Originally Posted by hajile
On this planet, humans alone are capable of collecting, recording, collating and sorting, analysing and transferring abstract information. This trait is seemingly one of a very short list of human-only aspects. It is the closest thing that humans have to a fundamental right. The interesting thing to note about the spread of information is that the default is to keep quiet. If a person keeps some piece of information to himself (himself referring to both male and female sexes), then it never spreads. It is the persons decision if this remains the case forever or if the person desires to tell it to another person. If this choice is made, the default is no longer true. While the original person can opt to refrain from telling anyone else, but the choice to spread the information further is now in the hands of another (the originator has lost exclusive control).
The fundamental rights in the US constitution all imply freedom of information to be a fundamental right (most of the specific rights are special cases of a general principle). The question then becomes one of which fundamental rights are given up.
According to the US Supreme Court (fox v doyal), the exclusive purpose of copyright is to ensure more public works for the general good of the people (not the government or content producers). This fits well with the idea that the "copyright bargain" is a one-way deal struck between the government and content creators (with the government representing the majority of the public). The People state (through congress) that they are willing to give up their fundamental right for X time in exchange for public works. The content creators are free to take or leave this deal, but have no fundamental right to restrict information after they choose to release it (they do however retain the right to keep their works to themselves).
From this, it can be deduced that significant piracy does not and cannot exist if the government is carrying out the will of the people. Let's take a look at the cases. In the first case, there are few people "pirating" information. If this is the case, then special laws restricting everyone in the name of special interests is unjustified and handing enforcement to these special interests is even less justified. In the other case (where it is alleged that piracy is a significant problem), this cannot be as the assumption must be that a large amount of The People are unhappy with the "bargain" that congress has struck and are voting with their actions to repeal and revise the laws. At such a time, it is congresses duty to change the laws and the "piracy problem" disappears as those who were formerly pirates are no longer while the content creators are still free to keep future information to themselves.
The problem here is that certain megacorporations would go out of business if they didn't produce more content because other indy providers would be more than willing to adhere to different terms while producing the content that consumers desire.
What you have written is beautiful but, as you can easily read in this thread, most people simply do not understand or want these constitutionally guaranteed rights. They have been brainwashed into a good vs. bad paradigm in which the 'pirates' are bad and the mega corporations are good, thus the person who can barely get by becomes the villain but the billionaire manager or CEO becomes the hero.
Another thing that most people do not know, understand or want to know is that the constitution of the US was destroyed when title code 28, paragraph 3002 was passed:
US CODE: Title 28,3002.
(15) "United States" means —
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
The US protects the rights of corporations so vehemently not just because it has the best government money can buy but because it is a corporate entity. I don't know how much clearer this law can possibly make it, when it says Federal corporation.
As for 'piracy' itself. It has been proven through several studies that 'piracy' increases sales and is paramount for development, the elimination of which isn't possible. Imagine if fire or the cooking of food, clothing, any form of construction or design could have been patented and the copy or reproduction of which could have been prohibited. Where would our society be today?
Last, these starving billionaire CEO's are crying their eyes out about how their millionaire artists aren't going to get anything from piracy when music artists, for one, make their money from concerts and not record sales. They can cry me oceans and drown in their own pathetic, salty tears. Their business model is dying and there are enough artists who are now fighting the system tooth and nail. Rage Against the Machine showed you don't need a label company to make a huge song and that guy PSY and his Gungnam Style video has around half a billion views on Youtube alone, with millions of views on Chinese websites too (no idea about Korea, Japan or elsewhere in the Far East).
Here in China copyrights barely exist but musicians and film stars are still extremely rich. They don't need the police to enforce their greed, they do it through hard work.