mjd420nova wrote, in part: It's all about the money. The perception that ones ideas or inventions are free to be exploited by the public without any regard for the rules of law has made it difficult for those individuals to continue their ground breaking work.
And it has always been all about the money. Control of ideas, art works, etc., except for a few idiosyncratic cranks, isn't about the control, but the ability to limit who can use their work, without their permission, to line their pockets.
That's actually one of the reasons I have so much ambivalence about material published on the web that is not being published by any entity that has a traditional non-web presence or is web-only but of a commercial nature as far as buying content before publishing it.
The nature of the web is that anything placed on it, whether one wishes this or not, becomes de facto public property except under the most constrained set of circumstances. You've elected to place material openly on a medium where exact duplication is easily possible in places where you were not making any money on it to begin with. If someone else appropriates something there for another non-commercial purpose, like a school report, that should not be a copyright violation. Even if they appropriate it from say, a newspaper's website where the newspaper paid for it, but are using it for a non-commercial purpose I don't think that should be a copyright violation, either. You have to be losing something other than control, which you already ceded by using a medium that does not support any meaningful control, for what I consider a "legitimate" copyright violation to occur.
Of course, I also think that current law on how long "The Estate of [fill in long dead celebrity here]" can maintain control over images used untold numbers of times and the world over is ridiculous, too. One example being Marilyn Monroe's estate. She's been dead longer than I've been alive, in excess of 50 years, and they still maintain control over a great deal of her images (if one wishes to use them legally, and I'm presuming one does). These, and other, items that were subject to copyright for commercial use need to be passing into the public domain much more rapidly than they might have been when books, magazines, and newspapers were the primary method of reuse of images. I don't think that people who've been paid, and often generously paid, for the creation of a work that is as easily reproducible as a digital image should have the right to control it "semi-perpetually" after it's been published for non-commercial uses.
But, with the advent of the computer age, a very great deal of law has fallen farther and farther and farther behind in regulating the things that actually need to be regulated and much of the regulation is based on paradigms that ceased to exist in any meaningful sense decades ago. That's no way to have functioning law in any arena.
Brian AKA Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134
. . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it. The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.
~ Ruth Marcus, November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story