[knorker]

> Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that.

Like I said, you're making no sense at all.

With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable.

We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy.

Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Piracy has proven that"... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too.

> either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code.

"Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again".

See how it's nonsense?

(I can't reply deeper because HN limitations)

[EvanAnderson]

> ... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too.

I'd argue the world is different now. We've only had general purpose computers and ubiquitous ultra-cheap networking for the last few decades. Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. I think it's also safe to say there was typically financial incentive behind most mass infringement in the past (i.e. "bootlegging").

I'm not sure that's the case today. I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections.

> > either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code.

> "Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again".

I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby (though, admittedly, the gun lobby in the United States does kinda fit that bill-- but that's a separate issue). There most certainly is a "regulate general purpose computers" lobby (e.g. "circumvention devices" and the DMCA).

> See how it's nonsense?

Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.

[knorker]

> Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past.

No it didn't. More, yes. But 40 years ago you just needed two VCRs and a blank tape. The only thing preventing mass reproduction was copyright law.

And pre-copyright this is also what happened. Because it was just not that hard. Even 500 years ago.

> I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections.

I bet less now than 20 years ago. Today you can buy spotify, apple music, google music, or whatever. You can stream stuff.

Blockbusters didn't die because of piracy, but because of streaming.

> I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby

It's your argument. If a thing cannot be prevented, then it should be legal. Right?

> Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.

That's wilfully missing the point.

Take shoplifting instead, then.

[matheusmoreira]

> It's your argument.

The actual argument is that society has fundamentally changed after the invention of computers. People copy, transfer and even modify copyrighted works every day without even blinking. It happens on an even larger scale than and at a fraction of the cost of VHS tape copying. Copyright no longer makes sense in the 21st century: it's become natural to infringe.

The fact that copyright no longer guarantees artficial scarcity is just yet another sign that it should probably go away.

[knorker]

This is showing an extreme ignorance of history, and of copyright.

There are countries (e.g. Sweden) where it's legal to rip a CD and give a copy to your friends. "Always" has been.

But it's not legal to sell copies. Or to put the music in a "holywood" movie you made and make a profit.

Copyright protects both of these. And if you think holywood movies don't properly license their music then you are mistaken.

Copyright absolutely makes sense.

Could a reform be in order? Well, could you come up with a laws or precedents where me putting a funny meme picture on my facebook wall is legally fine, but holywood taking my art and selling it as part of their product is not?

Because when you say "abolish copyright", that means no more games or movies as we know them today. You may say "good riddance", but you don't have to watch them. You can choose to only listen to music and see movies made under creative commons license. But you'll be pretty alone in that. Your life will look like that of Richard Stallman.

[matheusmoreira]

> But it's not legal to sell copies. Or to put the music in a "holywood" movie you made and make a profit.

Okay. Selling copies makes no sense anyway. So let people share their files in peace. No profit will be made.

> There are countries (e.g. Sweden) where it's legal to rip a CD and give a copy to your friends. "Always" has been.

My country has similar laws. Does it matter to the monopolists? No. They put DRM in their stuff specifically to stop you from exercising your legal right to copy. I remember one case where one guy backed up a game disc, lost the original and had to sue the company because the game wouldn't accept his copy. Judge made them give him a new disc. Fair use? Doesn't matter to the monopolists either. They'll DMCA content and sue companies out of existence whether they're legally justified or not.

Besides, the copyright monopolists are always trying to destroy these laws. They have considerable lobbying power and the US government imposes american laws on foreign countries via trade agreements.

> Could a reform be in order?

You can certainly make copyright tolerable. Make terms last 5-10 years. More than enough time for creators to make their millions. Anything more than that is rent seeking.

> Because when you say "abolish copyright", that means no more games or movies as we know them today.

Fine. Between computing freedom and the whole copyright industry, I choose computing freedom. Computing is much more important than some entertainment industry and I hate the way its potential is being limited because of these monopolists.

Stallman would probably disagree with me. Free software licenses depend on copyright to work.

[knorker]

> So let people share their files in peace. No profit will be made.

This is so naive and ignorant. Some people will maintain the huge libraries of movies. And it won't be free to do so.

They will do this service for pay.

This happens today, with pirate topsites and even closed torrents.

> Make terms last 5-10 years.

I'd say 10-20, but no more than that.

> Between computing freedom and the whole copyright industry, I choose computing freedom.

Good thing we don't have to make that choice.

[matheusmoreira]

So copyright is enforceable because you can theoretically sue everyone? There aren't enough courts.

> See how it's nonsense?

It's not. Computers are increasingly non-free and DRM is a big reason. The copyright holders want guarantees that I can't run unathorized software against their data even though it's my machine.

Combine this with worldwide governamental desire to regulate or ban encryption. It's an existential threat to the computing freedom we all enjoy today.

[knorker]

> So copyright is enforceable because you can theoretically sue everyone? There aren't enough courts.

This applies to every single crime. Try getting the police or courts to do anything about your stolen bike. They won't. You can have the name of the thief, with video of them stealing it, and it won't be worth their time.

Also won't be worth your time and money to sue them civilly.

So theft should be legal?

[matheusmoreira]

> This applies to every single crime.

Not really. Crimes are limited by reality. One criminal can only do so much.

With copyright infringement you have insane situations such as over 80% of a country's population being guilty of it. At this point, is it even a crime? More like a local custom.

> Try getting the police or courts to do anything about your stolen bike. They won't.

Maybe in the US. It's rather common here. I have examples in my family. I see it in the news nearly every week: some drug addict steals a phone, police arrests him and the phone is returned to its owner.

> So theft should be legal?

From what you just told me, it looks like it already is.

[knorker]

> Maybe in the US.

Not just the US. In fact I'm not in the US.

>> So theft should be legal.

> From what you just told me, it looks like it already is.

That's not what "legal" means.

[matheusmoreira]

> That's not what "legal" means.

Law is paper. What makes it real is police enforcement, prosecution. If this real stuff is not happening, there is no law.

[knorker]

So now you agree that "ownership" is not inherently real?