Sharing is not, and was never restricted to things between two people. To give a biblical example, was Jesus not sharing the loaves and fish because he gave it to five thousand people?
If you think sharing copies of ripped files with many people is wrong, it's your prerogative, but it's still sharing as long as they aren't getting paid for it.
No one is entitled to free content no matter how evil we think the studios/labels/software giants are.
You seem caught up in this belief that file sharers believe it's inherently wrong but justify it with excuses. It's a shame you can't actually put yourself in other's shoes.
Again, file sharers don't think they're entitled to free content. People are voluntarily sharing it with them. Person A bought a CD, ripped it and voluntarily shared with other people.
The question is, are copyright holders entitled to use the state as their personal weapon to prevent people from voluntarily sharing copies of their property?
I have shared and have been the beneficiary of sharing so I can tell you that I have been in those shoes.
The fucked up thing is that I agree with you guys on so many levels except one. Sharing is fine, sharing is great, copyright holders should not abuse the state to serve their own ends, and the companies pushing for the ability to take down websites, sieze domains, and cut off payment gateways for sites in a way the totally bypasses due process is wrong. I agree with you.
But can't you see why they are able to do this? Technology, specifically the web has turned the issue of sharing into something that we've never seen before.
Put yourself in the shoes of a copyright holder. You've created some work, since we're here on HN let's say it was software. You worked hard and charge $20 for your app. Someone downloads it and pays the first time. They like it so much they share it with their friend. Their friend goes ahead and puts a torrent out there and now there are ten thousand people downloading your app for free (let's say there was no security to stop that or they were able to crack it). So now you're out $20 for every single one of those copies floating around out there.
Sharing used to be no big deal but now that you can download content instantly (or close to it) and "share" content with millions of people, it now has the ability to really hurt people.
If I went ahead and burned a ton of copies of the Windows7 installer complete with license keys that work and then went downtown to a busy intersection and just started passing them out to people would that be okay? Should Microsoft get off my back because I'm just "sharing"?
Just come on, how can no one see the difference between sharing and distribution here? It's obviously harmless to rip a CD and send some tracks out to your friends but when your sharing starts scaling to a point where its in the hundreds and thousands, well that's when I've just got to throw up my hands and say "give me a break". You can't justify that as not being harmful to the creator. At that point it doesn't matter if you're being paid or not.
In the end, its people who are "sharing" on torrent sites that are giving the government an excuse to pass these kinds of laws. I see both sides, I really do, and I think there's a middle ground, we just haven't found it yet.
Let me be clear: my position is still undecided. I'm more asking questions.
You're still arguing from a position that copyright is fine, we just need to tweak it until it works. That's not where I'm arguing from. I'm asking a more fundamental question: even if it hurts badly the content creators (and yes, I'm one), isn't it an abuse from govt to prevent any voluntary copy between people?
Let's draw an analogy with Free Speech: there are people who (ab)use free speech to hurt others. Denying the holocaust, insulting dead soldiers at their funerals, burning books or flags people consider sacred, etc. The people being targeted are often really hurt (psychologically) by how others use their right.
But do those (ab)uses excuse the government to cut down on free speech? A US constitutionalist would say no, because it's a fundamental right. Regardless of how much it can be abused, how much it can hurt people, it's an untouchable right.
The question I'm asking is if people voluntarily sharing (as in, not selling) information between them isn't a fundamental right that should never be touched, regardless of who it hurts.
(I'd like also to suggest that in a copyright-free world, nobody would simply make an app and sell it for $20. Business models are adapted to the reality. It's a possibility that less people would make apps, though)
In principle, you could create the same protections as copyright with a private contract. Just make me agree not to copy your work (except under certain terms) before you'll let me see the work.
Yeah, but if someone breaks the contract and distributes even one copy, the receiver of that copy is not bound by contract and can distribute it at will. Let's say person A buys a CD, makes a copy and leaves it on e.g. Starbucks. Anyone who finds it can legally distribute it to anyone they want.
If you think sharing copies of ripped files with many people is wrong, it's your prerogative, but it's still sharing as long as they aren't getting paid for it.
No one is entitled to free content no matter how evil we think the studios/labels/software giants are.
You seem caught up in this belief that file sharers believe it's inherently wrong but justify it with excuses. It's a shame you can't actually put yourself in other's shoes.
Again, file sharers don't think they're entitled to free content. People are voluntarily sharing it with them. Person A bought a CD, ripped it and voluntarily shared with other people.
The question is, are copyright holders entitled to use the state as their personal weapon to prevent people from voluntarily sharing copies of their property?