The copyright cultist/s trolling these threads switch between preferring to use random on-the-fly nicknames and registered ones.

Generally speaking, they use registered nicks more sparingly, usually because some TF readers have this nasty habit of going back to previous instances of where that nick posted just to verify that s/he is in fact contradicting themselves/flat-out lying once again.

Once it proved impossible for registered nicks to spew insane BS without being put in place, is when the registered ones began restricting themselves to occasional appearances only. The bulk of the copyright cult dogma being peddled by disposables – such as “fitta” and “bobmail”.

It’s original intent is instructive. It was created, lo those many years ago, for the sole purpose of restricting dissent and centralizing power. That is still it’s most important function.

The copyright defender (a label I’m not directing at you, don’t get me wrong), like the avowed capitalist, will nearly always try to restrict conversation to the theoretical. By removing context and all practical realities from the discussion, their perpetually specious reasoning can pass muster by those predisposed (by culture/upbringing/etc) to acceptance.

The purpose of copyright is to restrict information, and centralize control/ownership of profit generating ideas, products, and concepts.

They say ‘The same rules apply to everyone!’, but of course within the framework of capitalism that is only true in the most abstract sense.

Just as with the notion that ‘every citizen is equal under the law’, wealth makes a very small percentage of the population a hell of a lot more “equal” than others.

The law, on paper, applies to everyone equally. In reality? The wealthy are not subject to the same scrutiny as the poor. On those rare occasions when they are actually scrutinized there is a long line of enablers, friends, employees, and others seeking to curry favor ready willing and able to mute the repercusions of that scrutiny. On the even more rare occasions when they cannot escape scrutiny and are actually investigated, the same dynamic occurs, but with even greater pressure. Should they actually be charged with a crime and taken to court? Prosecutors (a position designed to be subject to the influence of the wealthy) face an uphill battle to say the least. They are buried in legal maneuvering and have limited public resources to respond, they’re pressured by the politicians that owe their careers to the same people being investigated… Well, you get the point if you weren’t aware of it already.

Context matters.

Independent artists and creators are subject to the same dynamics under the current system. Copyright simply makes them easier prey for larger collective for-profit entities.Copyright provides a legal framework that those with the most resources use to batter those creators with content that the larger entity wishes to own/control/profit from. Sure, it’s possible for some private individual to successfully use the copyright to restrict use of their creation, but in the vast majority of cases they are faced with the choice of selling out/surrendering control, going into life-changing debt fighting court cases, or seeing their creation languish in obscurity – ‘protected’, but unseen. Copyright is a legal bludgeon that is wielded almost exclusively by the wealthy.

Further, as we see with bittorrent, it is used to centralize (and thus control) the flow of information. A site might have thousands of non-copyrighted works available free to the public, but if one user (including agents of the same larger entities bent on destroying the net) uploads a copyrighted work, the law as envisioned by copyright barons could then be used to confiscate the website’s domain. Easy peazy.

Copyright is a tool of censorship, oppression, and exploitation. The exceptions exist only to allow those receiving the overwhelming share of ‘benefit’ to justify the system’s existence to a largely disinterested public.

One has to think not about abstract concepts, but how things actually play out in the capitalist world in which we all live.

Like capitalism itself, copyright can be portrayed by eloquent liars and the misinformed as a framework for the protection and benefit of all. It is not. The power of money ensures a very different outcome in the real world, and that is the most critical truth in any analysis of the system.

Copyright is wrong, plain and simple.