And some might disagree with that notion. That said, bittorrent's only use isn't copyright infringement. It can be used legitimately as well, and in quite a few cases, it is.
That seems, to me, a good explanation why only a subset of violent video game players become aggressive.
I don't deny that they may push mentally unstable people over the edge. But that's not really surprising. Not to mention that again, even if violent video games do cause certain players to have violent thoughts, the thoughts likely go away soon and almost never translate into action. From what we've seen, there is absolutely no reason for law makers to get involved. There is likely no perfect solution, and a few people who abuse things (such as acting on violent thoughts) will always exist.
In your reply you shifted the argument from "do violent games promote aggressive behavior" to "why do they cause aggressive behavior and what is the magnitude of the phenomenon?".
When I was speaking of aggressive behavior, what I really meant was the employment of physical violence. Then I went on to speak of a hypothetical situation where even if violent entertainment caused people to have violent thoughts, that still wouldn't be enough of a reason for law makers to get involved. If it does cause these thoughts, it really doesn't matter all that much to me. It might, I don't know.
Experimental or not, it still doesn't explain why a large portion of video game players aren't actually violent. I mean, we're talking about correlation right now, correct? The group of people that become violent (or their violence is merely triggered) from playing a violent video game (or viewing violent media) appears to be abysmally small.
Not to mention that even if people start thinking violent thoughts because they played/viewed violent media, merely having violent thoughts isn't a reason to ban/censor/take away violent video games (from children or otherwise). People can control their own actions, and as statistics seem to prove, they do (a majority of the population aren't criminals despite many of them being subjected to violent media).
It's not even worth worrying about the few people who would act on those thoughts, if they exist.
You think you'd have the same opinion if your kid got knifed or caught a stray bullet due to an escalated situation caused by some other child's aggressive behavior?
1) Correlation does not equal causation. 2) If that happened, the other child was likely mentally unstable to begin with. Even the most naive children are able to differentiate most forms of fiction from reality, let alone teenagers. And even more children are able to differentiate the two if they have decent parents. 3) Even if I were to change my mind because something similar to that happened, that would prove nothing more than the fact that I would have a biased point of view. 4) It truly is odd given the number of children and teenagers who play/view violent entertainment that most of them likely aren't violent, isn't it? The statistics simply don't add up.
No banning is necessary. Even if a few people who were already mentally unstable are affected by the video games, banning them for everyone (even just children) is a terrible, terrible idea (whether that banning be by the parents, the stores, or by the state). All that is needed is a decent parental figure to inform the few who can't differentiate fiction from reality that what they are playing/viewing is, in fact, fiction. The ones who are truly that mentally unstable probably should steer clear of violent entertainment, however.
Yeah, but I was mainly talking about violence. The number of people who play a video game and then go out and murder someone is very, very small indeed. Aggression has always been common.
However, they have been shown to cause aggressive behavior in children and young teens (who are still learning what is socially acceptable behavior).
Even a child's mind is not that fragile (let alone a teenager's). Given the number of children and teenagers that play violent video games, the amount of them that are violent and possess minds that are that fragile appears to be abysmally small and not worth worrying about.
A large majority of the population at large, even people who would usually be considered 'normal', must be aggressive, then. There's few people that don't view violent material. But, then again, they're not aggressive or violent. Most of them are just 'normal' people, with very few who aren't. The average persons' mind is likely not so fragile as to be altered by mere entertainment, violent or not. If the average mind truly was that weak, society would likely have destroyed itself by now (well, there would be far more violent people, at least). Looking at the statistics, I really don't see how you could come to this conclusion.
Well, if all of that failed, you're probably not going to be safe regardless of the website you visit. In addition to viewing the amount of seeders/leechers and reading the comments, you could always just download from a trusted account.
Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.
People who keep voting for the "lesser of the two evils" are exactly why we keep ending up with politicians who are only slightly better than their competition, but still tremendously corrupt. It is the "third parties have no chance" (not that you necessarily displayed that in your post) attitude that prevents third parties from ever winning, not the fact that they are third parties. Instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, vote for someone good, and encourage others to do the same so that hopefully we'll be able to break this cycle sometime in the future.
If a fast internet connection is of such importance to you , maybe you need to move somewhere where it's available.
Because everyone has money to move to another location, correct (and for a hobby or way to kill time, no less)? No. I'd say it would be better if this solution was fixed. Telling people to move elsewhere isn't going to help. Not to mention that even in certain parts of some cities people are still stuck with inadequate internet connections.
Also, if it was just surfing that these people wanted, dial up probably wouldn't be that big of a problem (unless they are extremely impatient). Online games, downloading large files, and practically anything that isn't just loading a few lines of text are all perfectly valid reasons for wanting a decent internet connection. People should not have to move just for that, and there is a serious problem if they truly must.
Hell, you can enjoy life just fine without touching the net for weeks.
Except if it's your favorite hobby, you mean. There are people who don't like sports or other such activities, and no hobby is better than another since their value is completely subjective (even though some might be more healthy). Your life may not be ruined without it, but some people would greatly prefer to have a decent internet connection.
To deprive (or damage) someone of something that they had or owned previously. That could be health or property.
What if the chance was bumped up to 100%?
You still never had the money in the first place, so no.
Have I harmed you?
Aside from cheating the process (which didn't harm you anyway), no. It does sound like economics was the one of the causes of your misfortunes, though.
We do not have unfettered access to it, as we are still limited to the many ways we get access to it (e.g. withdrawing from an ATM or in person, credit/debit cards, electronic transfers, etc).
The money is still there, is ours, and it exists now. This is absolutely not potential loss.
You keep saying that, but you provide no arguments in favour of such a ludicrous view.
Other than what I've already said? The only change is in your state of mind, and in many cases, even that isn't guaranteed. You have lost nothing that you already had (data or otherwise).
I guess not; the unborn children were pretty much all pure "potential".
You're inflicting actual, physical harm upon something that exists now. You are damaging a living being right now. Why is this so difficult to understand?
You sound like the kind of person who would trade his friends and family for [insert cheap material thrill]. Surely there must be something in your life that you value more than your things?
My health and the well being of others?
Isn't that now just a circular argument?
No. As you can imagine, it is difficult to put into words. Harm is not something that occurs in the future, it is something that occurs now. If you stab me with a knife, you've hurt me now. Not later, now. You deprived me of my health. Something that I had previously. Again, it isn't that difficult to grasp what I was attempting to say.
What if an artist feels an immediate sense of loss (for the potential sale) when someone pirates their work?
It isn't merely an opinion in my belief. That's like saying, "what if artists feel a sense of harm when someone decides not to buy their product?" You'd likely say that is absurd and the person who decided not to buy the product shouldn't be prosecuted. Likewise, my definition of harm is factual, not opinionated.
If I skim the interest of your bank account in a way that you never notice, have I harmed you?
If I lose something that I had previously, then yes.
Is your reputation something you can be deprived of?
Harm through speech? Is such a thing even possible? I'd say that people need to stop being imbeciles by listening to whatever unproven gossip comes their way.
To answer your question: maybe. You do 'have' a reputation, correct? I'm not completely certain about this. However, since I am an advocate of complete free speech, I'd say this is fine.
Surely you can't ignore their value?
Actually, I can. They go completely against my definition of harm, if that's what you mean. If you're asking if they are a good business opportunity, then possibly. The only 'harm' comes from voluntarily losing whatever money or property you invested in the first place, not from losing out on the investment (which is just a loss of potential, and not something you actually had).
Would you accept that most people, if not you personally, would prefer to invest, rather than not?
Yes. It sounds like a good opportunity to make money.
Have I harmed the people who invested?
Did they ever have the money? If not, then no, you haven't harmed them.
Yes, but unfortunately, it isn't reason enough for the millions of uncaring drones who don't understand what DRM is to not buy it. They will probably let themselves adapt to this scheme whilst proclaiming that the situation "could be worse."
Someone just downloaded my copyrighted material! I feel myself... fading. Somehow, I can magically tell if someone on the internet broke a copyright law!
What would it take to prove to you that you don't "actually have" the money you've given to the bank?
You can't. According to society, it is mine. Losing it would therefore harm me. If I had over $100,000, then that is a shame. I would be harmed because I had the money.
According to society, artists are entitled to their potential sales.
Yes, and this is what I'm debating. Almost, anyway. I don't want to merely take this away. I would rather the rest of society change with it.
It's only when you withdraw money that it becomes your cash.
Do I or do I not have money that is mine (even though it is represented by data) that is being stored by the bank? They exchange this for real money, and therefore it carries as much value as real money. If the bank were to lose this data, its value that it carries would also be lost. This sense of loss is immediate, and it is something that I actually possessed (even if it wasn't being held in my hands).
I guess for an artist, their money also exists right now
'Their' money only potentially exists in the future. They do not have it now. Not even in digital data.
Society, by and large, recognises the value of potential, and so robbing people of that potential is an act of harm.
Unless they have something already, no harm was done.
What person B has or doesn't have currently is irrelevant! It has long been recognised that material loss is not the only way to experience loss.
By whom? Not by me. I believe that in order to be harmed (by 'theft'), you must have the object in the first place. Otherwise, you are left exactly as you were before in terms of physical (or perhaps digital) possessions. The only thing that might change is your state of mind.
There's no guarantee whatsoever that a given work would exist without copyright, since artificial scarcity is a major influence in these works being made.
There's no guarantee of anything. But, you're correct. That's why I believe that merely removing copyright and leaving the rest of society unchanged would be a poor decision.
I stole your wallet? Oh, it certainly would be better for you if you had it, but it's not like I "harmed" you.
The sense of loss in this scenario is immediate. My wallet is something that I had previously, and you stole it from me. My state of mind is not the only thing that changed. The number of possessions that I owned decreased due to the fact that you stole something that I previously had. That is actual harm.
Well, all I "deprived" you of was potential years of living, but you never "actually had" any of it (I mean, you could have been hit by a bus on the way home!), so by depriving you of potential years of living, you weren't at all harmed, were you?
The harm you inflicted upon my body was immediate.
No offence, but you may well be one of 50 or so people who view the inherent problems with selling art as a death knell for the entire capitalist system.
You're incorrect. This is not the only reason that I despise capitalism.
It breeds corruption among the government (as people who are raised in a greedy society are unlikely to not be greedy themselves). It breeds theft due to the existence of people who society failed (and that is a guarantee when you live in a society that utilizes currency). It also separates people into different classes (people with more money will likely have more power, and those that have less money will likely be treated with contempt). It is also often responsible for numerous damages to living beings and the environment. If it is profitable to do something, it will likely be done, even if it hurts the planet or living beings (chemical dumping, planned obsolescence, irresponsible waste disposal,
I'm fairly certain there's at least a few laws in place that protects up to around $100,000 for you if the bank that stores your money actually does go under.
No, you truly do not "actually have" the money.
According to society and the bank you do. It doesn't exist in the future. It exists now.
because without them, they would have nothing.
You're right. But they never had the money in the first place, so they remain unchanged.
If person A pirates the works of person B, they are stripping person B of their legally-granted rights, causing a worse situation for person B, and more often than not, a better situation for person A.
The better situation for person A is irrelevant because they don't actually remove anything from person B to be in that better situation. Person B isn't in a worse situation because they have everything they had previously. They lost nothing.
So, what exactly is the problem with copyright? You say "patched", I would say "fixed". What problems with copyright are you referring to? What exactly does artificial scarcity not solve?
Artificial scarcity is unnecessary and prevents people from obtaining things (in some cases, educative resources) that they would otherwise have. While that doesn't harm them, they'd certainly be better of if they had them (at no one else's expense). Instead of reforming society to get rid of its capitalistic practices, they employed copyright to patch the problem. It's probably nice for artists now, and I don't blame them, but to leave such a gaping flaw wide open only hurts all of society (and there are more culprits than just artificial scarcity). Scarcity in general is an atrocious way to run society.
The same could be said if the bank merely stored your physical money. Whether or not it's physical is irrelevant. It isn't potential money. It is money that you currently, according to the bank, have.
More than enough to justify the law's existence.
Actually, I merely meant to imply that maybe it is true that they would have less of a chance of making money that they don't currently have, not that that equates to harm.
What suffering?
I was speaking of the suffering of the artists if copyright law was merely removed and the rest of the system was left in place due to the existence of currency that everyone must have to participate in this society. Pirates aren't actually suffering (other than when they are treated as thieves and such), as far as I'm aware.
Frankly, I cannot see how one law could be blamed so much for the choices of others.
That one law isn't being blamed. The entire system is to blame. All copyright law does is patch the problem through the use of artificial scarcity.
On top of that, there's the extremely significant possibility that people will pirate, even if they know that they could buy it.
I predict that it takes good programmers to make good software. Furthermore, I predict that it also takes time and effort to teach someone how to use software that they never used before, and is in no way limited to open source software.
What do you mean, you "actually have" the bits storing your bank account?
I don't know what you're talking about. All of the data on my computer is mine. I own it. The bank says those bits are mine, and therefore I have them. If they are deleted, I have less. Of course I'm going to choose the bits (which, in this current society, are apparently worth as much as money) if I have a considerable amount of them. Whether or not I can hold them is irrelevant. Just like the data on my computer, I currently own them. I also never said that digital data is worthless (not anymore so than physical money).
If an artist creates a popular work, then he will, in theory, obtain considerably more money with copyright than without, because everyone who wants a copy and who is prepared to pay the price on offer, will actually buy a copy.
From a businesses or artists point of view, I'm sure that's nice.
taking
Doesn't happen.
they undermine this effect.
Maybe. It really depends on if the people who received the free copies were able to (especially this) and were going to buy the product in the first place.
The law says that the artist is entitled to this not happening to them, and punishes any such undermining.
Yes. I suppose it currently does. Due to the existence of artificial currency and no fault of the copyright infringers, stripping away copyright law and leaving the rest of society like it is now would merely shift the suffering to the artists. A drastic change would be needed to fix all of these problems that things such as copyright are only able to patch up at best.
and have no value or use other than what can be derived from the corresponding law.
Not really. My data is worth as much as I say it is (how much value I place in it). It doesn't have to mean anything to the rest of society.
Last I checked the average IQ is around 104 which means for everyone that actually bothered to learn about an issue and to weigh its merits you'd have a HS football field full of knuckle draggers that would believe anything the TV told them to which would pretty much torpedo your "power to the people" idea pretty quick.
So in other words, we'd be exactly where we are now: politicians lying and controlling the people. The only difference, of course, is that the chances of corruption would be slightly less than they are now.
Furthermore, I'd rather have an ignorant group of people have the chance to vote on some issues than have power-hungry, corrupt, corporate tools vote exclusively on them with little representation of the people.
That is why I think the ONLY way a more direct democracy could work would be to bring back poll tests to weed out the most stupid.
We aren't talking about a direct democracy.
I mean if you can't even answer the most basic of questions like "what are the three branches of government" or "what is the difference between a state law and a federal law" then why should you have the right to screw things up for everyone else?
"Screw things up"? Like the current politicians are doing now (especially for things related to new technology)? Ignorance doesn't magically vanish in a small group of people, nor are politicians geniuses, even if they know slightly more about politics than the average tool.
I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with the so-called stupid people rather than the people I know for a fact are doing wrong and are corrupt.
Give power to the people and you'll find pretty fast that a lot of people are quite happy to have immigrants and homosexuals hanged, to ban even more stuff than the government, to react with short-sighted, self-destructive strikes....
There are more than two options, you know. There is a middle ground where the power of the government is reduced and the people have more (but not all) power (and still must work within the bounds of the law and the constitution). That sounds more ideal than the corrupt system we have now (even if only slightly so).
Slashdot Mirror
And some might disagree with that notion. That said, bittorrent's only use isn't copyright infringement. It can be used legitimately as well, and in quite a few cases, it is.
That seems, to me, a good explanation why only a subset of violent video game players become aggressive.
I don't deny that they may push mentally unstable people over the edge. But that's not really surprising. Not to mention that again, even if violent video games do cause certain players to have violent thoughts, the thoughts likely go away soon and almost never translate into action. From what we've seen, there is absolutely no reason for law makers to get involved. There is likely no perfect solution, and a few people who abuse things (such as acting on violent thoughts) will always exist.
In your reply you shifted the argument from "do violent games promote aggressive behavior" to "why do they cause aggressive behavior and what is the magnitude of the phenomenon?".
When I was speaking of aggressive behavior, what I really meant was the employment of physical violence. Then I went on to speak of a hypothetical situation where even if violent entertainment caused people to have violent thoughts, that still wouldn't be enough of a reason for law makers to get involved. If it does cause these thoughts, it really doesn't matter all that much to me. It might, I don't know.
Experimental or not, it still doesn't explain why a large portion of video game players aren't actually violent. I mean, we're talking about correlation right now, correct? The group of people that become violent (or their violence is merely triggered) from playing a violent video game (or viewing violent media) appears to be abysmally small.
Not to mention that even if people start thinking violent thoughts because they played/viewed violent media, merely having violent thoughts isn't a reason to ban/censor/take away violent video games (from children or otherwise). People can control their own actions, and as statistics seem to prove, they do (a majority of the population aren't criminals despite many of them being subjected to violent media).
It's not even worth worrying about the few people who would act on those thoughts, if they exist.
You think you'd have the same opinion if your kid got knifed or caught a stray bullet due to an escalated situation caused by some other child's aggressive behavior?
1) Correlation does not equal causation.
2) If that happened, the other child was likely mentally unstable to begin with. Even the most naive children are able to differentiate most forms of fiction from reality, let alone teenagers. And even more children are able to differentiate the two if they have decent parents.
3) Even if I were to change my mind because something similar to that happened, that would prove nothing more than the fact that I would have a biased point of view.
4) It truly is odd given the number of children and teenagers who play/view violent entertainment that most of them likely aren't violent, isn't it? The statistics simply don't add up.
No banning is necessary. Even if a few people who were already mentally unstable are affected by the video games, banning them for everyone (even just children) is a terrible, terrible idea (whether that banning be by the parents, the stores, or by the state). All that is needed is a decent parental figure to inform the few who can't differentiate fiction from reality that what they are playing/viewing is, in fact, fiction. The ones who are truly that mentally unstable probably should steer clear of violent entertainment, however.
Yeah, but I was mainly talking about violence. The number of people who play a video game and then go out and murder someone is very, very small indeed. Aggression has always been common.
However, they have been shown to cause aggressive behavior in children and young teens (who are still learning what is socially acceptable behavior).
Even a child's mind is not that fragile (let alone a teenager's). Given the number of children and teenagers that play violent video games, the amount of them that are violent and possess minds that are that fragile appears to be abysmally small and not worth worrying about.
A large majority of the population at large, even people who would usually be considered 'normal', must be aggressive, then. There's few people that don't view violent material. But, then again, they're not aggressive or violent. Most of them are just 'normal' people, with very few who aren't. The average persons' mind is likely not so fragile as to be altered by mere entertainment, violent or not. If the average mind truly was that weak, society would likely have destroyed itself by now (well, there would be far more violent people, at least). Looking at the statistics, I really don't see how you could come to this conclusion.
Well, if all of that failed, you're probably not going to be safe regardless of the website you visit. In addition to viewing the amount of seeders/leechers and reading the comments, you could always just download from a trusted account.
Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.
People who keep voting for the "lesser of the two evils" are exactly why we keep ending up with politicians who are only slightly better than their competition, but still tremendously corrupt. It is the "third parties have no chance" (not that you necessarily displayed that in your post) attitude that prevents third parties from ever winning, not the fact that they are third parties. Instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, vote for someone good, and encourage others to do the same so that hopefully we'll be able to break this cycle sometime in the future.
If a fast internet connection is of such importance to you , maybe you need to move somewhere where it's available.
Because everyone has money to move to another location, correct (and for a hobby or way to kill time, no less)? No. I'd say it would be better if this solution was fixed. Telling people to move elsewhere isn't going to help. Not to mention that even in certain parts of some cities people are still stuck with inadequate internet connections.
Also, if it was just surfing that these people wanted, dial up probably wouldn't be that big of a problem (unless they are extremely impatient). Online games, downloading large files, and practically anything that isn't just loading a few lines of text are all perfectly valid reasons for wanting a decent internet connection. People should not have to move just for that, and there is a serious problem if they truly must.
Hell, you can enjoy life just fine without touching the net for weeks.
Except if it's your favorite hobby, you mean. There are people who don't like sports or other such activities, and no hobby is better than another since their value is completely subjective (even though some might be more healthy). Your life may not be ruined without it, but some people would greatly prefer to have a decent internet connection.
Because there's still others who aren't like that who are left without a fast internet connection.
Explain it to me like a dictionary would.
To deprive (or damage) someone of something that they had or owned previously. That could be health or property.
What if the chance was bumped up to 100%?
You still never had the money in the first place, so no.
Have I harmed you?
Aside from cheating the process (which didn't harm you anyway), no. It does sound like economics was the one of the causes of your misfortunes, though.
We do not have unfettered access to it, as we are still limited to the many ways we get access to it (e.g. withdrawing from an ATM or in person, credit/debit cards, electronic transfers, etc).
The money is still there, is ours, and it exists now. This is absolutely not potential loss.
You keep saying that, but you provide no arguments in favour of such a ludicrous view.
Other than what I've already said? The only change is in your state of mind, and in many cases, even that isn't guaranteed. You have lost nothing that you already had (data or otherwise).
I guess not; the unborn children were pretty much all pure "potential".
You're inflicting actual, physical harm upon something that exists now. You are damaging a living being right now. Why is this so difficult to understand?
You sound like the kind of person who would trade his friends and family for [insert cheap material thrill]. Surely there must be something in your life that you value more than your things?
My health and the well being of others?
Isn't that now just a circular argument?
No. As you can imagine, it is difficult to put into words. Harm is not something that occurs in the future, it is something that occurs now. If you stab me with a knife, you've hurt me now. Not later, now. You deprived me of my health. Something that I had previously. Again, it isn't that difficult to grasp what I was attempting to say.
What if an artist feels an immediate sense of loss (for the potential sale) when someone pirates their work?
It isn't merely an opinion in my belief. That's like saying, "what if artists feel a sense of harm when someone decides not to buy their product?" You'd likely say that is absurd and the person who decided not to buy the product shouldn't be prosecuted. Likewise, my definition of harm is factual, not opinionated.
If I skim the interest of your bank account in a way that you never notice, have I harmed you?
If I lose something that I had previously, then yes.
Is your reputation something you can be deprived of?
Harm through speech? Is such a thing even possible? I'd say that people need to stop being imbeciles by listening to whatever unproven gossip comes their way.
To answer your question: maybe. You do 'have' a reputation, correct? I'm not completely certain about this. However, since I am an advocate of complete free speech, I'd say this is fine.
Surely you can't ignore their value?
Actually, I can. They go completely against my definition of harm, if that's what you mean. If you're asking if they are a good business opportunity, then possibly. The only 'harm' comes from voluntarily losing whatever money or property you invested in the first place, not from losing out on the investment (which is just a loss of potential, and not something you actually had).
Would you accept that most people, if not you personally, would prefer to invest, rather than not?
Yes. It sounds like a good opportunity to make money.
Have I harmed the people who invested?
Did they ever have the money? If not, then no, you haven't harmed them.
Which gives me a reason not to buy it.
Yes, but unfortunately, it isn't reason enough for the millions of uncaring drones who don't understand what DRM is to not buy it. They will probably let themselves adapt to this scheme whilst proclaiming that the situation "could be worse."
Someone just downloaded my copyrighted material! I feel myself... fading. Somehow, I can magically tell if someone on the internet broke a copyright law!
Has demonstrated a disregard for the possible "collateral damage" related to released information.
Did any collateral damage ever occur?
All they need to do is check with them if it is a harmless mod. They don't have to check with them about everything else.
What would it take to prove to you that you don't "actually have" the money you've given to the bank?
You can't. According to society, it is mine. Losing it would therefore harm me. If I had over $100,000, then that is a shame. I would be harmed because I had the money.
According to society, artists are entitled to their potential sales.
Yes, and this is what I'm debating. Almost, anyway. I don't want to merely take this away. I would rather the rest of society change with it.
It's only when you withdraw money that it becomes your cash.
Do I or do I not have money that is mine (even though it is represented by data) that is being stored by the bank? They exchange this for real money, and therefore it carries as much value as real money. If the bank were to lose this data, its value that it carries would also be lost. This sense of loss is immediate, and it is something that I actually possessed (even if it wasn't being held in my hands).
I guess for an artist, their money also exists right now
'Their' money only potentially exists in the future. They do not have it now. Not even in digital data.
Society, by and large, recognises the value of potential, and so robbing people of that potential is an act of harm.
Unless they have something already, no harm was done.
What person B has or doesn't have currently is irrelevant! It has long been recognised that material loss is not the only way to experience loss.
By whom? Not by me. I believe that in order to be harmed (by 'theft'), you must have the object in the first place. Otherwise, you are left exactly as you were before in terms of physical (or perhaps digital) possessions. The only thing that might change is your state of mind.
There's no guarantee whatsoever that a given work would exist without copyright, since artificial scarcity is a major influence in these works being made.
There's no guarantee of anything. But, you're correct. That's why I believe that merely removing copyright and leaving the rest of society unchanged would be a poor decision.
I stole your wallet? Oh, it certainly would be better for you if you had it, but it's not like I "harmed" you.
The sense of loss in this scenario is immediate. My wallet is something that I had previously, and you stole it from me. My state of mind is not the only thing that changed. The number of possessions that I owned decreased due to the fact that you stole something that I previously had. That is actual harm.
Well, all I "deprived" you of was potential years of living, but you never "actually had" any of it (I mean, you could have been hit by a bus on the way home!), so by depriving you of potential years of living, you weren't at all harmed, were you?
The harm you inflicted upon my body was immediate.
No offence, but you may well be one of 50 or so people who view the inherent problems with selling art as a death knell for the entire capitalist system.
You're incorrect. This is not the only reason that I despise capitalism.
It breeds corruption among the government (as people who are raised in a greedy society are unlikely to not be greedy themselves). It breeds theft due to the existence of people who society failed (and that is a guarantee when you live in a society that utilizes currency). It also separates people into different classes (people with more money will likely have more power, and those that have less money will likely be treated with contempt). It is also often responsible for numerous damages to living beings and the environment. If it is profitable to do something, it will likely be done, even if it hurts the planet or living beings (chemical dumping, planned obsolescence, irresponsible waste disposal,
Try using the money if the bank goes under!
I'm fairly certain there's at least a few laws in place that protects up to around $100,000 for you if the bank that stores your money actually does go under.
No, you truly do not "actually have" the money.
According to society and the bank you do. It doesn't exist in the future. It exists now.
because without them, they would have nothing.
You're right. But they never had the money in the first place, so they remain unchanged.
If person A pirates the works of person B, they are stripping person B of their legally-granted rights, causing a worse situation for person B, and more often than not, a better situation for person A.
The better situation for person A is irrelevant because they don't actually remove anything from person B to be in that better situation. Person B isn't in a worse situation because they have everything they had previously. They lost nothing.
Are you disagreeing with society's use of money?
Yes.
So, what exactly is the problem with copyright? You say "patched", I would say "fixed". What problems with copyright are you referring to? What exactly does artificial scarcity not solve?
Artificial scarcity is unnecessary and prevents people from obtaining things (in some cases, educative resources) that they would otherwise have. While that doesn't harm them, they'd certainly be better of if they had them (at no one else's expense). Instead of reforming society to get rid of its capitalistic practices, they employed copyright to patch the problem. It's probably nice for artists now, and I don't blame them, but to leave such a gaping flaw wide open only hurts all of society (and there are more culprits than just artificial scarcity). Scarcity in general is an atrocious way to run society.
You don't "actually have" them, the bank does.
The same could be said if the bank merely stored your physical money. Whether or not it's physical is irrelevant. It isn't potential money. It is money that you currently, according to the bank, have.
More than enough to justify the law's existence.
Actually, I merely meant to imply that maybe it is true that they would have less of a chance of making money that they don't currently have, not that that equates to harm.
What suffering?
I was speaking of the suffering of the artists if copyright law was merely removed and the rest of the system was left in place due to the existence of currency that everyone must have to participate in this society. Pirates aren't actually suffering (other than when they are treated as thieves and such), as far as I'm aware.
Frankly, I cannot see how one law could be blamed so much for the choices of others.
That one law isn't being blamed. The entire system is to blame. All copyright law does is patch the problem through the use of artificial scarcity.
On top of that, there's the extremely significant possibility that people will pirate, even if they know that they could buy it.
I'm aware of this.
I predict that it takes good programmers to make good software. Furthermore, I predict that it also takes time and effort to teach someone how to use software that they never used before, and is in no way limited to open source software.
What do you mean, you "actually have" the bits storing your bank account?
I don't know what you're talking about. All of the data on my computer is mine. I own it. The bank says those bits are mine, and therefore I have them. If they are deleted, I have less. Of course I'm going to choose the bits (which, in this current society, are apparently worth as much as money) if I have a considerable amount of them. Whether or not I can hold them is irrelevant. Just like the data on my computer, I currently own them. I also never said that digital data is worthless (not anymore so than physical money).
If an artist creates a popular work, then he will, in theory, obtain considerably more money with copyright than without, because everyone who wants a copy and who is prepared to pay the price on offer, will actually buy a copy.
From a businesses or artists point of view, I'm sure that's nice.
taking
Doesn't happen.
they undermine this effect.
Maybe. It really depends on if the people who received the free copies were able to (especially this) and were going to buy the product in the first place.
The law says that the artist is entitled to this not happening to them, and punishes any such undermining.
Yes. I suppose it currently does. Due to the existence of artificial currency and no fault of the copyright infringers, stripping away copyright law and leaving the rest of society like it is now would merely shift the suffering to the artists. A drastic change would be needed to fix all of these problems that things such as copyright are only able to patch up at best.
and have no value or use other than what can be derived from the corresponding law.
Not really. My data is worth as much as I say it is (how much value I place in it). It doesn't have to mean anything to the rest of society.
Last I checked the average IQ is around 104 which means for everyone that actually bothered to learn about an issue and to weigh its merits you'd have a HS football field full of knuckle draggers that would believe anything the TV told them to which would pretty much torpedo your "power to the people" idea pretty quick.
So in other words, we'd be exactly where we are now: politicians lying and controlling the people. The only difference, of course, is that the chances of corruption would be slightly less than they are now.
Furthermore, I'd rather have an ignorant group of people have the chance to vote on some issues than have power-hungry, corrupt, corporate tools vote exclusively on them with little representation of the people.
That is why I think the ONLY way a more direct democracy could work would be to bring back poll tests to weed out the most stupid.
We aren't talking about a direct democracy.
I mean if you can't even answer the most basic of questions like "what are the three branches of government" or "what is the difference between a state law and a federal law" then why should you have the right to screw things up for everyone else?
"Screw things up"? Like the current politicians are doing now (especially for things related to new technology)? Ignorance doesn't magically vanish in a small group of people, nor are politicians geniuses, even if they know slightly more about politics than the average tool.
I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with the so-called stupid people rather than the people I know for a fact are doing wrong and are corrupt.
Give power to the people and you'll find pretty fast that a lot of people are quite happy to have immigrants and homosexuals hanged, to ban even more stuff than the government, to react with short-sighted, self-destructive strikes....
There are more than two options, you know. There is a middle ground where the power of the government is reduced and the people have more (but not all) power (and still must work within the bounds of the law and the constitution). That sounds more ideal than the corrupt system we have now (even if only slightly so).