as an incentive to create. Today no longer provides incentive to create, it simply provides incentive to create ONCE.

Given that the thieves - the ones who are stealing our public domain by slapping DRM on it, but not adding to that body - are the ones who are now dictating the latest versions of what is laughingly called "copyright" legislation, I for one no longer have any qualms about testing and tasting before giving my money to said thieves. Seems it is true then, that if you steal from a thief he'll cry the loudest.