Does copyright stifle creativity?

[lightstand]

Indeed, and that is called a "question", which when posed to a group, would indicate that the original author might be interested in viewpoints about that question, and not in derogatory insults.

Please don't take offense,  but do I count right, you have made five posts bickering about etiquette with no substance about the original question. Maybe the best internet etiquette is too simply ignore the derogatory?

[jjj]

So rather than attacking the arguments, you attack the poster? Seems to be the preferred method of "debate" on this forum these days.

No I am not attacking the poster, I am pointing out that as someone whose income comes from outside of photography, you can afford to give work away, so you are not putting your money where your mouth is, as you falsely claim.  Whereas for professional photographers, that's not really an option. Your financial status is entirely relevant to the argument. And my calling you naiive not to appreciate this factor, is entirely fair I'd say.
Though what is common in the forums is people claiming spurious ad hominen attacks, instead of countering with a valid argument.

And there are professionals putting their money where their mouth is as well, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and Cory Doctorow come to mind, each with varying degrees of "free" and copyright-light-ness. Curiously, there are no notable photographers I know of.

Duh! of course not, their business is completely different. Musicians can happily give their music away if they can make money from touring, plus both NIN + Radiohead were very, very successful long before giving stuff away. I cannot comment on Corey Doctorow as I do not know what he has 'given' away.

[jjj]

It seems I haven't misread your post at all.

And there you go again.

For all we know, feppe might have earned good money from his photography, but he's chosen not to.

But he currently earns money from outside of photography according to his website and that is what is important. Why that is the case is not really relevant.

Choosing so is something you label as "naive/ignorant" solely because he's not a professional photographer, and that is the point I'm disagreeing with.

Feppe's opinion isn't naive or ignorant. It's informed, but it's not your viewpoint.

Ever heard of perspective? Feppe comes across as what would be described as an armchair critic. One, who like most theoretical debaters would probably change their tune if actually in shoes of the person they are critiquing. It's so very easy to suggest something that  doesn't affect you or in this case your income. And no I do not think suggesting 10 yr limit on copyright is an informed suggestion, it's a stupid one if a [professional] artist, but simply a naiive one if you don't make money from creative works.

Make rational arguments against it rather than dragging us further down in the muck, please.

I've made rational points, though it seems as Lightstand said above, that you simply prefer to misread and nitpick about anything other than the actual topic. I'm guessing that a rational point would only be acknowledged if it was something that you already agreed with.
What's your photographic status? You don't even link to any of your work, so can't even tell if you are a photographer, let alone professional or amateur.

[jani]

Please don't take offense,  but do I count right, you have made five posts bickering about etiquette with no substance about the original question. Maybe the best internet etiquette is too simply ignore the derogatory?

Actually, I've made six posts, and if it's so important to you what the exact meaning of those posts were, perhaps you should re-read them.

What's your photographic status? You don't even link to any of your work, so can't even tell if you are a photographer, let alone professional or amateur.

Why is that important?

Am I not even allowed to discuss this without belonging to the "correct" group?

Perhaps we should get that cleared up before "lightstand" complains about my complaints, and before I try to venture any detailed opinion on the merits of copyright in photography.

I'll of course stand by your decision.