Copyright - why it's wrong?

Hello digital enthusiasts!

The ability to download and upload content is fundamentally a civil right. However, some, particularly among digital content managers and producers, may disagree. Therefore, I aim to provide some insights, focusing on the current situation and the human aspect of this issue.

Globally, legislation tends to be overwhelmingly restrictive against individuals who download and upload data over the internet, a stance I actively oppose. The outdated intellectual property laws primarily benefit a small group of stakeholders, enhancing and protecting their wealth. These laws hinder the natural human activity of data replication, restricting our freedom to operate independently on our own computers and networks.

Philosophically, defining freedom is challenging due to the subjective nature of such abstract concepts. Nevertheless, I believe that freedom is the ability to act without harming others. This raises the question: where is the line between harm and no harm? It's up to individual judgment, which should evolve to discern acceptable behavior that balances objective and subjective perspectives. In my view, my perception of freedom aligns closely with this balanced perspective and is inherently non-harmful.

Through numerous online discussions, I've identified key concerns:

With the vast number of internet users likely engaging in illegal downloads or uploads at least once, it's absurd to criminalize such widespread behavior. The ease of accessing music, movies, books, and software online shows that the act, essentially clicking links, is benign.

Digital goods represent a new category of products. While the ease of copying might impact sales, it also facilitates the spread of quality content, which was unfeasible before the internet and peer-to-peer networks. This natural selection for quality is something piracy, a term I find misleading, inadvertently promotes, allowing for grassroots revolutions in content distribution.

The argument that one copy equates to one lost sale is unprovable and flawed. The practice of copyright holders multiplying downloads by retail price to calculate damages, often leading to exorbitant fines, is purely business-driven and ethically questionable.

No one, including content creators, should have the exclusive right to determine the means of distribution. Free distribution, stemming from the replication rather than theft of data, should not be punishable, as it doesn't directly harm anyone and can actually benefit the content creator.

Historically, revolutions in thought and practice take time to be accepted and integrated into legislation. The resistance to recognizing downloading as a common-sense, morally acceptable act comes from those profiting from outdated technologies. The digital and cryptocurrency revolutions face significant opposition from established interests, which often mislead creators about defending their rights. Personal boycotts of artists like Metallica, Prince, and Iggy Pop reflect individual responses to their copyright stances.

Equating copying with stealing is misleading; theft involves loss for the owner, unlike copying, which doesn't deprive anyone of the original item. This distinction is crucial in understanding the nature of digital goods.

In conclusion, if you disagree with these views, consider this: I advocate for peace and the decriminalization of downloading and uploading, while the opposing side supports profit-driven, fear-based legal restrictions. In debates on copyright, I often challenge proponents to disclose their own downloading habits, which usually leads to their withdrawal from the discussion. Don't be a hypocrite.