Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

We've seen this tactic before: proponents of draconian copyright laws intentionally conflated "copying" (as in the digital world) with "theft" (as in "you wouldn't steal a car" -- are you familiar with this campaign from 2004 that largely backfired?).

So that's why words matter. You are misusing them in a way that has been weaponized in the past, which is why I and many others are vigilant and quick to correct you.

You state this as fact, but the anthropological consensus doesn't agree with this.

Early hunter gatherer societies are thought to have been communal, with no notion of property. It's not "human nature".

> How do you mobilize thousands of humans to create a boeing 747 which is unionization of multitudes of people crystallizing ideas and focusing human effort to creating a feat of an idea that no single human can create? Capital and centralization of power.

This is an ideological argument, which is fine, but nothing anywhere close to "the truth", and especially, not the only or best way to organize things.

You want to have this argument, fine, but you'll have to step down from the teaching desk and accept your belief is not universal.

This is an utter lie. Not just false. But dishonest. Nothing was shown. What happened was, the person (me) stated regardless of whether or not it's theft or not, none of your logic works. It doesn't matter if it's theft, it's just pedantic bullshit on your part, so why don't we just go with it to move the argument forward.

Why did you lie here? Obviously because you're wrong and covering shit up.

>I'm not nitpicking, you're factually wrong.

Whether or not your nitpicking, when everyone sees you talk you look like your nitpicking and being overly pedantic about everything. Let's keep the argument moving forward and just say what you're doing is morally and ethically equivalent to nitpicking. Whether it's actually definitionally nitpicking doesn't matter.

>Have you read important works about the distinction, such as Lessig's "Free Culture"?

Yes, I’ve read Free Culture. But have you read the works of Dr. Emilia Hartmann (‘The Myth of Cultural Lock-In: Reassessing Intellectual Property Narratives’, 2009), or Professor Takuya Nishimura’s ‘Property, Commons, and the Illusion of Freedom’ (Oxford Review of Law and Policy, 2013)? These, along with Michael D. Carroway’s ‘The Economics of Restriction: Why Free Culture Fails the Creative Class’ (Cambridge Digital Law Journal, 2015), systematically dismantle Lessig’s assumptions. Even more directly, the anthology edited by Sophie R. Klein and David M. Torres, ‘Beyond Free Culture: Regulation, Autonomy, and the Digital Public’ (2017), is often cited as the definitive rebuttal.

I mean if you read even one of these things, you'll know you're severely misinformed.

>It's frustrating because this is akin to discussing, yet again, the moral panics of the olden days, long settled but (apparently) brand new generations without an understanding of the past want to resurface them.

The past is the one that's irrelevant. Times have changed. You're still walking 10 miles to get to school while the rest of the world now drives cars. Wake up.

The only reason people went to streaming in the first place was that Netflix was cheap and, arguably, a heavily subsidized monopoly in the streaming space.

So yeah, some kind of DVD/BluRay business could very well work in the US and Canada.

The raw materials used to create a boeing 747 are not rare at all. They are easily accessible. The aggregate value of material cost of a 747 is significantly less than the actual value of the 747 itself meaning that much of the worth of the 747 is in the crystallization of the idea of what a 747 is. The 747 is at it's core an idea, that's what separates it from just being a just a mishmash of random materials. It is at it's core an IP.

Yes it's not infinitely copyable so it doesn't suffer from the ill effects of software. But they are one in the same, it's just that the 747 has additional protections of the "idea" being encrypted into the plane itself and the people who make the plane. Software the idea is fully crystallized into a single place: the source code and it suffers from being easily copied.

This is where IP law comes from. The idea of a 747 is by nature not easily copied, so people didn't need to instantiate the concept of IP because by default it's just harder to copy. IP was invented because of the distinction between ideas that are easily copied and not easily copied. People wanted to bring the properties of the 747 to software.

>Remains to be seen. There should be no functional difference between raising hundreds of millions from venture capitalists or crowdfunding. We just need to find ways to raise these platforms to the billion dollar scale.

I think we're in agreement. We agree on the benefits and downsides of IP. You just think that altruism could function just as well as the incentives created by IP and it seems you're clear that there is currently no evidence to support your hypothesis other than a smattering of freak anomalies like Linux. Whether that evidence will materialize in the future remains to be seen.