It's not fair

I feel that the definition of plagiarism is too complex and the laws are too specific and allow no room for people to reiterate the ideas of others. Yesterday in class we discussed "What is plagiarism?" and "What laws are put into place to protect people's ideas?" There were many loop holes that later made me angry because I felt that if an artist puts his work out there for others to read then he must want them to share it with others. I know sometimes people steal others work for their own egocentric purposes, however, if they want to share their favorite lyrics from a song they should have the right to do so because it helps the artist sell more albums and have more people download his music. I feel that these laws are implemented to protect people's publishing rights, but there are times when individuals accidentally sign away there copy rights; now tell me why are there no plagiarism laws for that.

An example of how even plagiarism laws could not even protect artists is The Beatles. Last year I read the book, Michael Jackson: The Madness, The Music, The Whole Story, where I learned that Michael Jackson bought the copyrights of  nearly all the Beatles' songs. When John Lennon and Paul McCartney signed their first contract they gave away all their copyrights without even knowing it. After years went by, in 1985 Michael Jackson was able to  buy the copyrights to an entire catalog of The Beatles songs for $47 million. It was funny because Michael Jackson even warned Paul McCartney that he was going to own all of his songs. Now I am most definitely not mad at Michael because what he did was completely legit, but I also feel sorry for Paul McCartney because he does not own the rights to songs that he put all of his hard work into. This story made me feel that we focus too much on people stealing peoples work instead of focusing on how an author can keep his work.