> No one mentioned stealing.

None of these 3 things are theft:

* Enjoying art / downloading;

* Copyright infringement / publishing unauthorised copies en mass / uploading / seeding or "bucaneering" as you put it;

* Remixing / mashups / fan art / performing & modifing work / covering songs / innovating.

Theft deprives someone of something, you are conflating theft with this discussion - a common weasel word.

> Yes everyone shares all the time it is natural and human and those that don't were brought up wrong.

> I do not think I am entitled to anything, life is struggle, you fight to get things, you fight to keep them but I hate being shut out and I hate to see anyone shut out, especially on grounds of poverty or censorship.

I consider artificial scarcity of knowledge & culture heinious.

I utterly dissaprove of everything the RIAA & MPAA do and lobby for.

I believe copyright maximalism to support an incompetent monopoly is an anti-capitalist protection racket.

They abuse copyright to control access to markets, using their monopolies on distribution to force artists into terrible dictatorial contracts and then withold monies and prevent artists from releasing anything that competes with their chosen anodised 'stars' singing appropriated culture on autotune and force it down eveyones throats.

This was their business model for the entire 20th century, music & film suffered terribly from the 'studio system'. So much garbage on the radio & cinema all the time, independant music & film was marginalised and starved out.

Their iron clad grip on publishing & distribution faltered and culture bloomed despite their luddite ravings.

Now weak politicians are bought to legally preserve an antiquated, immoral business model that now harms everyone and everything & stunted progress in the 21st by over a decade - yes progress happens in spite of them but is quickly criminalised.

I believe the fix is simple, give them a fraction of what they ask for in license fees - they are hopelessly inefficient fat cats monopolists and will adapt or die in a fair non-protectionist market.

Enact compulsory blanket licensing compensated using the existing levels of tax on media.

Just like for radio and libraries.

Everyone can do everything - they get paid by share of the media tax alloted to artists by distribution metrics - pay artists straight - cut out the monopolists monopoly.

The Internet is a machine for efficient copying & dissemination.

It is the Gutenberg press. Liberating cultural dispersion like printing liberated knowledge.

They would survive for ages on license payments - because they own the rights to nearly the entire 20th century of music & film.

Reduce copyright terms to ~25-40 years then it goes to the public domain as originally agreed.

Encourage new art to license under GPL to ensure a rich contempory commons before it reverts to the public domain.

At least break up the monopolies, one of the few useful things govt can do to ensure a free and fair market.

The whole thing could be fixed overnight and with the ensuing efficiency there would be a new rennaisance of culture and learning and innovation.

The Scottish Enlightenment came 20 years after basic education was given to all Scots by the Parish act.

> Before that entitlement to basic education was unthinkable.

Which of course led to Hume & Smith who inspired French Idealism and Benjamin Franklin and threw of the shackles off a religious state & invented Capitalism.

Yes freeing up culture from needless antiquated protectionism would change the world.

That was the way things always were since time immemorial; that is the right way.

Sharing the light does not diminish it.

> Yes, I honestly believe art can change the world for the better - free art, freedom to create, freedom to pursue happiness.