The purpose of copyright and patent law in the US (as stated by the Constitution) is to promote the progress of the arts and sciences by granting a temporary li

The purpose of copyright and patent law in the US (as stated by the Constitution) is to promote the progress of the arts and sciences by granting a temporary limited monopoly to creators. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, things have gotten wildly out of hand in the past few centuries. I get it. People make content, and they want their rightful monopolies to be protected from people who would copy and sell it. That's fine. But attacking the rights of those who are not copying or profiting from your content simply because the new method they're using to access it doesn't line your pockets with money is going too far. At that point you're going after all competition, rather than unfair competition. You have no guaranteed right to a lucrative business model. You have no guaranteed right the control any and all actions of those with access to your content. The only thing you should have is the limited monopoly you've been given, and if that isn't enough to protect your business against the the onslaught of new technologies then so be it. (I should point out that I think the length of the monopolies themselves has gone overboard, but that's an argument for another day.) > But could you sue someone for putting up a big fan to blow the aroma into the air and charging people to stand in front? No, I don't think I should be able to sue. It's my own horrible business decision to release my aromas into the public air where everyone can access them. If I were a more astute businessman, I would keep my aromas in a privately-owned enclosure where I could create the rules and charge admission to boot. I don't see how it's the government's place to step in and create laws that curtail the public's right to use the air as it pleases for no other purpose than to ensure that my crappy business model is lucrative.