One thing I have learnt through this debate on copyright...in the definition of the law it is not theft. They call it theft because they feel you, not have stolen the object they have the rights to, no, they know that...the theft part comes from their pain that you stole income from them that their rights entitled them to. In short, when someone calls it theft these days I think 'copyright maximist'. One day soon, no one will call it theft, we can continue to debate and get on with deciding what this hideous law is doing to our world.
I guess you have to go back to the genesis of this law to understand it. Perhaps this is why, this law has teeth in a civil proceding in court but if you try to use it as a weapon, it falls apart and collapses.
To add, I lost interest when he was saying the world is more productive and creative with copyright. How creative will the world be if the consumers still paid the price we pay for the creations and the middlemen and the creators 'swap' the incomes each is receiving now? I reason that if creators are paid what the distributors are getting then the world will be inundated with creativity. Mind you, money isnt what it is about you know. The middlemen have something higher under current copyright - power.
This speech was printed in a half page in a paper here, The Daily Telegraph. (Australia printed on A3 sheets - a tabloid) I asked myself if they (the middlemen) would print a rebuttle in the same way with the same space, but realised they wouldnt - the press has a vested interest in copyright remaining the same or strengthening.
What worries me is, the centralisation of data. So, it was an exploit we all knew about. That sort of gives you an idea of where to look. But the more you put data in one place (government silos) the less you have to look. Anyone who wants to do some serious damage only has to wait for some stupid government to round up all the data and put it in one place
When are governments going to realise that respect of citizens privacy also ensures that very same privacy.
And what really interests me in this argument? It's coming down to "what's more important?" Intellectual Property rights or Human Rights? No, no, you cant say they are both important, we know this. THis is where you choose one over the other. This is it. Laws, Agreements, Treaties, are being passed already that look after IP. Gallo said this week that anyone who is anti-Acta is a terrorist. A terrorist!
Spare me...afact is monopolists and censures way of saying "let's keep the status quo". Sopa, Pipa, Afact, Tppa all these emerged recently about the same time the internet was really really hooking us all up together...it is a desperate attempt to maintain not profits, but control over what they have enjoyed for years and, as well, it must be seductive to these people to control the internet as well, into the future. If they can put us back in our consuming, blind, day to day place for years to come, all the better...but to have us talking amoungst ourselves, sharing ideas, opinions and generally just being completely out of control, must be daunting to them and must be stomped out asap.