Gee, is the nutshell really so small that it can only include your perspective of the debate, rather than the other side's views, or those of moderates? In fac

Gee, is the nutshell really so small that it can only include your perspective of the debate, rather than the other side's views, or those of moderates? In fact, the piracy is theft misrepresentation is a core maxim of the pro-industrial stance on copyright enforcement. it is precisely because people view it as dishonest deprivation (theft) that people have a problem with nonmarket, unlicensed sharing of cultural elements. Yet such positions are rarely precisely defined (and this is true of the other side as well, mind you) - if we accept lost sales as a valid consideration, where does one stop? A slow browser in a newsagent's shop is chased out, and puts down a potential purchase. or isn't chased out, and enjoys - but doesn't pay for - several articles. An influential reviewer, having a bad day, communicates his distaste for a work without tempering his words; at a stroke, ten thousand potential sales are 'lost', the artist is deprived ten thousand times over. Copyright on a work expires (75 years after the death of the artist) - the artist is (sort of?) deprived (or rather, his estate is, or he was, back in the day). People are being deprived of something totally artificial which was granted to them and them unwaveringly, thanks to the Disney lobby, enhanced. Copyright reform has always gone in one direction and it remains illegal to format shift your own belongings in the UK. The debate in a nutshell includes people who'd like to see things swing back in the other direction, without necessarily eradicating copyright, simply because each extension of copyright (a state-granted monopoly right over what you can communicate and reproduce for the benefit of others) grants benefits to the rightsholders at the sacrifice of the commons, and of my rights to use my property (CD burners, CDs, books, etc) freely.