4 ms·

> I don't think you have a right to "share" But you should. > when that "culture" is purely commercial. You dont need a justification at all. You want to sha

> I don't think you have a right to "share" But you should. > when that "culture" is purely commercial. You dont need a justification at all. You want to share with your fellow people, thats it. People love other people and love to share things they have with them. Sharing is caring. Suppressing that inherently human feeling and urge simply to make somebody make more money is insane. The problem with the whole copyright debate is that the so called "democracy", aka will of the people, is completely and utterly disregarded. The process of law making is completely and utterly driven by special interests and enforced against all public resistence from top down. The issue of copyright is closed up in a dictatorship bubble and fiercely guarded against democracy. The people, and _only_ the people (like in a direct referendum) should decide what they value more: their natural, human right to share useful information with their fellow humans, or to collectively enforce a kind of for-profit censorship in order to incentivize commercial production. No single authority should be able to make such a far-reaching and intrusive decision for them. Such a referendum has never been held, and therefore such laws are undemocratic, and for that single reason alone I and a lot of other people do not feel obliged to obey copyright laws. It is as simple as that. Requirig people to obey and respect copyright restrictions simply because some special interest calls it a law makes as sense as requiring them to obey and respect ius primae noctis only because some special interest calls it a law. To be respected, a law has to be widely agreed upon, and copyright is as widely agreed upon as ius primae noctis.

rayiner 14y ago
If we're talking about natural human tendencies, I'd argue that any supposed "urge to share" is weaker than the evident urge to control the products of one's own labor. People who know nothing about intellectual property still get extremely upset when they perceive that someone else "stole their idea" or "ripped them off." Also, claiming the copyright regime is not the product of democracy is utterly ludicrous. If people cared so much about this "natural right to share" they would vote out the people who pass restrictive copyright legislation. But they don't. Claiming that the results of the democratic process are in fact not democratic for various hand-wavey reasons is the last-ditch argument of people who don't like the outcome of the democratic process because it didn't come out their way.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  You can't "vote out" an ideology that is shared by every single candidate presented to voters. Copyright isn't on the minds of voters because it has never been presented to them as something they could vote to change by the election media. Also, the parent poster used the word "democratic" in its literal sense, not as a euphemism for "elected republic." No literal democratic process has ever been applied to US copyright law.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > You can't "vote out" an ideology that is shared by every single candidate presented to voters. Copyright isn't on the minds of voters because it has never been presented to them as something they could vote to change by the election media. This is a contorted, disingenuous way of saying that people, in general, simply don't care about the issue. I think most members of the public perceive "sharing" as "wrong," but in the same sense as they perceive double parking to be "wrong." Unusual cases aside, most peoples' everyday experience with copyright enforcement is their ISP sending them a "stop doing that" e-mail, which I think most people perceive as a slap on the wrist commensurate with the minor wrong they have committed. I think this is the most accurate characterization about how people feel about the copyright issue, and also explains why it's not an issue that gains any traction with voters.
    - summerdown2 14y ago
      > I think most members of the public perceive "sharing" as "wrong," I wouldn't be so sure. Here are two possible data points: http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/ http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/ and http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/the-generational-divide-in-copyright-morality/ http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/the-generational-d...
- sp332 14y ago
  If people cared so much about this "natural right to share" they would vote out the people who pass restrictive copyright legislation. That's the problem with a republic (where people elect representatives to do the voting for them): The people you elect don't always vote the way you want them to. You have to decide if e.g. a candidate's stance on tax reform outweighs his views on copyright reform. Instead of getting to vote on each law the way you want (as in a direct democracy), in a republic you always compromise your position on some issues in order to have a say in others.
yungchin 14y ago
While I agree with your conclusions regarding copyright, the above seems to me a fallacious appeal to democracy. If abolishing intellectual monopolies is better for society, we should be able to make a case for that regardless whether most people think so or not.
cafard 14y ago
I do want to share some things with my fellow people. I have lent or given them books and will continue to lend or give more. I did not find that purchasing said books suppressed my inherently human feeling, though it did affect my cash flow. Copyright laws in the US and UK have been established by the national legislatures; in the US case, this is a power assigned to Congress by the Constitution. I am not aware of anything ever in the nature of a national referendum, or do you have in mind an international one? I do agree that the copyright laws have got out of hand, though.

rayiner 14y ago

If we're talking about natural human tendencies, I'd argue that any supposed "urge to share" is weaker than the evident urge to control the products of one's own labor. People who know nothing about intellectual property still get extremely upset when they perceive that someone else "stole their idea" or "ripped them off." Also, claiming the copyright regime is not the product of democracy is utterly ludicrous. If people cared so much about this "natural right to share" they would vote out the people who pass restrictive copyright legislation. But they don't. Claiming that the results of the democratic process are in fact not democratic for various hand-wavey reasons is the last-ditch argument of people who don't like the outcome of the democratic process because it didn't come out their way.

nitrogen 14y ago
You can't "vote out" an ideology that is shared by every single candidate presented to voters. Copyright isn't on the minds of voters because it has never been presented to them as something they could vote to change by the election media. Also, the parent poster used the word "democratic" in its literal sense, not as a euphemism for "elected republic." No literal democratic process has ever been applied to US copyright law.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > You can't "vote out" an ideology that is shared by every single candidate presented to voters. Copyright isn't on the minds of voters because it has never been presented to them as something they could vote to change by the election media. This is a contorted, disingenuous way of saying that people, in general, simply don't care about the issue. I think most members of the public perceive "sharing" as "wrong," but in the same sense as they perceive double parking to be "wrong." Unusual cases aside, most peoples' everyday experience with copyright enforcement is their ISP sending them a "stop doing that" e-mail, which I think most people perceive as a slap on the wrist commensurate with the minor wrong they have committed. I think this is the most accurate characterization about how people feel about the copyright issue, and also explains why it's not an issue that gains any traction with voters.
  - summerdown2 14y ago
    > I think most members of the public perceive "sharing" as "wrong," I wouldn't be so sure. Here are two possible data points: http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/ http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/ and http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/the-generational-divide-in-copyright-morality/ http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/the-generational-d...
sp332 14y ago
If people cared so much about this "natural right to share" they would vote out the people who pass restrictive copyright legislation. That's the problem with a republic (where people elect representatives to do the voting for them): The people you elect don't always vote the way you want them to. You have to decide if e.g. a candidate's stance on tax reform outweighs his views on copyright reform. Instead of getting to vote on each law the way you want (as in a direct democracy), in a republic you always compromise your position on some issues in order to have a say in others.

yungchin 14y ago

While I agree with your conclusions regarding copyright, the above seems to me a fallacious appeal to democracy. If abolishing intellectual monopolies is better for society, we should be able to make a case for that regardless whether most people think so or not.

cafard 14y ago

I do want to share some things with my fellow people. I have lent or given them books and will continue to lend or give more. I did not find that purchasing said books suppressed my inherently human feeling, though it did affect my cash flow. Copyright laws in the US and UK have been established by the national legislatures; in the US case, this is a power assigned to Congress by the Constitution. I am not aware of anything ever in the nature of a national referendum, or do you have in mind an international one? I do agree that the copyright laws have got out of hand, though.