On one hand, I understand the dangers from a philosophical viewpoint. On the other, I don't care what Amazon considers their rights or licenses with my Kindle.

I'm going to read what I want to read, when I want to read it, on my Kindle, whether Amazon wants me to or considers me to have a license or not. Basically: I don't care what the EULA states for my Kindle.

It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss.

If it ever came to the point of Amazon disabling Kindles for sharing this viewpoint, then I'm sure there would be a groundswell of support for an open-source OS for the Kindle and we'd all get coding. In the end, I'm not all that scared.

> if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss.

Right, except you don't have the right to do that. You have no carte blanche entitlement to access media or entertainment. If the executives at HBO figure that, financially speaking, it's in their best interest to keep new Game of Thrones episodes accessible to cable customers only, you have the right to not buy it and be frustrated at that and protest it until eventually enough people protest for HBO to budge.

What you don't have the right to do is then to circumvent the legal and technological system set up for you to purchase Game of Thrones and access it for free, which, yes, is fucking theft. I can hear the scoffing through TCP/IP.

And you're not just harming the company, you're not just harming the already rich suits at HBO. This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. People figure getting their music for free is a more rational individual choice than paying $16 for a CD. Everyone then makes the decision to get their media for free. Who cares about those stupid record labels, anyways?

Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists that they used to be able to support from the money they made on the more successful artists, the more successful artists have to stop relying on royalties from album sales and have to whore themselves out doing nonstop touring year-round for money. Thank God it's physically impossible to "pirate" concert tickets.

I know we're going on a tangent here, but people often falsely conflate open-source access to information and piracy into this one big, happy revolution against the evil gatekeepers and their evil transactions that involve my money. No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period.

Actually, piracy is the act of forcefully commandeering another's maritime vessel; theft is the legal act of taking & depriving another of property, and I'm really not sure what "fucking" has to do with it at all.

Piracy is the correcting hand of the free market, where obtaining things for free is easier and less byzantine than by paid channels. Psychological research has proven time and time again that most people are willing to pay, but unwilling to have their personal rights trampled by draconian licensing and DRM.

Luckily your opinions, however misinformed, are irrelevant because anyone who understands this will never give up the fight. We understand how international trade deals and copyright law are being used offensively against the public, and we will not relinquish control over the devices we've rightfully purchased.

I'd suggest you get used to it. We're here to stay.

>[something semantic and pedantic about maritime vessels vs taking other's property]

Piracy, or copyright infringement, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, and theft have the same practical effect : you're accessing a consumable good without paying the requisite cost, your individual crime may not have a large effect on the ability of the seller to provide for that good, but, on the large scale, if everyone committed your crime, you would severely affect the seller's ability to both 1. provide for him/her/their-self and 2. provide that good to the people. So, for all intents and purposes, yes, piracy is theft in cause & effect, if not in literal, philosophical definition.

I said it in my first post. If paid channels are byzantine and draconian, don't pay. You still don't have a right to the content. Just don't buy it. That's "fight" enough. That's "protest" enough.

>[some extremely condescending and pretentious teenage bullshit about "not giving up the fight"]

No, buddy, you're not on some morally righteous journey to freedom. Ironically enough, the DRM, DMCA, and the Gestapo-ification of the MPAA and RIAA only exist because of people like you. The executives and middlemen (i.e.: cable networks, record labels, publishers) hate piracy because it severely harms their bottom line, the artists hate piracy because it harms their livelihood, the consumers hate piracy because it leads to annoying DRM and other counterpiracy measures that end up harming paying consumers most. The only people that are lifting their fists in the air with you are, bingo, other pirates.

If you are a programmer, security researcher, artist, or entrepreneur you can make a difference.

1. As an individual: if you understand the methods, contribute to open-source tools that allow individuals to exercise their rights. https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools (one example)

Artists: Use self-publishing platforms (gumroad, bandcamp, even spotify...) and self-incorporate. Discriminate against giving your business to companies that don't support open, sane protocols. Don't let them exert their power against the populace through backdoor trade deals.

Entrepreneurs: Create new content delivery and streaming platforms that force the transition to digital--rightsholders like to claim that piracy is responsible for their failed economics, though the truth is that they had an artificial market advantage of scarcity. User-generated content has bloomed with the advent of digital, and more consumer choice is a death knell to the traditional monopoly.

2. As a cause: support the EFF, and any politician looking to work with the FCC who understands this issue is deeper than "restricting content," and could undermine the rights of property and security of ownership. Do not trust anyone who does not comprehend the societal implications of critical infrastructure being "security through obscurity." http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001303221

The security of your laptop, the concept of personal ownership, and your right not to be digitally inspected at over 40 international borders is at stake.

* figure revised to more accurately reflect the reality of the american justice system.