Governments around the world have been given the excuse to create overreaching and piracy laws because we let them. I'm not surprised this has happened but we should be asking what is the bigger problem. Is it people pirating and distributing copyrighted materials or is it us, the downloading public, that should be punished for not being able to resist the lure of pirates.
I personally feel that if all of us as users realized that we're handing them excuses to censor the web on a silver platter we would quit downloading copyright materials. There is such a fine line between sharing and piracy that it's hard to decide which side any person falls on. Now, a person who records a movie in a theater and puts it online is guilty. No doubt about it. But what about the person who buys a CD, rips it to his computer, then wants to share it with some friends? If he sends a few copies to friends via email or other non public way, is he doing wrong? I'd argue no. But that's what makes this whole thing so scary. On the one hand there's a clear case we are the reason these laws happen. Our inability to resist the lure of free, pirated media. But then we also cannot restrict our right to share our own property with some people.
So I'm wondering, when does it stop being sharing and turn into privacy. Never is not the answer. Whether you support or think it shouldn't exist, the fact is that copyright laws have been in effect for a long time. So considering that, where does the line get drawn?
Again, copyright law (and patents, and trademarks) exist to help the public. It takes the form of a monopoly to create an incentive for works to be produced.
There's absolutely zero proof that even with all this piracy going on, that the amount of creative work has diminished. In fact, from my anecdotal evidence, I'd say there's even more creative works available now than ever before.
Thus, stronger copyright laws targeting non-commercial users are simply unneeded. The public is already getting the benefit of having huge amounts of art being generated (with no signs of slowdown), so there's no justifiable argument for these stronger laws, despite piracy.
I personally feel that if all of us as users realized that we're handing them excuses to censor the web on a silver platter we would quit downloading copyright materials. There is such a fine line between sharing and piracy that it's hard to decide which side any person falls on. Now, a person who records a movie in a theater and puts it online is guilty. No doubt about it. But what about the person who buys a CD, rips it to his computer, then wants to share it with some friends? If he sends a few copies to friends via email or other non public way, is he doing wrong? I'd argue no. But that's what makes this whole thing so scary. On the one hand there's a clear case we are the reason these laws happen. Our inability to resist the lure of free, pirated media. But then we also cannot restrict our right to share our own property with some people.
So I'm wondering, when does it stop being sharing and turn into privacy. Never is not the answer. Whether you support or think it shouldn't exist, the fact is that copyright laws have been in effect for a long time. So considering that, where does the line get drawn?