Depriving someone of their liberty over interference with a revenue model based on copyright protections is not 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech.
If the content is a movie created in the last 100 years, it was almost certainly created to slot into that revenue model.
The artists have a right to sell their property on their terms. And if they decide to do so by selling their rights to a studio, then that's how it is. And if you don't like corporations, contracts, or the revenue model, then that's completely irrelevant to the parties involved.
You could add restrictions to anything to create business models. Doesn't mean it's natural and helpful to society. The vast majority of movies are tripe and provide no real value to humanity. And the vast majority of revenue go to a few executives and middlemen rather than the artists. The fact that this regime exists now is not proof that it is a good thing - that's circular logic.
Not all stipulations sellers place on items are legal. For example, I cannot sell you a scooter with the stipulation that if I need a kidney, you'll have to donate one to me.
Furthermore, what is and isn't legal is a product of the legislature and the judiciary. Let's not forget that people write laws and interpret laws. They aren't some function of the cosmic order, though it's convenient to posture them as if they were.
When someone "has the right," it's because a group of people gave it to them, and anything that can be given, can be taken away. The fact that we forget this reality is a massive collective hallucination. Once you know how the hallucination works, it's hard to buy into it ever again.
TLDR; The arrow of implication doesn't go from reality -> laws. It goes from laws -> reality.
This is an interesting argument but at the moment the laws say piracy is illegal. And they do so in a way that is super reasonable, no kidneys involved.
The pirated works were created under this understanding of the rules.
In other words, movies and games were financed and made at great expense and effort with a view to selling copies and tickets and making money off of VHS rentals / Netflix streaming. Piracy is a clear subversion of this, and by the way, if it became mainstream, would break the industry that creates some of the things we like.
While the law isn't part of some cosmic order, there's nothing written in the stars that entitles you to every creation of every other person, at your convenience, for free.
Definitely. It's good to point out that these discussions often co-mingle two topics: "What should happen given these laws?" and "What should these laws be?"
I'm glad there's room for both and the gray areas in between.
Do we, for example, have an obligation to those who play by laws we believe to be unjust?
