[muuh-gnu]

> people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring

Copyright is a form of for-profit censorship. There are always people who will vote for censorship and slavery in order to maximize the exploitation of other people fot the benefit of themselves and theif offspring. the fact that there are always people willing to support and profit from opression does not mean that everybody else should not condemn, fight and try everything they can to end it.

As of now, copyright is not democratically supported. It is directed and enforced against the majority for the benefit of a influential minority, but it was never, anywhere on this planet, supported by any kind of democratic vote by the people. It originated in a dictatorship and has been spread behind closed doors and shielded by various party mechanisms from a direct popular vote, because the probable result of this vote would be a "no".

The turmoil around ACTA, where even talking about the negotiations was a no-go disguised as "national security" to prevent any opposition to even form, has shown that the politics around copyright is as undemocratic as ever.

I do not feel any moral obligation whatsoever to obey such a authoritarian law clearly not backed by the majority of my peers. Copying and sharing stuff is simply not wrong as long as the majority of my peers does not condemn it. I will never let a authoritarian, profit-oriented minority legislate my morals.

[cageface]

Guess what, by violating copyright you're enabling the very people that seem to outrage you so. If you really cared so much about this, you'd put your time and money where your mouth is and support the people working outside copyright.

More likely, you're just another pirate stealing food from the dinner table, all the while complaining how bad it tastes and how small the portions are.

[muuh-gnu]

> you're just another pirate stealing

Keep talking yourself into it, and keep calling people with different political opinions names, if it makes you more easily cope with the undemocratic authoritative nature of today's copyright.

[cageface]

In what way is it undemocratic? If you're talking about the continual extension of copyright terms to prevent older works from falling into the public domain I agree. Copyright is also the bedrock of the GPL.

[muuh-gnu]

> In what way is it undemocratic?

I wrote about this in my original post, you can read it there. Copyright is a new, unnatural form of "property" and only a minority has such a kind of property and it is enforced against the majority. But the majority was never asked whether they want this new type of property to be enforced against them, it has just been postulated as "beneficial" a few centuries ago and then enforced. No one, never ever on this planet has ever voted about it, it has since it's beginnings been enforced top down, and never legitimated bottom up.

You cant just go out and define a new type of property which resides inside others people communication and then enforce it by monitoring their communication, without ever asking them about it in the first place. Of course, you can do it, but then its an authoritative, not democratic feature. But do not expect those of us who believe in democracy to feel morally obliged to obey somebodys profit-oriented authoritative laws.

[cageface]

You could say the same things about any kind of property. Did we ever have a formal, democratic vote on land ownership?

As more and more people transition to work producing only digital information, do you really think that protections for that work are going to become less popular?

[muuh-gnu]

> do you really think that protections for that work are going to become less popular?

I dont know. What I do know is that the majority of my peers does _not_ support IP in its current form...

> Did we ever have a formal, democratic vote on land ownership?

...while the majority of my peers _does_ support the notion of ownership of physical items. I also personally do not know anybody who doesnt, so the motivation to push for a vote on something where the result is "obvious" is relatively low, but I of course wouldn't oppose it.

> You could say the same things about any kind of property.

So you in principle do agree that the public should be more directly involved in the creation of laws which it is required to abide by.

The whole concept of trial by jury of peers implies that the peers had a role in the creating of the law, and that they do not merely decide whether a law created by a authoritative, undemocratic body, which the majority of them might not even agree with, has been disobeyed.