That lawyer is probably the person who has made the most money off of TPB. Of course they don't regret it.
It was helpful for me to meet and talk with people who have the opposite opinion and perspective of me. Not because we changed each other’s minds (my mind wasn’t changed), but because I saw that these were people who really thought they were protecting and fighting for the rights and protections of artists and creators. As I said, it didn’t change my opinion about how misguided and ultimately harmful those fights have been (especially towards the parties they want to protect), but I did at least see that not all of them are evil boogeyman who just want to get money.
I think the truly worst people alive right now are really, really fucking charming and 'nice' to have dinner with in a fancy hotel - they get plenty of practice - but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible.
> but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible.
This is not meant to excuse that response, but I do want to point out that it is the rational and "easy" path of response. When people make ideas the core of their personality and survival, threats to those ideas are now personal threats. The path of coming to challenge and change those ideas is a hard road in most cases. It takes a very strong and brave person to change their mind on a core belief.
The better way IMO to approach it is to ensure people don't get caught in the position in the first place. Don't make beliefs the center of yourself, make values the center, and choose them carefully and with nuance. It allows you to change course on beliefs or ideas with much less pain and personal internal sacrifice. That needs to start early though, way before anyone at that table sat down for their meal. It's an education issue, an early one at that.
They have tons of money, they’re highly educated, well connected individuals, are they not? All they have to do is spend one Saturday reading up. With the money they have, they can even hire researchers to do some original research for them. My guess is that they don’t want to know. Money has a way of suppressing one’s good side.
I am having a hard time sympathizing with these lawyers. They go after students, poor people for downloading a song or two. They’re the reason for the sorry state of copyright laws
Blaming lawyers for the state of copyright laws is doing a huge service to the legislators that pass them and the lobbyists who write them.
Belief in yourself and your cause is irrelevant. Most people have that regardless of what they do.
Maybe a bit of a truism, but it is a popular quote for a reason
Doesn’t mean they are evil, just that they’re paid enough to set aside any moral concerns they have.
1. If you disagree with the base assumptions of copyright, you are going to misunderstand the law and fail your LSAT/bar exam/etc. You will be blinded by "it's just to keep big companies afloat" to notice the actual rules of things like fair use.
2. If you get a law license but disagree with the base assumptions of the law, you are going to be at a financial disadvantage by refusing to represent clients whose politics disagrees with yours.[0]
3. If you choose to represent copyright defendants, you can only do so to the extent that there is a legal argument that they can make. It is illegal for a lawyer to aid a client in the commission of a crime... and if your legal career is based around the idea that something shouldn't be a crime, then you will need to hold your tongue and pick your battles a lot.
4. If you somehow jump through those hoops and competently represent clients... you probably have sacrificed on your "abolish copyright" ideology a fair bit.
[0] Remember that at this point you are probably deep in student debt - your legal career is predicated on you paying back your loans by charging your clients lots of money.
I used to work as a software developer for a banking startup, and a lot of emphasis was placed on things like KYC, AML and "compliance", whatever that is.
Fundamentally, I hated all those things with passion (including how they force everyone to use a bank to transact - and here I am working for a bank), because I don't believe they any institution or government should be forcibly gatekeeping and spying upon anyone's transactions.
It's really hard to work at a place that contradicts your own convictions. When I was fired, it was a relief.
Look at Kim Dotcom / Mega Upload for an example of who the big winners are in the piracy space. Some of it is big business, so it's easy to see the lawyers' side. I'd still consider myself pro piracy because it creates a floor in terms of how bad big companies can treat us, but there are some participants that deserve to be chased by lawyers.
The argument against copyright maximalism should not be made on the basis that "nice" pirate sites can exist - in fact, you should advocate for copyright reform or reduction on the basis of the least tolerable, most scummy site that should be allowed to exist.
[0] insert any other non-scummy pirate site here
> the lawyers honestly think they are doing the right thing
Reminds me of:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
I mentioned nutmeg intentionally. 10g of nutmeg will cause quite like LSD states, and I'm not sure why, but no one anywhere considers nutmeg a drug. I'm also not sure how this was discovered as consuming even half a gram of nutmeg would be a pretty amazing feat.
>A drug is any chemical substance that causes a change in an organism's physiology or psychology when consumed.
So yes, both nutmeg and pot are plants and drugs when consumed with the right dosage. Nobody considers nutmeg a drug as it's rarely used as one in their presence.
And it was probably discovered when nutmeg was used for food preservation.