Copyright does not deserve voluntary submission anyways. It is an unjust and ever stricter becoming legal framework to give life support to an industry that is unwilling to adjust to new technological realities.
You’re suggesting copyright is obsolete because technical means of protecting content are so easy to circumvent.
That’s absurd, considering laws protecting rights that are easily protected by, for example, physical means are entirely unnecessary.
The only reason we have laws against burglary is to allow us the benefits of not living in a personal fortress. To turn this around and deny anyone going out in public without a personal protection detail the benefit of laws against being robbed or raped is indistinguishable from just scrapping all criminal law.
The other, more common and less interesting (but equally wrong), assumption you’re making is that there is some secret business model that thousands of publications and journalists have somehow missed to see. Or, alternatively, the strange situation of gleefully enjoying the decline of journalism, coming up with all sorts of accusations to deny that their work has any value for you or society, while simultaneously spending 8+ hours these days reading their work.
I'm saying that copyright is unjust. It violates fundamental individual freedoms of people like freedom of expression to achieve goals that do not justify that mean, and is therefore illegitimate.
The comparison to laws that protect people is invalid because copyright does not protect people. It grants governmentally enforced monopolies. Copyright has a legitimate goal. There is a value in certain activities for society and copyright is a governments intervention to increase that activity.
There are other things that are considered so important that the government takes action to provide them, like for example social security, health services and infrastructure. That is realized by taxation. I'm suggesting that the state should use taxation to ensure the activity of those who rely now on copyright so the restrictions of individual fundamental freedoms is gone.
Note that copyright has become even more restrictive with time. There are situations where people are forbidden from singing a song on a birthday party in public. This is an example of where the unjust restriction of individual freedoms becomes apparent.
And I'm saying that this injustice in some situations is so grave, that we should show civil disobedience and try to break and mock copyright when possible as a form of protest.
KarlKemp|6 years ago
That’s absurd, considering laws protecting rights that are easily protected by, for example, physical means are entirely unnecessary.
The only reason we have laws against burglary is to allow us the benefits of not living in a personal fortress. To turn this around and deny anyone going out in public without a personal protection detail the benefit of laws against being robbed or raped is indistinguishable from just scrapping all criminal law.
The other, more common and less interesting (but equally wrong), assumption you’re making is that there is some secret business model that thousands of publications and journalists have somehow missed to see. Or, alternatively, the strange situation of gleefully enjoying the decline of journalism, coming up with all sorts of accusations to deny that their work has any value for you or society, while simultaneously spending 8+ hours these days reading their work.
madez|6 years ago
The comparison to laws that protect people is invalid because copyright does not protect people. It grants governmentally enforced monopolies. Copyright has a legitimate goal. There is a value in certain activities for society and copyright is a governments intervention to increase that activity.
There are other things that are considered so important that the government takes action to provide them, like for example social security, health services and infrastructure. That is realized by taxation. I'm suggesting that the state should use taxation to ensure the activity of those who rely now on copyright so the restrictions of individual fundamental freedoms is gone.
Note that copyright has become even more restrictive with time. There are situations where people are forbidden from singing a song on a birthday party in public. This is an example of where the unjust restriction of individual freedoms becomes apparent.
And I'm saying that this injustice in some situations is so grave, that we should show civil disobedience and try to break and mock copyright when possible as a form of protest.