First of all:
J Tyran said:
Pirates should step up and be honest too and admit "I want it so I will take it".
That's an inherently loaded analogy, running on the same false comparison as "piracy is theft".
Copying is not "taking". The only thing that writing a copy of a game on your HDD takes away, is the IP holder's privilege to be the one who can tell you that you are not allowed to write that copy.
J Tyran said:
No-one has the right to decide what entertainment you can take without returning fair due.
We are going back to the basic question. How do you know that this exact amount of control truly *is* what is artists' fair due?
Let me put it this way:
Do you think that copyright should end after a limited term? (say, 90 years, as it does now?)
Do you think that the public should have Fair Use rights regarding others' IP?
Do you think that consumers should have used sales rights?
Let's say, that back when the first IP laws were still young, and they were mostly just about books, the US constitution was written in a slightly different way:
"...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing to Authors and Inventors an absolute Right to Control of their respective Writings and Discoveries..."
It's all logical, after all, property doesn't just magically disappear after a few decades either, and it's ownership is absolute, you can't just claim "fair use" on your neighbor's car, so the same should apply to IP.
Now, in this world, centuries later, as music recoding is invented, it is obvious from the first day that covers, remixes, medleys, and other reusings of someone else's work. The Betamax case was won by Sony, and all video recording is illegal, even for time-shifting, as you can't just copy someone else's whole work, it's "their fair due" that if you miss the movie, you have to buy the casette. Used game sales are illegal everywhere, after all, creators continue to control their Property even after you paid for your own private license.
The Internet still exists, though more file-sharing and video-streaming sites are banned, including this one, but piracy is still possible. I you know where to look, you can also find some seedy sites with illegal media on it, like Kamakawiwoʻole's "What a wonderful world", or parody videos like "How the Lord of the Rings should have ended", along with entirely pirated content.
And let's say, that in this world, you suddenly get the idea that copyright shouldn't be
that restrictive after all, that a certain amount of public rights should also be protected, rather than just glorifying creator rights at every chance.
How would you communicate that? Anything that you say, about your right to time-shift movies, would be first seen as "going against the creators wishes". If Sony asked you to buy the casette instead, then why are you denying them?
Any complaint about having to pay for 200 year old novels to the writer's descendants, would be seen as "just wanting free stuff". Any suggestion that artists should have some open access to some Fair Use, would be criticised as "promoting unoriginality" instead of creativity.
How would you make people think outside of hundreds of years of TRADITION of what ended up being criminalized for historical reason, and instead, at least CONSIDER the possibility that the world that they grew up in is already stacked against them, that it pointlessly harms them, and the Earth would keep on spinning if publishers wouldn't get quite THAT MUCH authority over our lives, and we could more freely use media without having to worry about every frame, and every bit?
