Seems it's about time I started getting my head around this issue. What with GPL and Creative Commons and Artistic License it's getting to be a pretty muddled field. (The perl.com Artistic license link is bust as of this writing, you can find a copy here as well as a quick snapshot of what I mean by a muddled field.)
What I recall from research about 8 years ago is that copyright law is intended to increase dissemination of information by allowing creators to earn profits. Note that is not the same as intending the creators (much less non-creating property procurers) to earn profits; the profits are to aid the dissemination, but in modern times the cart has got in front of the horse. I'm looking forward to a deeper read here of Clause 8 of article I of the U.S. Constitution.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clearly RIAA and MPAA haven't read this; they seem to think there's something about the fact that they've made a buck which means the government has to help keep them making bucks. But the intent is to further "the Progress of Science and useful Arts." P2P does this; induce does not.
[/ip]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)