He has played the media at least as well as his lawyers have done in court, but you also have to factor in that people are pretty fucking tired of the copyright industry being so heavy handed.
Breaking copyright is so normal, at least among those younger than 40 that almost any reponse would be seen as too heavy handed. Choppers and armed police, however are completely of the scale.
NZ is being oppressed by the US? Like the whole pirate revolution fantasy, there is no basis in reality. IP is not going away anytime soon, at least in free countries. The pirate party would have to be, at least in the US, one of the two major parties and even then it would be difficult. Either people can choose how to license their work or there are no licenses. I don't see a middle ground.
Of course it is. What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it isn't the latest attempt to bludgeon other countries in toeing the USA's (i.e. the MAFIAA's) line in IP?
> Like the whole pirate revolution fantasy, there is no basis in reality.
There are currently Pirates elected in 7 countries, which is good going for a movement that's only been in existance for 6 years. Other politicians, for example in the EU, are already modifying their policies to take account of the Pirates' popularity, which they wouldn't be doing if it was just a "fantasy".
> IP is not going away anytime soon, at least in free countries.
IP in its present form is clearly going away. Consider shows like Game of Thrones which more people downloaded than legally watched. While IP law will change slower than IP reality (because law is a trailing indicator), it too is likely to change as Pirates win power in Europe.
> The pirate party would have to be, at least in the US, one of the two major parties and even then it would be difficult.
The Pirate Party wouldn't have to win in the US at all. If it gains power in Europe, it'll have the clout of the world's largest economy behind it, and the USA will no longer be able to impose its IP laws on the rest of the world.
Nor will the USA be able to prevent unauthorised copying via websites in other countries, unless it disconnects its internet from the rest of the world's, which isn't practical.
> Either people can choose how to license their work or there are no licenses.
Once a work is published, it will increasingly be out of the control of the creator. Savvy creators, such as Amanda Palmer or Cory Doctorow, already realise that and have adapted to the new reality. Those who refuse to adapt will go excinct.
The exception to this is works that are programs, which will be able to use DRM systems running on the internet, such as Valve's Steam.
Other savvy people realize that the way things are going, making any kind of living at creating information goods is going to be increasingly difficult, so they go do other things. In some cases, that's no great loss, in other cases, we are the poorer for it in terms of never getting to see what they may have created.
> Other savvy people realize that the way things are going, making any kind of living at creating information goods is going to be increasingly difficult, so they go do other things.
That's true. When goods are both non-rivalrous and non-excludable, they tend to be underproduced in a market economy. One solution would be for the state to produce such goods (e.g. in the UK, the BBC). Another possible solution would be my proposal for a broadband tax -- http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax-fo...
> See: "that which is not seen"
On the subject of things not seen, how much innovation has the current IP regime destroyed? I can think of several websites that ought to exist, but which don't, due to copyright law.
Breaking copyright is so normal, at least among those younger than 40 that almost any reponse would be seen as too heavy handed. Choppers and armed police, however are completely of the scale.