[cturner]

You claim that these laws don't hurt civil rights because they are legally enforceable. This doesn't add up. Legality is irrelevant.

It's easy to fall into a pattern of accept government to be a definitive source of truth about political concepts. This is flawed thinking. Were the government to say that up was down, it would not make it any more true.

Likewise, when the government chooses to call something property doesn't mean that it is property by a reasonable definition.

The enforcement of content protection laws impede privacy, free speech, free expression and the principle of live and let live. It's a clear-cut imposition on civil rights.

[res0nat0r]

It does? Why has this line of thinking just come about within the last 20 years or so when it became easy to pirate IP due to the emergence of mp3s and high speed Internet connections? All of the chatter above is just hand wringing trying to justify that your entertainment should be free because it is easy to obtain without getting in hot water.

[cturner]

My motives have nothing to do with free entertainment. Generally I find movies to be shit, but occasionally order one off amazon because I can afford it and can't be bothered with the hassle of managing a download. I love music (to perform) but don't listen to it because I find it distracting.

I'm interested in digging in hard on issues where the people in our time all seem to be blinkered to the truth. What are the issues where people in five hundred years will look back at us and say "how could they have been so [stupid/cruel/content]."

Copyright's one of them. It's not conducive to creativity, it doesn't reward creators. There's never been a public policy case made that explains why we have it, just vague hand-waving about how it's necessary for creation of production.

In order to enforce it the government needs to encroach on more and more freedoms.

For all its madness, copyright is generally accepted. Good people are made to feel guity for doing it, partly because of unsupported economic claims, and partly from bald-faced lies that smart people should see throuh, such as branding copyright infringement as 'stealing'.

[res0nat0r]

Of course it rewards creators. Much of the content you read in your local bookstore or watch on TV wouldn't be made if the authors didn't have any system in place in which they could guarantee a return on their investment. Yes some people will do it for free, but many wouldn't have the ability to do so if they weren't able to sustain themselves.

[cturner]

The system we have makes some things possible but kills others, such as remixing which is the dominant mechanism for creativity when people are left to their own devices. It mandates a few business models and outlaws everything else. You can't review public policy just from its good effects, what's important is the opportunity cost.