Or, you could just google “Luddite”. 

Or read the first paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite .

I mentioned the Luddites only to show that this is not the first time in history that people have complained about shifts in technology threatening their livelihood.

In modern times, what is being obsoleted is not the *making* of content (as with the weavers).  It is the ability to easily control *access* to the content — and hence, to *profit* by controlling access.

The very nature of “copyright” is an acknowledgment that ideas have value to the creator of those ideas, and a large part of that value is the ability to profit off of one’s creation.  Copyright laws have existed for a while.  But recently, they seem to have gotten somewhat draconian.   If people are now worried about putting up a video of their daughter singing a Disney song because Disney lawyers might sue them, then something has seriously gone wrong.

However, there is NO FUCKING WAY I would ask that the entire internet be broken so that I could make money on my film. 

Instead, I will seek to use the internet to my advantage – for publicity, promotion, and – in the end – for dissemination.  If that means I make less money, so be it.  If I am clever, it might mean I make more.   But the point is: a free and open internet is way more important than my ability to make a few extra bux off my creation.  Anyone who says otherwise is a greedy fucking bastard or doesn’t understand the value of the internet.

I swear – people have their heads way out of line.  Even if the internet breaks a few business models, can you not see that destroying it is far, far worse to humanity’s future development?  Can you not see that putting DNS under government/corporate control is a really big, bad deal?

Here is an extremely simple illustration that you might understand outlining the difference between copying and theft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

No matter your semantic or ideological leanings, there is just no way to combine the concepts of “copying” and “theft” together….they are two separate ideas. That’s why we use two different words to describe them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites

“The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanised looms– against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life.”

Well, maybe not THAT funny or twisty, but I don’t think that part of the argument is worth pursuing anyhow. To further address yours, SavvyTennisBalls’ and Andrew Molloys concern: I think Eryq is correct. If I make a video, it has an exact value of zero money (in any currency). I have put time and effort into it, but it’s up to the people to value my time with their attention and maybe even their money.

Now, you can argue that clothes have a more readily apparent value to people, but that is still not a fixed point to make (for starters, many of us COULD get clothes almost for free – or pay orders of magnitude a premium on “fashion”). Similarly, works of art can mean the world to people, making them basically invaluable. Again – this is why I think this line of argument isn’t really worth pursuing.

The actual luddites here are the MPAA and RIAA: They were originally created because distribution of content before the Internet was hard. As it became more apparent that distribution of content would be very simple very soon, they quickly changed their message – suddenly, they were advocates of artists (that they squeezed money from over decades) or in general protectors of property (after some struggle, they somewhat succeeded in creating a new class of intangible goods, now known as intellectual property, which has been wittily claimed to be ‘neither’ by somebody smarter than me).

The more appropriate wikipedia page to quote is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy

“The Luddite fallacy is an opinion in development economics related to the belief that labour-saving technologies (i.e., technologies that increase output-per-worker) increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour.”

There will always be willingness to create art as there will always be willingness to appreciate art. Whether or not that turns into an income for the artist is an unrelated subject and confusing the two into one is a fallacy that many try to profit from.

Last week, a musician that I admire published a new piece of music. I willingly paid the amount that you would normally pay for a full album for an mp3 of that track (it was basically “pay what you want” – and I did want to pay). I didn’t need to do that, but I did.

The problem in our society is indeed that we lack a proper understanding of what artists need because we have heard the same story over and over again. MTV has shown us that “real” artists can acquire luscious houses and the RIAA has reminded us that those artists fear for their money.

I don’t buy it. I think we’re all just people and everybody tries to make as good a living as possible. The ‘industry’ has infected generations of artists with the idea that the world owes them money and some of them really see it as that – as making a living. If that is all that art is to you, then you are dead in side.

I think it’s interesting that you know how the Luddites, people who lived 200 years ago, *felt*.

You don’t every truly know how anyone feels. You can, however, read what they say about how they feel, whether it be from today or from two thousand years ago.

I hate that argument.  If you’re too cheap or too poor to consume a product, then you don’t get it.  Just because it’s a digital product doesn’t mean it’s ok, stealing is stealing.

This may be true, but I’d like to point out that the arguments made by media for draconian enforcement legislation (as well as damages awarded in court) are usually economic arguments, so the point that the OP brings up — how much is infringement affecting the revenue of rights holders? — is a perfectly valid subject of discussion for the debate.

Personally I’ve yet to come across any media I couldn’t afford that I deemed essential and not a luxury. If I can’t afford it then I don’t obtain it, I don’t see the problem with that. My life hasn’t been negatively impacted by the lack of luxuries I can’t afford.

You should try getting a library card sometime.

I myself can barely use my psychic powers to divine the emotions of people who lived in the 60′s, to bolster my own arguments.

What, exactly, *entitles* you to make money from your videos?

Just because you once were able to make a living at something doesn’t entitle you to continue to do so.  There are a lot of professions which have been obsoleted by advances in technology or culture.  Remember, the Luddites were weavers who went around destroying mechanical looms because they felt *entitled* to income that mechanization was making unavailable.

Modern copyright crackdown laws feel just a bit like a well-funded Weaving Lobby using the government to outlaw all mechanical looms, as well as to fine or imprison anyone wearing fabric made on them.

Times change.  Maybe musicians and artists will have to find new ways of making money. 

When it comes to the big players, they are going to continue to wield the weapons they already have at their disposal such as DMCA take-down notices. Instead they are going to focus their efforts on smaller companies that relatively few people would miss, or start-ups. Of course, then they can pull these figures together and argue that the legislation works before attempting to get something even more stringent in place.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this point, but surely this law can only be realistically applied to DNS boxes located within US territories. Yes, it may limit the activities of those relatively clueless about computers, but surely it will utterly fail to thwart anyone who can change to use a “black” DNS in another country.

Being “compensated properly for your art” is a myth perpetuated by the people who rake in the highest profits on art. Of course, those are not the artists.

If creating and enjoying your art is not the highest pleasure to you, you are not an artist, you are a salesman. That’s fine – we do need salesmen in this world. But they should not pretend to be able to speak for artists.

Property is defined (both in English and legally in most jurisdictions) as covering both physical and intangible property. I’ve never seen a proper definition of theft/stealing that explicitly says anything of depriving the original owner. So as far as I can tell from the actual definitions of these words IP theft really can be called theft. Now whether you want to argue then that specifically certain things are “property” and whether they are owned by the creators/licensors then that’s a different argument. Lets face it people are only arguing the use of the words “theft”/”steal” to assign how justifiable or bad it is. This is about how much rights the “owners” have over distribution of their works. Loss of revenue etc are all red herrings. 

Personally I’ve yet to come across any media I couldn’t afford that I deemed essential and not a luxury. If I can’t afford it then I don’t obtain it, I don’t see the problem with that. My life hasn’t been negatively impacted by the lack of luxuries I can’t afford. If the owners want to free their stuff like Cory does then I’ll happily take advantage and then pay in some way (e.g. buy his books in physical form), I’d rather respect the wishes of the people’s creations I’m using, I’d want the same of others for me.

Sure it’s a low bandwidth solution, but like hell it can ever be shut down across the board.

Problem is when you’re like me and live rural on finding one.

[Edit] Apparently copyright-wingers do consist, in some part, of people who think copyright infringement is theft, as evidenced by this board. Judge me not by the dipping of their bags, but by the contents of my tea.

Stealing? Infringement? What revenue is lost? What rights are violated?

It’s getting very Schrodinger in here….