Before starting to discuss this topic, I'd rather recommend watching this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

In order to become aware of what is goona be discussed.

The copyright. Certainly the Author of anything in the world of information is the only person who owns the product, but does it mean this person should be able to have the exclusive right of copying, lending or broadcasting it? If yes, and if finally rightholders and prohibitants of copying and internet anonymity, such as Bono (U2) and MPAA win the battle for copyright, the ones who own the rights will be financed each time anybody get's their productand this even makes them stop the development forward, or at least slows it down. The end of anonymity and the end of so called "pirates" will enable labels and corporations enrich endlessly without necessity of going forward.

From the other hand, the real producers of software, music and movies, the people who work for the corporations: designers, musicians, programmers and other professionals are not really damaged by pirates as it is usually told. Simply because everyone of them has contracts with the firm they are working for, while adobe, Microsoft and other corporations, despite of having the world biggest turnover are constantly prosecuting the simple people for downloading and sharing their products, motivated by the fake theft.

In fact the pirate activity is only able to slow down the coming money floods and it doesn't mean the company (or moreover its stockholders) will have losses, while only slowing down of their billion revenues which are finally reached anyway is hypothetically having place.

Everyone sees (can see, I mean), that despite of even such a huge pirate activity like it had happened with the Avatar movie (despite of millions of "stolen" copies, data available on google, this motion picture was able to set up a financial record which will not be broken nearest time) the peaks are still reached by the rightholders. But they doesn't seem to be glad enough to stop fighting for copyright.

Thus I believe the pirate activity and informational exchange, which includes copying of law-protected products is not really a crime worth of being prosecuted with all that severity taking place at the moment.

So, what are your opinions about the copyright? Have you ever downloaded, exchanged or lended any of protected stuff? Should we ban any type of unauthorized informational exchange or should it be easier?

That is what I'd like to discuss.

Copyright theft is just that. Theft.
It's no different than walking into a store and stealing the movie off the shelf.

Had Avatar not been done in 3D the effects of piracy would have been much much greater.

It's irrelevant who is profiting from these properties. Whether its the artists or the producers or distributors, someone is losing money on an investment.

It's not fake theft as you stated - it's real theft. If you rob a liquor store, you can't reason that they have more liquor to sell anyway, and you're not really hurting their profits. If you're a pirate, you're a thief and you should be prosecuted. Try telling your tale to a judge, and see who wins the lawsuit.

You take your hard earned money, time and work and put it on a project you're working on... You expect to make profit from this project after it's finished, however once it's done you become a victim of piracy.. Your project has been downloaded illegaly 10,000 times and only 100 people paid for the actual item.. Would you like this to happen to you? There is no excuse, it is theft and stealing, there's is no other way to put it.

It's actually funny listening to people trying to legitimize illegally downloading products.

Creating a backup copy of a product you PAID FOR AND OWN is not theft. It's considered safeguarding your investment.

Creating a copy and distributing it all over the Internet is illegal distribution and IS theft for the people downloading it.

Does the typical "downloader" pay for a copy? No. Will they ever pay for a copy? Probably not. So if you have something you've obtained illegitimately, you didn't pay for and will never pay for, how is that not theft?

Downloading a copyrighted movie without paying for it is theft.

...But... My issue with the current state of copyright enforcement is where is the line?

If you buy a book, read it, and let me borrow it. I read it and return it to you have I stolen it?

What about me reading the newspaper you bought? Or going over to your house to watch the DVD you bought?

I didn't pay for any of those things yet I derived value from them.

What if you make a copy of the DVD you just bought and let me take it home to watch?

Again, where is the line and can we put our foot down before we're getting arrested for picking up that discarded newspaper to read?

Huge difference between giving a copy of your DVD to your friend and giving a copy of your DVD to 10,000+ anonymous people.

While I can see your side of the argument, it is flawed under current law. Should taxpayers be funding enforcement of copyright laws? I think not, anyone else wants to protect their IP, they file a civil case, and pay their legal fees, but with enough campaign contributions and lobbyists you to can buy a law and have the US Government enforce it at taxpayer expense. Copyright is a fairly new concept in the grand scope of things, and came about some 400 years ago, while IP has existed since the dawn of man. Should exclusive rights be enjoyed by the creator? Absolutly! For life + 75 years? No, where is the value back to the world for their exclusive grant?

Should taxpayers be funding enforcement of copyright laws?

Of course. As a tax payer you don't get to pick and choose which laws your dollars enforce.
That would be like saying our tax dollars shouldn't go to paying police salaries.


Should exclusive rights be enjoyed by the creator? Absolutly! For life + 75 years?

Yes to both, assuming the authors wishes to retain copyright. If I pass the copyright on to a family member for royalties how is that any different than passing on the family business?

While I agree lobbyists and campaign contributions have influenced the passage of certain laws, they are still the law of the land and enforceable. Are you advocating picking which laws you should obey or ignore? Whether it's a new concept is completely irrelevant.

I am not advocating which laws we should ignore or obey, I'm advocating pressure on our elected officials to address our grant of copyright to holders. Being a new concept is not irrelevant at all, it is the basis for this discussion actually. Well, the OP is trying to justify theft, which I do not agree with, but our grant from the people to the rights holders is out of kilter as well I feel.

Nothing wrong with advocating pressure on our elected officials to address our grant of copyright to holders. I would agree that our grant from the people to the rights holder is out of kilter as well, but until copyright law is revised, it is what it is. Holding the belief that existing copyright laws are somehow flawed, or doesn't apply to you because you perceive no harm, doesn't make pirating any less illegal.

Well now, isn't that what revolutions and ultimately liberty are all about? Demonstrators in certain places have no right to demonstrate, because that's the law, or so the authorities say. It doesn't mean they shouldn't do something about it, even if it means engaging in an (momentarily) illegal activity.

There will always be arguments about the correct time limit. In this particular case, I will dispute the notion of "value back" as you put it. Why should a modern Mozart have a legal or moral obligation to give something back to the world? It is the world that must give him something for the years it took him to become what he is and create what he did.

If you plow a field, collect the grain and then "give" it to people who need it or enjoy it, don't you expect something in return? How would it be fair for the world to expect you to give any "value back" to the world for the right of not having the grain stolen from you (other than the taxes we all pay anyway)?

It can be argued that the very idea of a time limit on copyright is a concession that the "world" made to itself, for practical, but ultimately self interested reasons.

The issue is the copying part. I see no copying in your examples. You're free to sell what you own be it a book, a DVD (though not copies of them). i doubt you'd be able to sell a newspaper these days though.

The value back is derivative works

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. In any case, if you sell cakes made out of my wheat, you should give me what I deserve for the effort of growing that wheat. The fact that you made the cake, doesn't mean you should have my wheat for free. Without my wheat, there would be no cake, and you would probably have to be a farmer instead of an -- arguably more respected -- chef. Same thing with copyright.