Didn't say it was. Actually I didn't use the word "piracy" at all (except in reference to the content industry and their perception of what "piracy" is). You're preaching the party line without reading what I've written.
For example, I have no problem with someone using BitTorrent to download something they already bought once, but that they can't use on a new device because of unreasonable DRM. I only have a problem with people who are not paying creators at all, or justify a large amount of copying because of a small/moderate amount of legitimate purchases.
I also agree that a limited amount of free sharing between friends is totally reasonable.
I read exactly what you wrote. You used a characterization of media sharing as "piracy", as "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything". As I said, this is an incorrect and vastly oversimplified view of the issue.
It's not just about heavy handed law enforcement, or about the excesses of DRM, it's also about sharing. If we eliminate sharing (of music, movies, books, etc.) from the world in an effort to fight "piracy" we will have made a grave mistake. Indeed, I think the rampant levels of impersonal sharing we see today with things like bittorrent are probably better for content creators than more traditional levels enabled by libraries and friends and restricted by physical media forms.
The important point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that everyone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to a song needs to have engaged in some economic transaction prior to doing so (through either direct purchase or subjection to advertising) is a wholly wrong and dangerous notion. We can, and do, live in a world where content creators are rewarded bountifully for the work and yet unregulated sharing runs wild and free.
> You used a characterization of media sharing as "piracy", as "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything".
I meant exactly what I said: I am against "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything." I didn't say this includes everyone who downloads things over BitTorrent (and I don't believe that it does). I didn't say this includes everyone who sends their friends songs sometimes (and I don't believe that it does). You made this association, not me.
It does include people who say things like "I just discovered BitTorrent, which is great because now I don't have to pay for movies any more." Which as I mentioned in another comment, includes someone I met in real life just yesterday.
> The important point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that everyone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to a song needs to have engaged in some economic transaction prior to doing so (through either direct purchase or subjection to advertising) is a wholly wrong and dangerous notion.
Well if we're talking in extremes, it is an equally wrong and dangerous notion that the compensation of creative people should be solely dependent on charity, with no recourse against freeloaders. What do you think would happen to the movie industry if the ticket booth at theaters were replaced with an offering plate?
Didn't say it was. Actually I didn't use the word "piracy" at all (except in reference to the content industry and their perception of what "piracy" is). You're preaching the party line without reading what I've written.
For example, I have no problem with someone using BitTorrent to download something they already bought once, but that they can't use on a new device because of unreasonable DRM. I only have a problem with people who are not paying creators at all, or justify a large amount of copying because of a small/moderate amount of legitimate purchases.
I also agree that a limited amount of free sharing between friends is totally reasonable.