Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

Thank you for mentioning Libraries! As a librarian, I'm always getting shocked faces when I tell patrons what is accessible with their library card

I used to pirate a lot of stuff, when I couldn't afford it. Now I only pirate things that I a) already paid for (and want a more convenient way of using it or to ensure it can't be taken away) b) can't obtain any other way, or c) don't know if I will like it, so I use the pirated version as a demo of sorts

Well I'd argue that two things can be wrong at the same time and I see OPs image mostly as a humorous jibe at the dubious practices that have risen with digital content. When you buy a Disc you can resell it, and the company can't knock on your door and say "Excuse me, we'd like the disc back but we'll keep your money". With a digital movie you just obtain a license to view it that you can't resell and can be taken away from you at any time (the cases I know of are admittedly rare till now and caused at least some public unhappiness and in some cases even law suites IIRC). All at the same or even higher price than before.

Then there is the fact that I'm all for using the correct terminology. When you steal something that something is lost to its previous owner. Piracy isn't stealing it's copyright infringement. Companies just prefer to call it stealing because it sounds more evil. Same with the billions of losses through piracy that they complain about. They are based on the wrong premise that every copy is a lost sale, which just isn't true. Take you for example: you can't afford it, so you personally don't loose them anything. And maybe you even buy some stuff you wouldn't have if you hadn't pirated it, or something else from that company before that you really liked. Then I remember people from my school days who had all the movies, all the games, anything. But when you asked "How is it?" they mostly answered "Oh, I haven't played it". I doubt this kind of "collector" would do the same if it actually cost them money, even if they had the means. In short those number are inflated to make the problem appear bigger than it really is.

Is it still a problem/ morally wrong? Probably, but it does put things in a different perspective for me.

And no, I don't need to justify anything to myself. My limiting resource is time, not money, so I buy my fish in the supermarket instead of trying to catch it on the high seas ;) Doesn't stop me from grumbling about them, obviously

Copyright is not a natural law - there is nothing natural about for example not telling a joke to somebody else without first tracking down the person who invented it and agreeing on payment for being allowed to tell it.

And, no, I'm not exagerating: as soon as it is created that joke legally has a copyright, owned by its creator, and sharing it (and that includes "public performances" such as telling it to your friends) requires the authorization of the owner of that copyright in that joke.

The only reason you don't see people fined for telling jokes is because it's not enforced because it's not worth the trouble (plus it would quickly turn people against Copyright).

So, now that we've shown that Copyright does in fact go against the natural human tendency to share - literally it's anti-natura - then that means it's an artificial construct created by man, so a law, written by lawmakers, with all the problems that rules made by politicians have.

Now, if you look at the justification for creating such an artificial restriction on the naturaly human tendency of sharing what you heard, it's to "incentivise creation", which "benefits all because the copyrighted work will go into the Public Domain at the end of the copyright period".

This makes sense, and it might even have been true in the beginning but it's not anymore:

• You see, when this Law was first made the copyright period started as 25 years, which meant that copyrighted works did indeed go into the Public Domain to be freely enjoyed by all, but over the years that period has extended (go look at the various time when that period was extended and you will find the "strange" "coincidence" of it happenning when the first Mickey Mouse movie was about to go out of Copyright in the US) and is now around lifetime of the creator plus 50 years (more in certain countries, such as the US), which means that almost none of the creative works we grew up with (in our childhood) will never go into the Public Domain before we're dead and burried.

Think about it: under the current Copyright Legislation, for every single one of us and for all effects and purposes the "contract" between Society and cultural creators were Society enforces an artifical limitation to the natural human act of sharing and in return cultural creators make works which although at first requiring payment to enjoy, will one day be free to enjoy has been broken - we will never freely enjoy those works we've known since our childhood, the payment that Society (in other words: all of us) was supposed to get for that artificial limitation to sharing.

If a contract has been broken the injured side (that would be Society) doesn't have an obligation to abide by it.