> Because amongst other things, an artist might want to control what their works are associated with and how they are displayed (known as moral rights in some c

> Because amongst other things, an artist might want to control what their works are associated with and how they are displayed (known as moral rights in some copyright laws, not sure it applies to the US). The issue here isn't what the artist wants. The issue is whether we as a society should allow the artist to control an expression of an idea, and if so, for how long. What society wants is more important than what an artist wants and intellectual property is a made up figment of societies imagination. Words are not actually property, my copying those words doesn't steal yours. My using the same sequence of some part of your song shouldn't entitle you a right to say no, I own that phrase and if it does, we are all harmed by said restrictions. Information is not property in that sense and should not be. Intellectual property rights are harmful to society if not kept in strict check. It is now virtually impossible to write a computer program without violating someone's IP even though you've never seen it. That means we've gone too far in allowing people to own ideas.