This is a classic case where the misbehavior of one segment of the population (in this case quite a large segment) could make stricter legislation necessary. I think that real world traffic laws are a good analogy here:

Most people are violating speed limits, and speeding in moderation is socially acceptable. Compare moderate speeding to moderate file sharing, i.e. sharing files with say only 10 of your best acquaintances. Legislation would not be required. However, gross violation of speed limits by a certain group of drivers brought us the traffic police and radar controls. I hope that the gross copyright violations of a certain group of people do not ruin the Internet for everyone.

you can make almost any point on hacker news and get away with it, if you're respectful to all involved.

pg started this site, and he has inculcated it with his values. imagine pg writing an essay about the pirate bay. do you suppose he would call them "idiots?"

like it or not, the culture around these parts tends towards respect. you violate local customs at your own peril.

Intelligent discourse is based on good arguments and respect for the other party.

(for the record I think I did back up my statement: they are idiots because they are helping and encouraging people the steal with no thought as to the consequences and believe they are above the law to the point of being. And, importantly, refuse to be reasoned with - and yes I have tried.)

I agree with the good arguments - but respect should not be automatic. I would look for it to be earned in an argument (probably I did not do much to earn any yesterday). My other point, of course, is that TPB (at whom my remark was directed) are not here and so are not one of the debating parties... :)

EDIT: I am not particularly worried by the downmods. People can express their opinions. However downmodding based on wording feels a bit short sighted... downmodding based on percieved bias (which a friend of mine pointed out) I would agree with (because it did introduce a bias.. which was a mistake).

(Also it's a bit sad to see this bumped up to the first page... this surely is stuff for the "back room")

I'm interested to hear what you believe the endgame for copyright is, given that you think that those currently ignoring copyright are in the wrong, but that Apple, et al, should go non-DRM? I'm against copyright, and I dislike DRM, but I don't have anything in principle against DRM, as I do against copyright.

In the face of that could we expect media companies to be reasonable and sit at the table to work out new ways to provide access to digital media/software? This is not a 2 sided battle in my eyes. TPB are as much an enemy to the consumer as the IPFI.

And why shouldnt the sharers get some fear? Perhaps it will dissuade them from sharing. Bearing in mind I am massivley pro copyright (as a software developer and writer - even though the majority of my work is open source).

In terms of copyright - I too am not too worried by DRM. I would like to see DRM dropped but can understand why it is there. In the Apple case they had to impose stupidly strict DRM just to get the store off the ground. The fact they can now release that music more freely is a testamount to how much the music companies are starting to come round to the consumers viewpoint. I am never one to blame the music companies for wanting to protect their material: even though I do disagree with the prices they charge, how they screw over the artists and how they insist (till now) on locking stuff up in super restrictive DRM.

I never fully understood the arguments against copyright. Care to explain?

There are several arguments against copyright, but the one I like most is this: property is necessary because two people cannot both (exclusively) use the same property at the same time. The idea of property solves this, and everyone can agree that that is yours while this is mine. The nature of things is that they can't be available for the exclusive use of two or more people. Ideas (copyright and patents, at least; trademarks are less clear) can be used by more than one person without any impact on others using it: everyone can exclusively use an idea at the same time. The reason for this is that "an idea" isn't a thing at all, but a category of things -- a description of a group, each instance of which is owned by virtue of someone owning the physical thing that instantiates it.

In summary: I don't believe in ownership of categories of things, only things themselves.

If you look at the origins of copyright, even its supporters didn't believe it was real property; it was purely a utilitarian attempt to encourage production of ideas by extending an analogy of property to idea production, for a limited time. There are still reasonable arguments to be made about whether it's an net economic win or lose for a legal system to include copyright and patent, and other people can argue that point better than I.

As for economics, I'd guess it's a loss. Copyright and patent are state subsidies for speech and technology. But while you generally do get more of something you subsidize, it's always at a greater cost elsewhere in one's economy.

If you have an idea you have to take steps to protect it. If you create a working product based on the idea that specific design is protected by a modicum of copyright.

I do see where you are coming from with the ideas thing (the free-software side of me wants me to agree fully that ideas/processes should never be protected).

(this is in the UK of course: in the US things might be different)

If I create a product -- say, a book I write in longhand with pen on paper -- the product is covered by existing law without copyright. That physical book is mine to do with as I please, assuming I owned the raw materials in the first place. At this point, copyright isn't needed: I could contract with those I allow to read or copy this book. Where copyright comes in is in asserting a right to prevent copying over other physical books which are sufficiently similar to the one I just wrote. I'd be asserting a right to control an entire category of physical objects, rather than specific objects. I think the burden of proof is on those who want to extend property rights to categories of things, as an analogy with property rights in things. I used to use an example wherein I pointed to the absurdity of a car manufacturer asserting a right to all photos of their cars, but some car manufacturer actually did that without widespread derision recently.

About ideas/processes: if processes can't be protected, then what about a process which, followed strictly, produces a copyrighted work? Aren't copyright and patent isomorphic in this way?

Yeh I am fairly certain in the UK that wuold not stand up. Certainly it doesnt fall under copyright.

What happens when you write a book and ask people for money to read it (unless we are arguing that everything should be free :)) and then someone else copies your book and sells it slightly cheaper than you. Should we not have protective laws to stop that occuring?

I think copyright is being confused here. With the similarity aspect we are talking intellectual property not copyright. Copyrightr (In the UK) applies simply to direct copies or derivative works (in your example if someone copied my book but added a new ending and a few new chapters).

If someone rewrites your entire plot without using any of your text they are fine (and the 2 works will stand and fall on their relative merits). But if you tried to write a book about Harry Potter the Wizard you would probably run into trobule - because the name has (I believe) been trade marked in that context (I could be wrong - but it is a dramatic example).