Sir, what make you think our situation is historically unique? If you read the history of copyright, you would realize that our is not so special. Rather, the current situation is a continuation of debates that started centuries ago.
The ability for 1/2 the people on the planet to distribute content without meaningful cost barriers is vary new. It's caused people to create and publish far more interesting content in a single day than you can consume in a single day. We are transiting through a tipping point where locating and filtering content is becoming more valuable than creating it.
Consider, on average do you enjoy reading HN posts? In what ways are people compensated for creating them how is copyright relevant for that compensation?
PS: Imagine a clearing house where authors pay random people to read their works in the hope that they might simply up vote it and even paying those who down vote their content.
Printing enough books so that 10 million people can read what you created costs ~1/2 a million dollars. Hosting a torrent with that same content costs anyone with a regular internet connection less than a cup of coffee from Starbucks.
PS: Many people use the internet without actually owning a computer. In this case language and cultural barriers are more important than internet access which says a lot about the world IMO.
It's caused people to create and publish far more interesting content in a single day than you can consume in a single day. We are transiting through a tipping point where locating and filtering content is becoming more valuable than creating it.
I doubt that this is very recent. This has been going on for the last 150 years, if not 200 years. By the time the internet become widespread, we are already trapped in a deluge of information.
I'm pretty sure no one is trying to make a living by creating new HN posts with interesting content. If he is, I need to send him a couple of boxes of ramen so he can eat next week ;)
Your stuck with Post > Money. Some people have gone Posts > Better Job > Money other have gone Post > investor > Lost of Money. That ignores the value of some of the HN discussions I recently had an respond to my post with something 1/4 the size of the linked article. While money did not change hands I suspect we both benefited for level of discourse.
Following this logic, if someone really, really rich creates intellectual property, it's okay for the rest of us to pirate it? It's not like they're creating it to make a living.
Not at all. Actually I am against the logic that you should be able to pirate something just because it is easy and you won't get in trouble. People create works because of copyright protections so that they can make a living.
Can you explain how "if someone really, really rich creates intellectual property, it's okay for the rest of us to pirate it" does not follow from "I'm pretty sure no one is trying to make a living by creating new HN posts with interesting content" in response to "Consider, on average do you enjoy reading HN posts? In what ways are people compensated for creating them how is copyright relevant for that compensation?"? Or am I misreading your first post?
Sir, what make you think our situation is historically unique? If you read the history of copyright, you would realize that our is not so special. Rather, the current situation is a continuation of debates that started centuries ago.