Speaking for myself (I am also a developer), I am concerned with the circumvention of due process and presumption of guilt that is built into these bills. If I am operating a service that someone files a complaint against, especially if I am a startup, I have very little recourse before my business is trashed. This is independent of whether or not I am guilty of anything, or my users have submitted infringing content to my service. Content owners and federal agencies have a historical lack of concern about the accuracy of their claims, so I would like to ensure that they have to be rigorous before they can take down my service. They should have to prove to a judge that I am in fact in violation of the law before they can cut off my source of income.
Speaking to the philosophical issue that pg raised, I believe people have a right to attempt to make money from their efforts. I also believe that they most definitely do not have a right to be successful in that attempt, regardless of how much effort they have put in. They also do not have a right to continued success if the world around them changes. What works on Monday may not work on Friday, and the fact that it worked Monday should not serve as a guarantee that Friday's endeavor has a right to success. If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so. The same goes for the software I produce. If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Personally, I interpret a circumvention of due process and an attitude of "guilty until a successful appeal is filed" as a burden on society.
This is the most salient explanation that I have seen on HN, although some points need rebutting. For instance
>If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so.
That is only true after the law has been changed, at least from a legal standpoint.
> If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it.
Same as above.
Most responses on HN have been something like "if you want to make money from your creation you should use kickstarter and give it away after that". This is a very foolish attitude both realistically and philosophically. I have every right to use the current laws to my advantage and an obligation to my investors to do exactly that.
I have no problem with flouting laws if they are truly unjust, but I have no sympathy for piracy profiteers like Kim Dotcom because he knew very well what he was doing. Copying between friends can never be stopped but if you make enough money from it you are a valid target.
I would consider the law unjust once it crosses the line into being a burden on society. That's obviously not a black and white transition, although I gave part of what I consider to be over that line in my last response. From my perspective, SOPA, as proposed, was (is?) an unjust law, in that it meets the criteria I specified for what I consider a burden.
It's worth making the distinction between legal rights and natural rights. Obviously, if a particular draconian and unjust law were passed that guaranteed the right to secure your 3kb of data, then you have the legal right to do so. That fact has mostly no bearing on your natural right to do so.
It's also worth noting that sharing between friends and someone making a large profit off of sharing are not the only options. It is not hard to envision a situation with a large amount of sharing and no one profiting directly the way kim dotcom did. It has the scale of the profiteers, but the intent and profitability of the between-friends sharing. I think it is a lot harder to find someone worthy of being called a criminal in such a situation.
Speaking to the philosophical issue that pg raised, I believe people have a right to attempt to make money from their efforts. I also believe that they most definitely do not have a right to be successful in that attempt, regardless of how much effort they have put in. They also do not have a right to continued success if the world around them changes. What works on Monday may not work on Friday, and the fact that it worked Monday should not serve as a guarantee that Friday's endeavor has a right to success. If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so. The same goes for the software I produce. If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Personally, I interpret a circumvention of due process and an attitude of "guilty until a successful appeal is filed" as a burden on society.