caryoscelus:~#

I’ll discuss a few different lines of reasoning:

• possibility of irl punishments
• conflict with property and privacy rights
• sharing is good

So first line of reasoning isn’t exactly against copyright, but rather against its usage in current system (in, i believe, most countries) where sufficient “copyright infringement” can get you into jail. Well, the point should be quite obvious: if you’re using copyright, you’re endorsing oppression mechanisms against people who did not do any physical harm (and unlike, e.g. malicious crackers, or frauds, their intent wasn’t to harm anyone in any way, at worst it was to get some profit (though most likely in otherwise deprived way), in many cases just to share). It may even seem that “subverting copyright via copyright means” (i.e. free software and open culture licenses) might be a bad idea, but i don’t have an ultimate answer to that.

Here’s an analogy: if laws dictate stealing a bottle of milk warrants death and you disagree with that, you shouldn’t call authorities when somebody did that to you. Even if you agree that stealing is wrong, it doesn’t mean you should support measures against it.

The second line of reasoning is, perhaps surprisingly to some, about property (and also privacy) rights. To put it most blunt: the so called “intellectual property” is infringement of regular property rights. I don’t even know what to comment on here, it should be evident that forbidding to use your computers or even books in way you like is infringing on your property rights. Actually enforcing copyright laws also infringes on your privacy.

I don’t think anyone can seriously argue about that and the more likely response would be that these are “justified inconveniences” or something along those lines. While it may sound reasonable, the problem here is that either we have to agree that laws are arbitrary (and then so is copyright), or that “intellectual property” is somehow more valuable (to whom?) than regular property. And i believe any convincing argument would then warrant a lot of changes in typical beliefs of copyright supporters.

Finally, there is an argument that doesn’t go from negative effects of copyright, but rather is about positive effects of sharing freely instead. Well, how should i put it? It seems so obvious that when you have unlimited access to all previous work by humanity, you will have easier times building upon it. And when anybody can join your efforts, it can boost your productivity so much more.

But that’s not all: perhaps the most important thing is that sharing is just a nice thing to do. It does not make non-sharing automatically unethical as advertised in the title, but it’s always better to do more ethical thing, right?

I know i’m probably bad at making arguments of such sort, but even if this will not convince anyone, i hope it can at least give readers my perspective.