Oh wait... "In this particular case the matter is straightforward because Commander Hadfield had obtained permission to record and distribute the song"
For heaven's sakes, why do you have this crazy leading headline that you trivially disprove two paragraphs later? The Economist should be better than lame leads like this.
Copyright works in space like it should work here—You ask.
there are millions of artists in the world almost literally starving and when you attack "copyright law" you are attacking their right to get paid and control the use of their work (not just by beloved astronauts but also Monsanto, Mitt Romney, the KKK etc etc etc etc)
attacking their right to get paid and control the use of their work
« Older In a new book, a historian reveals that during WWI... | "Against all probability, a de... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt