[alive2007]

>[something semantic and pedantic about maritime vessels vs taking other's property]

Piracy, or copyright infringement, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, and theft have the same practical effect : you're accessing a consumable good without paying the requisite cost, your individual crime may not have a large effect on the ability of the seller to provide for that good, but, on the large scale, if everyone committed your crime, you would severely affect the seller's ability to both 1. provide for him/her/their-self and 2. provide that good to the people. So, for all intents and purposes, yes, piracy is theft in cause & effect, if not in literal, philosophical definition.

I said it in my first post. If paid channels are byzantine and draconian, don't pay. You still don't have a right to the content. Just don't buy it. That's "fight" enough. That's "protest" enough.

>[some extremely condescending and pretentious teenage bullshit about "not giving up the fight"]

No, buddy, you're not on some morally righteous journey to freedom. Ironically enough, the DRM, DMCA, and the Gestapo-ification of the MPAA and RIAA only exist because of people like you. The executives and middlemen (i.e.: cable networks, record labels, publishers) hate piracy because it severely harms their bottom line, the artists hate piracy because it harms their livelihood, the consumers hate piracy because it leads to annoying DRM and other counterpiracy measures that end up harming paying consumers most. The only people that are lifting their fists in the air with you are, bingo, other pirates.

[j42]

I'm afraid you're misinformed, but for socially-conscious individuals (ie, they don't support a scorched-earth, ends-justify-the-means policy to get that $250,000* from your nephew for torrenting Inside Out) I'm including my comment below.

If you are a programmer, security researcher, artist, or entrepreneur you can make a difference.

1. As an individual: if you understand the methods, contribute to open-source tools that allow individuals to exercise their rights. https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools (one example)

Artists: Use self-publishing platforms (gumroad, bandcamp, even spotify...) and self-incorporate. Discriminate against giving your business to companies that don't support open, sane protocols. Don't let them exert their power against the populace through backdoor trade deals.

Entrepreneurs: Create new content delivery and streaming platforms that force the transition to digital--rightsholders like to claim that piracy is responsible for their failed economics, though the truth is that they had an artificial market advantage of scarcity. User-generated content has bloomed with the advent of digital, and more consumer choice is a death knell to the traditional monopoly.

2. As a cause: support the EFF, and any politician looking to work with the FCC who understands this issue is deeper than "restricting content," and could undermine the rights of property and security of ownership. Do not trust anyone who does not comprehend the societal implications of critical infrastructure being "security through obscurity." http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001303221

The security of your laptop, the concept of personal ownership, and your right not to be digitally inspected at over 40 international borders is at stake.

* figure revised to more accurately reflect the reality of the american justice system.

[Intermernet]

> you're accessing a consumable good without paying the requisite cost

"Consumable" would imply that the good is "Consumed". The traditional definition of consumption is that the good can't be consumed more than once. This definition has been altered in the digital age, but I think that's where the confusion arises.

A digital, infinitely copy-able good isn't really "consumed", as the copying doesn't actually reduce the original in any way, shape or form.

Perhaps "Observed" would be a better term?

[Karunamon]

You know what else has the same effect on the seller? Buying a $thing and having friends over to view it, or lending it to them.

That has the "same practical effect", yet the folks who like to moralize about copyright don't seem to have as much of an issue with that. (Though I'm sure the content industry would find a way to charge for this completely legitimate use if they could)

You still don't have a right to the content.

I place precisely zero value on your opinion on this matter because you lost most of this fight the moment the copy command was invented, and the idiocy behind the content industry lost the rest. This includes greatly exaggerated "losses", suing of computer-illiterate elderly people and network printers, perversion of the copyright system from something beneficial for the arts to a means of cultural control and profit above all else.

We're people, we can change the law however we see fit. I suggest it's time that we push this pendulum back in the other direction, and then snap it off.