The thing is, Rosa Parks didn't do what she did to get people to boycott the bus company, she just did what was right for her, and others took notice.
People seem to be taking notice of this as well.
The only thing that will get them to change is if people stop buying their music or seeing their films because of their policies.
People need to take notice first, though. People have been trying for quite a while to get the attention of the average uncaring drone, but they do not take notice of barely anything. After they do notice, and after they finally see how wrong they are, then the buying can stop. I don't believe there is a better solution at this point in time.
Now that we're both done acting like douche bags here, lets get back to the point. People still have the ability to change laws in most countries and at no point while the general population doesn't give enough of a shit to change the laws does breaking them become OK.
Breaking laws isn't necessarily bad, especially if those laws are unjust. There's never a point when break a law becomes inherently 'wrong', either.
If the world actually operated like guys pretend it does, you'd have been gassed long ago.
I suppose the better solution is to do nothing and hope that the government stops accepting bribes from corporations with a seemingly unlimited supply of money, huh? Sometimes change must come in an aggressive form.
How are they wrong? Is it because they're taking action (even what little action they are doing counts) against a corrupt government? Just because something is illegal that doesn't mean it's wrong. There may be no other choice at this point.
Alternate suggestions? The government is practically bowing down to rich corporations. What are some ways that you could get the government to listen to you without being 'aggressive' over extremely rich corporations? They may not be doing much, but at least it's something.
What money do they keep? Oh, that's right, their own. They copied data and used up no extra money that the author had. Not time, resources, property, or money. They didn't even interact with the author at all. If introducing artificial scarcity (and hunting down those who merely copy data and leave the author unaffected) is the only way authors are able to turn a profit in this capitalistic society, chances are that it's flawed and needs to be fixed. What we don't need is people making illogical excuses such as: "Piracy is hurting our business and 'stealing' away our potential future gain! I know that technically everyone in existence is guilty of 'stealing' away potential future gain, but I only hate pirates for it!"
but I think they're all just a bunch of leeches.
All? That is a very broad statement. Would you care to prove it? Do you know every pirate in existence?
Uh, just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Also, even if it actually is mostly used for copyright infringement, that doesn't mean that he's bad for selling the service. It can be used for legitimate purposes, and saying someone is bad because of what their customers do with their service/product is just stupid.
morally you are a jackass for trying to profit from other people's work and slightly insane for thinking that you are some kind
I don't get it. What's wrong with torrent seedboxes, now? They aren't necessary always used for copyright infringement (note the proper term there instead of stealing). They're merely services/tools.
Really? I wish we could be less of one and grant more power to the people as opposed to a few lying, corrupt politicians. Not unlimited power, just far more. Enough so that idiots such as these couldn't do things like this or pass more idiotic anti-piracy laws without fully explaining their true motives and without consent of the people.
So when they came to take away part of my liberty by installing red light cameras
This is exactly where the problem lies.
not the freedom to steal someone else's word.
Luckily for us then that no words are being stolen! They are being copied. Even the laws which some people defend differentiate between theft and copying.
Most of the torrent-loving people are just kind of lazy couch potatoes who seem obsessed with filling up a 2tb disk with more than they can ever watch.
Interesting. I'd like to know where this assumption comes from, and if you have any proof to back it up. Actually, you probably do.
That said, I feel the same way about people who refuse to give others all of their money. If they had given away all of their money, someone else would have had more money, but since they didn't give away all of their money, the other person was inflicted with non-existent harm because they lost the potential to receive future gain! Those lazy couch potatoes never give someone else all of their money! They're just potential profit thieves!
I'm pretty sure he just releases information that someone else submits to him. It doesn't matter what corrupt government it's exposing. What matters is that he's exposing a corrupt government.
In the United States, where free speech is considered to be an inalienable right, it is nevertheless illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
That's because people in the United States only pretend to consider free speech an inalienable right, but want to ban everything that they find offensive (or ban speech that they were retarded enough to listen to).
Well, I certainly don't want the government to help 'parents' (such people barely qualify as parents) indoctrinate their children with their own inane beliefs. There's already too much of that as it is.
Yes remove the context from my words, to make them sound absurd.
Why do you seem so hostile? This is one thing I do not understand. Quoting each and every single thing you say is a mess. If someone wants to read it in full, they'll read your comment.
Still with the insistence that these are somehow two separate people.
You exist now, not in the past, and not in the future. Again, 'losing' the possibility of future gain is not harm because the gain was never yours to begin with.
Are you inflicted with non-existent harm if someone, say, tells you that they're going to give you money in the future, and then later they decide not to? When the time comes that they were supposed to give you the money, you are worse off than the 'you' who exists in an alternate dimension where they did get the money, right?
The thing is, they logically don't even exist in the future, because even your future self never had these gains to begin with.
Also, here's my reply to your other post, as I'm just going to reply to it from here:
Please I want to know how law-breakers would suddenly stop what they are doing as soon as it becomes legal...
I linked to that because someone else linked to that, and it listed possible solutions. As for that one, it lessens the hostility between the potential consumer (the pirate) and the business. Right now, you have next to zero chance of getting the pirate to comply. I believe the point is to encourage buying the product, but allow it to be voluntary. Your chances of receiving money from them would theoretically increase if these large businesses were less hostile towards them (of course, this doesn't account for small indie games).
Of course, nothing is certain. I also provided another solution above that one.
they should have it as long as it can be digitally copied.
You see it as a "horrible sense of entitlement," but others see it as "freedom of information while leaving the original artist completely untouched."
They are not deprived, because the artist is not obliged to give it to them or allow them access.
The question becomes: why? It seems from my examples that more non-existent harm is being done to the pirate by buying the entertainment than the artist if they hadn't bought the entertainment.
The pirate is not obliged to give them money, either. Or, at least, they shouldn't be. That is the point of this discussion, remember?
Can you get that through you entitled head?
I'd say people who think that they are entitled to future profit on the mere basis that someone copied their work but left them completely unaffected have an "entitled head." Even your future self didn't have the gains and merely had the possibility of having them. Even if it was previously certain (which it wasn't), loss of future gain does not translate to harm anyway.
Also, did I ever specifically state that I myself was a pirate? I can't remember if I actually said anything like that.
Indeed, in your world, creators of art are not entitled to anything (except maybe attribution), only you and the consumers are. What a horrible world that would be.
In my world, losing the possibility of a future gain would not be considered harm, nor would artificial scarcity exist. Artists wouldn't be solely motivated by artificial currency, and they would actually be able to continue doing what they love without fear of going out of business due to lack of revenue, because none would exist at all. Or at least, that's how it would be in my world. If that is possible, who can say? But, it did look like you were talking about my world.
Anyway, again, it is illogical to blame the woes of artists on pirates who merely copy data and don't interact with the artist in any single way and leave them completely unaffected.
Contrary to what all the teenagers on slashdot think, children brought up without boundaries are not generally well-balanced.
Teenagers? All? What's with the assumptions and the stereotyping?
Anyway, no, I never said anything about not 'monitoring' them at all. I said to protect them from things that can actually harm them, not indoctrinate them with stupid beliefs such as "television can make you a murderer" or religious beliefs (or even forcing them to be an atheist).
If they have questions, answer them. Make it clear that fantasy is not reality. That is all I meant.
You said it's because they lose the possibility of future gain, but if they never had the gain in the first place, it can't translate to harm. No need to repeat yourself, just tell me how that logically translates to harm even though they're left completely unaffected (unaffected doesn't mean that they are worse off than before).
Because as you have admitted in other posts, you, and other people who think as you do, have no good system to replace this.
Yet, it's still illogical to blame pirates and create artificial scarcity. Also:
It does not save them from any harm because if they pirated something and enjoyed it, they were not in danger of being harmed, but it wrongfully harms the creator.
It saves them from the much more critical harm of losing currently valuable money for entertainment that is in an infinite supply while leaving the original creator completely unaffected. Also, the creator is actually 'harming' them by 'depriving' them of the possibility of future gain (free entertainment) by not letting them merely download their works.
It is not the benefit the consumer receives that is the issue, but the lack of benefit the creator of the work receives.
Which is what is being debated. I don't believe that people are inherently entitled to these future gains unless one of the following conditions is met:
A) Someone has directly asked them to perform a job for them while promising a certain amount of money for completing the job, and the artist completes the job. B) Someone has actually stolen something that they already had.
Pirates don't even interact with the author in the least. They merely copy their content, and the author is likely completely unaware that a specific person just copied their work. They remain completely unaffected, unknowingly to them.
Apparently you failed to read what I said about that being something that wasn't specifically directed at you.
What are these if not my arguments, and explanations on why yours are ridiculous? Well?
Actually, those didn't explain why my comparisons were 'ridiculous', they only explained that you thought they were ridiculous and why you think piracy harms artists. I asked how your logic does not apply to competition between businesses or people who tell others who would have otherwise bought a product not to buy it because it is legitimately bad (hence, a loss of potential sales). That's the type of people you're directly or indirectly categorizing with pirates when you say that you can steal things which do not exist (or that loss of future gain harms someone).
Those particular responses didn't really answer that question.
So you were making a point, a point you implicitly concede was invalid?
No, it was more of a point that proves how a majority can believe in something wrong in case you felt that they couldn't, not because you do.
However, if a consumer downloads/copies a work and reads/watches/plays it without paying for it AND gets value from it, the artist is hurt. They have lost a potential sale, because the pirate has enjoyed their work without giving them the return they asked for.
This is where my argument is. If they didn't have the money in the first place, how are they hurt?
To prevent the latter case, copyright exists. This safeguards the creator/artist's livelihood, allowing the public to enjoy their works after paying them the price they have decided.
Preventing the latter case is pointless since no one in that scenario actually lost anything that they already had.
Deciding who is harmed is a balance between protecting both parties.
The process of deciding who is harmed should be based on logic, not feelings. 'Loss' of future gain is not harm.
Although creators lose sales to bad reviews, if the reviews are legitimate, they are preventing harm to the consumers who would otherwise buy it and be harmed.
So, saving one person from non-existent harm while inflicting non-existent harm upon another person is alright, then?
Piracy saves consumers from possible harm as well. The consumers, for instance, don't have to waste their money on goods that are themselves in an infinite supply and can instead spend it on more important things such as food and shelter. They don't have to worry about the product breaking, as they didn't pay for it in the first place.
Looks like this saves consumers from 'harm' just like reviews sometimes save them from 'harm', only this applies all the time with piracy. Too bad in both cases, the artist must 'suffer', even though they've lost nothing, huh?
Finally, competition between artists/creators benefits the consumers by encouraging better pricing and products
Yet it still affects potential sales, which do non-existent harm to both artists and legitimate businesses.
Same as above. Piracy does save people from harm. It's a 'balance', as you say.
Would you require me to explain any particular point better?
How does loss of future gain, something they never actually had, translate to harm? How is it logical to create artificial scarcity for the sole purpose of keeping the current system on life support? How does piracy not save someone from non-existent harm but competition and consumer reviews do?
Actually, I wasn't making a comparison, just making a point that some people (not you) don't understand and often get wrong.
You change the parameters of my statement to make a hilariously wrong comparison.
That wasn't a comparison, and my other ones had valid points, extreme or not.
You can see understand my position, and see it is correct.
Why don't you understand my position, and see that it is correct, instead? Oh, wait, it's instantly wrong because you said so.
you just cannot see the flaws in your arguments.
This is where you come in: explain to me (something you have yet to do) how my comparisons don't make sense. Don't just say "it's extreme," actually explain how your logic of "it hurts potential sales" doesn't apply to competition or people who inform others of legitimately bad products. I would love to know that. You're not helping yourself one bit by merely saying that my comparisons are "extreme" without telling me exactly how they aren't relevant.
Thanks, I guess to prevent you from ridiculous comparisons, I have to preempt them.
Nearly every comparison is 'ridiculous'. Of course mine are going to be 'ridiculous' to you. You've yet to explain how they are, though.
There's this saying about a pot and a kettle, google it...
Not much I can do about it.
Because your "comparisons" are absurd, and ignore basic reality.
I'd say, if anything, they poke holes in your line of logic. Why is some harm okay to you but not others? It makes no sense.
What is correct, for most (remember this word) meanings of correct, is what the majority thinks and often the consideration of the most good for the most people. Please do not bore me with mentions of slavery, monopoly, etc, in your "comparisons", I said MOST.
The majority sharing the same opinion says nothing about the correctness of something. Facts do. If the entire population believed that the sum of two and two was equal to five, that would not make it more likely to be correct.
But, fine, I won't mention any of those examples because you didn't say "all."
You seem to be doing the very thing you're accusing me of.
That was the point.
What I said isn't an attitude, it's fact.
No, my points were fact!
And you haven't been making any new arguments for several posts now
I make new arguments when it is necessary to make new arguments. You've been repeating the same things over and over, as have most of the replies I've received. It's difficult to make new arguments when the arguments your opponent is making is the same as the one they made before.
just refuting mine with hilarious extremes
Extreme? Maybe. An acceptable comparison? Yes. You certainly haven't told me why they're not acceptable or why your line of logic doesn't apply in those cases.
as if that would make your argument correct.
As if saying you're correct will make you correct.
How are the law and the rights of the author irrelevant?
I'm arguing against the law. I want it changed. Something merely being illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. The same can be said about something that's legal.
Apply a liberal amount of common sense to it first before simply trying or imposing though.
Common sense isn't "it's impossible." It must be tried first, at least on a small scale.
The artist owns every copy, even data, of their intellectual ideas as property until they are compensated for that copy. What's your stance on plagiarism?
The law says that, and I disagree because copying their product deprives them of nothing. Mentioning the law isn't helping, because the law is irrelevant to me. That is what I want changed.
Who are you to say who can and who cannot wear diamonds? Who is to say?
No one would specifically tell them that they can't. It's only the basic necessities that would be supplied. it is unrealistic to assume that if everyone wanted the moon, everyone would get it. There are many resources that could be used for construction, among other things, that are abundant, however. Obviously, if someone wants a diamond, they would have to get it themselves. There would be no official distribution of that and no expectation that they would get it.
We kill animals so that we can eat them.
Most of the time, yes. There's still killing them for fur (useless in this day and age considering the amount of materials we can make without killing an animal).
Rarely products simply self detonate and stop working completely the moment the warranty runs out forcing you to buy a new one.
True, but many of them are intentionally made poorly (or at least poorly enough that they'll break eventually) so that they will eventually break in a shorter amount of time than if they had made them well. It's not just setting specific times before they break. It has to do with cost and future profit.
So if everyone can't have a mansion made out of diamonds then no one can I'd assume.
Like now, it wouldn't be something that would be 'officially' distributed nor would it be something that is expected. It would be viewed as a waste.
You do realize advocating for this other world is asking to make yourself worse off materially?
Not necessarily. Again, this only applies to very certain circumstances. To people like me who are poor, we would likely be better off (if everything went according to plan, that is, since the future is never certain).
You could say fighting wars are killing for sport.
Also, profit.
So they're being hurt by having costs which don't exist because there isn't any money? Your argument has broken down.
Huh? When you steal property (physical property that they actually have right now), there is harm because they have just lost something that they previously had. When you punch someone, for instance, they suffer physical pain right then, not in some imaginary future. The damage in those cases is real.
It's also fun and exciting. Leave them be.:)
I like slaughtering humans. It's fun and exciting. Leave me be.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, Rosa Parks didn't do what she did to get people to boycott the bus company, she just did what was right for her, and others took notice.
People seem to be taking notice of this as well.
The only thing that will get them to change is if people stop buying their music or seeing their films because of their policies.
People need to take notice first, though. People have been trying for quite a while to get the attention of the average uncaring drone, but they do not take notice of barely anything. After they do notice, and after they finally see how wrong they are, then the buying can stop. I don't believe there is a better solution at this point in time.
He obviously meant that no one was getting physically hurt. Or, at least, I think so.
Now that we're both done acting like douche bags here, lets get back to the point. People still have the ability to change laws in most countries and at no point while the general population doesn't give enough of a shit to change the laws does breaking them become OK.
Breaking laws isn't necessarily bad, especially if those laws are unjust. There's never a point when break a law becomes inherently 'wrong', either.
If the world actually operated like guys pretend it does, you'd have been gassed long ago.
I suppose the better solution is to do nothing and hope that the government stops accepting bribes from corporations with a seemingly unlimited supply of money, huh? Sometimes change must come in an aggressive form.
How are they wrong? Is it because they're taking action (even what little action they are doing counts) against a corrupt government? Just because something is illegal that doesn't mean it's wrong. There may be no other choice at this point.
themselves the curtain of non-violent protests
It is a non-violent protest, though.
but it's still an act of agression
Alternate suggestions? The government is practically bowing down to rich corporations. What are some ways that you could get the government to listen to you without being 'aggressive' over extremely rich corporations? They may not be doing much, but at least it's something.
but the pirates keep all of it
What money do they keep? Oh, that's right, their own. They copied data and used up no extra money that the author had. Not time, resources, property, or money. They didn't even interact with the author at all. If introducing artificial scarcity (and hunting down those who merely copy data and leave the author unaffected) is the only way authors are able to turn a profit in this capitalistic society, chances are that it's flawed and needs to be fixed. What we don't need is people making illogical excuses such as: "Piracy is hurting our business and 'stealing' away our potential future gain! I know that technically everyone in existence is guilty of 'stealing' away potential future gain, but I only hate pirates for it!"
but I think they're all just a bunch of leeches.
All? That is a very broad statement. Would you care to prove it? Do you know every pirate in existence?
Uh, just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Also, even if it actually is mostly used for copyright infringement, that doesn't mean that he's bad for selling the service. It can be used for legitimate purposes, and saying someone is bad because of what their customers do with their service/product is just stupid.
and the federal government operates completely within the bounds of the constitution
Not possible as long as the people have so little power and the large corporations and government have so much.
morally you are a jackass for trying to profit from other people's work and slightly insane for thinking that you are some kind
I don't get it. What's wrong with torrent seedboxes, now? They aren't necessary always used for copyright infringement (note the proper term there instead of stealing). They're merely services/tools.
I really wish we could return to being a republic
Really? I wish we could be less of one and grant more power to the people as opposed to a few lying, corrupt politicians. Not unlimited power, just far more. Enough so that idiots such as these couldn't do things like this or pass more idiotic anti-piracy laws without fully explaining their true motives and without consent of the people.
So when they came to take away part of my liberty by installing red light cameras
This is exactly where the problem lies.
not the freedom to steal someone else's word.
Luckily for us then that no words are being stolen! They are being copied. Even the laws which some people defend differentiate between theft and copying.
Most of the torrent-loving people are just kind of lazy couch potatoes who seem obsessed with filling up a 2tb disk with more than they can ever watch.
Interesting. I'd like to know where this assumption comes from, and if you have any proof to back it up. Actually, you probably do.
That said, I feel the same way about people who refuse to give others all of their money. If they had given away all of their money, someone else would have had more money, but since they didn't give away all of their money, the other person was inflicted with non-existent harm because they lost the potential to receive future gain! Those lazy couch potatoes never give someone else all of their money! They're just potential profit thieves!
Are you some sort of terrorist!? Only terrorists want less security! Terrorist freak! By the way, did I mention that you're a terrorist?
I'm pretty sure he just releases information that someone else submits to him. It doesn't matter what corrupt government it's exposing. What matters is that he's exposing a corrupt government.
In the United States, where free speech is considered to be an inalienable right, it is nevertheless illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
That's because people in the United States only pretend to consider free speech an inalienable right, but want to ban everything that they find offensive (or ban speech that they were retarded enough to listen to).
Well, I certainly don't want the government to help 'parents' (such people barely qualify as parents) indoctrinate their children with their own inane beliefs. There's already too much of that as it is.
So, you're correct.
Yes remove the context from my words, to make them sound absurd.
Why do you seem so hostile? This is one thing I do not understand. Quoting each and every single thing you say is a mess. If someone wants to read it in full, they'll read your comment.
Still with the insistence that these are somehow two separate people.
You exist now, not in the past, and not in the future. Again, 'losing' the possibility of future gain is not harm because the gain was never yours to begin with.
Are you inflicted with non-existent harm if someone, say, tells you that they're going to give you money in the future, and then later they decide not to? When the time comes that they were supposed to give you the money, you are worse off than the 'you' who exists in an alternate dimension where they did get the money, right?
The thing is, they logically don't even exist in the future, because even your future self never had these gains to begin with.
Also, here's my reply to your other post, as I'm just going to reply to it from here:
Please I want to know how law-breakers would suddenly stop what they are doing as soon as it becomes legal...
I linked to that because someone else linked to that, and it listed possible solutions. As for that one, it lessens the hostility between the potential consumer (the pirate) and the business. Right now, you have next to zero chance of getting the pirate to comply. I believe the point is to encourage buying the product, but allow it to be voluntary. Your chances of receiving money from them would theoretically increase if these large businesses were less hostile towards them (of course, this doesn't account for small indie games).
Of course, nothing is certain. I also provided another solution above that one.
they should have it as long as it can be digitally copied.
You see it as a "horrible sense of entitlement," but others see it as "freedom of information while leaving the original artist completely untouched."
They are not deprived, because the artist is not obliged to give it to them or allow them access.
The question becomes: why? It seems from my examples that more non-existent harm is being done to the pirate by buying the entertainment than the artist if they hadn't bought the entertainment.
The pirate is not obliged to give them money, either. Or, at least, they shouldn't be. That is the point of this discussion, remember?
Can you get that through you entitled head?
I'd say people who think that they are entitled to future profit on the mere basis that someone copied their work but left them completely unaffected have an "entitled head." Even your future self didn't have the gains and merely had the possibility of having them. Even if it was previously certain (which it wasn't), loss of future gain does not translate to harm anyway.
Also, did I ever specifically state that I myself was a pirate? I can't remember if I actually said anything like that.
Indeed, in your world, creators of art are not entitled to anything (except maybe attribution), only you and the consumers are. What a horrible world that would be.
In my world, losing the possibility of a future gain would not be considered harm, nor would artificial scarcity exist. Artists wouldn't be solely motivated by artificial currency, and they would actually be able to continue doing what they love without fear of going out of business due to lack of revenue, because none would exist at all. Or at least, that's how it would be in my world. If that is possible, who can say? But, it did look like you were talking about my world.
Anyway, again, it is illogical to blame the woes of artists on pirates who merely copy data and don't interact with the artist in any single way and leave them completely unaffected.
We exist in the future.
Proof? That is a bold statement. If you can prove this, then that would be simply amazing.
Would you?
You 'lost' the possibility of future gain (as you said), but you in your current self were not actually harmed.
Contrary to what all the teenagers on slashdot think, children brought up without boundaries are not generally well-balanced.
Teenagers? All? What's with the assumptions and the stereotyping?
Anyway, no, I never said anything about not 'monitoring' them at all. I said to protect them from things that can actually harm them, not indoctrinate them with stupid beliefs such as "television can make you a murderer" or religious beliefs (or even forcing them to be an atheist).
If they have questions, answer them. Make it clear that fantasy is not reality. That is all I meant.
I have repeated myself many times
You said it's because they lose the possibility of future gain, but if they never had the gain in the first place, it can't translate to harm. No need to repeat yourself, just tell me how that logically translates to harm even though they're left completely unaffected (unaffected doesn't mean that they are worse off than before).
Because as you have admitted in other posts, you, and other people who think as you do, have no good system to replace this.
Yet, it's still illogical to blame pirates and create artificial scarcity. Also:
http://thevenusproject.com/
http://memwiki.pirate-party.us/But_How_Will_the_Artists_Get_Paid%3F
It does not save them from any harm because if they pirated something and enjoyed it, they were not in danger of being harmed, but it wrongfully harms the creator.
It saves them from the much more critical harm of losing currently valuable money for entertainment that is in an infinite supply while leaving the original creator completely unaffected. Also, the creator is actually 'harming' them by 'depriving' them of the possibility of future gain (free entertainment) by not letting them merely download their works.
It is not the benefit the consumer receives that is the issue, but the lack of benefit the creator of the work receives.
Which is what is being debated. I don't believe that people are inherently entitled to these future gains unless one of the following conditions is met:
A) Someone has directly asked them to perform a job for them while promising a certain amount of money for completing the job, and the artist completes the job.
B) Someone has actually stolen something that they already had.
Pirates don't even interact with the author in the least. They merely copy their content, and the author is likely completely unaware that a specific person just copied their work. They remain completely unaffected, unknowingly to them.
Really? What about this:
Apparently you failed to read what I said about that being something that wasn't specifically directed at you.
What are these if not my arguments, and explanations on why yours are ridiculous? Well?
Actually, those didn't explain why my comparisons were 'ridiculous', they only explained that you thought they were ridiculous and why you think piracy harms artists. I asked how your logic does not apply to competition between businesses or people who tell others who would have otherwise bought a product not to buy it because it is legitimately bad (hence, a loss of potential sales). That's the type of people you're directly or indirectly categorizing with pirates when you say that you can steal things which do not exist (or that loss of future gain harms someone).
Those particular responses didn't really answer that question.
So you were making a point, a point you implicitly concede was invalid?
No, it was more of a point that proves how a majority can believe in something wrong in case you felt that they couldn't, not because you do.
However, if a consumer downloads/copies a work and reads/watches/plays it without paying for it AND gets value from it, the artist is hurt. They have lost a potential sale, because the pirate has enjoyed their work without giving them the return they asked for.
This is where my argument is. If they didn't have the money in the first place, how are they hurt?
To prevent the latter case, copyright exists. This safeguards the creator/artist's livelihood, allowing the public to enjoy their works after paying them the price they have decided.
Preventing the latter case is pointless since no one in that scenario actually lost anything that they already had.
Deciding who is harmed is a balance between protecting both parties.
The process of deciding who is harmed should be based on logic, not feelings. 'Loss' of future gain is not harm.
Although creators lose sales to bad reviews, if the reviews are legitimate, they are preventing harm to the consumers who would otherwise buy it and be harmed.
So, saving one person from non-existent harm while inflicting non-existent harm upon another person is alright, then?
Piracy saves consumers from possible harm as well. The consumers, for instance, don't have to waste their money on goods that are themselves in an infinite supply and can instead spend it on more important things such as food and shelter. They don't have to worry about the product breaking, as they didn't pay for it in the first place.
Looks like this saves consumers from 'harm' just like reviews sometimes save them from 'harm', only this applies all the time with piracy. Too bad in both cases, the artist must 'suffer', even though they've lost nothing, huh?
Finally, competition between artists/creators benefits the consumers by encouraging better pricing and products
Yet it still affects potential sales, which do non-existent harm to both artists and legitimate businesses.
Same as above. Piracy does save people from harm. It's a 'balance', as you say.
Would you require me to explain any particular point better?
How does loss of future gain, something they never actually had, translate to harm? How is it logical to create artificial scarcity for the sole purpose of keeping the current system on life support? How does piracy not save someone from non-existent harm but competition and consumer reviews do?
There you go making invalid "comparisons".
Actually, I wasn't making a comparison, just making a point that some people (not you) don't understand and often get wrong.
You change the parameters of my statement to make a hilariously wrong comparison.
That wasn't a comparison, and my other ones had valid points, extreme or not.
You can see understand my position, and see it is correct.
Why don't you understand my position, and see that it is correct, instead? Oh, wait, it's instantly wrong because you said so.
you just cannot see the flaws in your arguments.
This is where you come in: explain to me (something you have yet to do) how my comparisons don't make sense. Don't just say "it's extreme," actually explain how your logic of "it hurts potential sales" doesn't apply to competition or people who inform others of legitimately bad products. I would love to know that. You're not helping yourself one bit by merely saying that my comparisons are "extreme" without telling me exactly how they aren't relevant.
Thanks, I guess to prevent you from ridiculous comparisons, I have to preempt them.
Nearly every comparison is 'ridiculous'. Of course mine are going to be 'ridiculous' to you. You've yet to explain how they are, though.
There's this saying about a pot and a kettle, google it...
Not much I can do about it.
Because your "comparisons" are absurd, and ignore basic reality.
I'd say, if anything, they poke holes in your line of logic. Why is some harm okay to you but not others? It makes no sense.
What is correct, for most (remember this word) meanings of correct, is what the majority thinks and often the consideration of the most good for the most people. Please do not bore me with mentions of slavery, monopoly, etc, in your "comparisons", I said MOST.
The majority sharing the same opinion says nothing about the correctness of something. Facts do. If the entire population believed that the sum of two and two was equal to five, that would not make it more likely to be correct.
But, fine, I won't mention any of those examples because you didn't say "all."
If something is not bought AND not used/played/viewed, then this reduces the artist's gains, but this is fair and legal
Fair? You've reduced the artists gains, which by your above logic means that you've 'harmed' them. Legal? Citing the law isn't helping you.
If they (pirates) haven't bought it and still have acquired it and used it, then they are wrongfully harming the artist.
So, there's 'right' ways to harm artists, and there's 'wrong' ways to harm artists? Why should either be allowed?
I am calling you stubborn because you don't seem to want to comprehend my points, instead misconstruing them into ridiculous extremes.
The points might be extreme, but your logic still applies to them.
I don't think I have any more to gain by debating this with you, but I will say I am correct because I am.
No, I am!
If you cannot see my logic, that's not my problem, I think I've explained myself sufficiently and exhaustively.
I'm going to say the same to you.
You seem to be doing the very thing you're accusing me of.
That was the point.
What I said isn't an attitude, it's fact.
No, my points were fact!
And you haven't been making any new arguments for several posts now
I make new arguments when it is necessary to make new arguments. You've been repeating the same things over and over, as have most of the replies I've received. It's difficult to make new arguments when the arguments your opponent is making is the same as the one they made before.
just refuting mine with hilarious extremes
Extreme? Maybe. An acceptable comparison? Yes. You certainly haven't told me why they're not acceptable or why your line of logic doesn't apply in those cases.
as if that would make your argument correct.
As if saying you're correct will make you correct.
How are the law and the rights of the author irrelevant?
I'm arguing against the law. I want it changed. Something merely being illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. The same can be said about something that's legal.
Apply a liberal amount of common sense to it first before simply trying or imposing though.
Common sense isn't "it's impossible." It must be tried first, at least on a small scale.
The artist owns every copy, even data, of their intellectual ideas as property until they are compensated for that copy. What's your stance on plagiarism?
The law says that, and I disagree because copying their product deprives them of nothing. Mentioning the law isn't helping, because the law is irrelevant to me. That is what I want changed.
Who are you to say who can and who cannot wear diamonds? Who is to say?
No one would specifically tell them that they can't. It's only the basic necessities that would be supplied. it is unrealistic to assume that if everyone wanted the moon, everyone would get it. There are many resources that could be used for construction, among other things, that are abundant, however. Obviously, if someone wants a diamond, they would have to get it themselves. There would be no official distribution of that and no expectation that they would get it.
We kill animals so that we can eat them.
Most of the time, yes. There's still killing them for fur (useless in this day and age considering the amount of materials we can make without killing an animal).
Rarely products simply self detonate and stop working completely the moment the warranty runs out forcing you to buy a new one.
True, but many of them are intentionally made poorly (or at least poorly enough that they'll break eventually) so that they will eventually break in a shorter amount of time than if they had made them well. It's not just setting specific times before they break. It has to do with cost and future profit.
So if everyone can't have a mansion made out of diamonds then no one can I'd assume.
Like now, it wouldn't be something that would be 'officially' distributed nor would it be something that is expected. It would be viewed as a waste.
You do realize advocating for this other world is asking to make yourself worse off materially?
Not necessarily. Again, this only applies to very certain circumstances. To people like me who are poor, we would likely be better off (if everything went according to plan, that is, since the future is never certain).
You could say fighting wars are killing for sport.
Also, profit.
So they're being hurt by having costs which don't exist because there isn't any money? Your argument has broken down.
Huh? When you steal property (physical property that they actually have right now), there is harm because they have just lost something that they previously had. When you punch someone, for instance, they suffer physical pain right then, not in some imaginary future. The damage in those cases is real.
It's also fun and exciting. Leave them be. :)
I like slaughtering humans. It's fun and exciting. Leave me be.