"Failing to follow the norms set down by society harms society as a whole, as determined by society."
Ah, I see. You're not suggesting that laws should always be followed, are you? If so, perhaps you should take a look at the civil rights movement and the act of civil disobedience.
Also, where is this harm? You still haven't showed how it's logical to think that something that doesn't exist can be stolen.
"Society sets rules to minimize the total harm and ensure justice and fairness"
Yet sometimes, those rules are simply illogical. Not just this one, either. The corrupt governments of the world provide proof of this.
"In the absence of copyright, there is no market for copyright works"
Is that not a problem with the current capitalistic society which demands that you have money in order to participate in it? That is why there would be no market for it. Artists can't survive without money, but blaming it on pirates (which don't take anything or use up any of the artists time) is absurd. Just as it's absurd to say that someone not buying something harms the creator because they stole an object that does not exist. A world where something that is in an infinite supply is not distributed freely is an illogical world.
"Because the legality is important."
No, it's not. It has nothing to do with harm caused by pirates.
"And has to do with ability or failure to comply with social norms with respect to lawful behavior."
If everyone followed "social norms," everyone would be exactly the same. An indoctrinated drone that does exactly as they are told. Someone that believes everything they are told. Someone that votes the same way every single time. Someone that never considers what consequences lie in wait in the future. It would be even worse than it is now.
If everyone followed the law all of the time, nothing would ever change. Civil disobedience is a very powerful tactic, especially when injustice is being done. Although, those that object to this disobedience usually claim that no injustice is being done. Unsurprising.
One more time: violating copyright does not alone harm someone and things that don't exist can't be stolen.
"The percentage of pirates who "recant" and ultimately pay is so small as to be completely neglected, these people don't exist on a large enough scale to make any difference economically."
The same can be said about half of the type of people that I listed, especially the people without any money in the first place.
"There is HARM caused by not doing business with someone who wants you to do business with them"
Basic logic says that in order for you to be able to take something, it must first exist. I've said that a few times before, actually.
"Being forced to do business and obtain their goods or services is at least equally harmful."
Not to the artists which you're supposedly defending. They would be better off for it.
"Logicians call this a straw man. You are basically warping my argument, by modifying it into one that you can punch holes in."
I didn't warp your argument at all. I'm saying that using the same logic as you (regarding potential profit), you can conclude that people who do not buy the product are doing as much 'harm' (note: the harm doesn't exist since they never had the money in the first place) as a pirate is. I didn't specifically say that you said anything along those lines, which is what a straw man actually is.
"To say that a copyright owner is economically damaged by people making copies of their work, in no way implies that a copyright owner is equally damaged by people simply refusing to buy their work"
Well, I don't see how it doesn't. We certainly know that no one is hurt by the pirate merely copying the data itself, as that deprives no one of anything. The next conclusion that I came to was "potential profit," (which doesn't exist, and therefore can't be taken, anyway) which also applies to anyone who merely didn't buy the product.
"This is different from someone conducting a crime against you (such as copyright infringement), that exacts economic damage upon you."
You mean aside from the fact that using the law of "potential profit," neither of them granted the artist money, and (using that line of logic) deprived them of profit that they could, potentially, have had? Yeah, completely different.
"People in society have a right to not like your product."
But apparently they don't have a right to not grant you their money even if it does no harm to you.
"It is just as absurd as your example, and has no bearing on the very real economic harm caused by copyright infringement."
When I say "money and logic don't mix well together," this is one of the things that I mean. Saying that you are able to steal objects that don't exist is absurd and goes against basic logic.
"The crime is already committed"
Of "copyright infringement"? I already stated that I don't care about that because merely saying "copyright infringement" doesn't imply any harm was done. Copying data using your own time and resources doesn't do harm. Not granting someone money doesn't do harm. Where is the harm?
Also, why are you even bothering to mention the legality of copyright infringement? I've stated multiple times that I don't care. 'Right', 'wrong', and 'harm' have absolutely nothing to do with legality. Mentioning crimes and legality isn't disproving my point, nor does it prove your point that piracy does harm to someone. Obviously I want the laws changed, so I don't care about how legal or illegal something currently is.
"That's the kind of stuff I'd expect at a high school level"
Really? I wouldn't. Visual Basic is so simple that anyone should be able to grasp it (or at least the simple things that were being taught in that class). Besides that, a function? Really? That's terrible, high school or no.
I came to the same conclusion. What's worse is that the class I was in was a Visual Basic class. Most of them didn't care about programming, the ones who did performed very poorly at it (and in Visual Basic no less), and the teacher didn't even know what a function was (sure, he is a math teacher, but he had been teaching that class for three years). Disturbing.
I'm surprised that they haven't done this yet. All they're proving is that terrorism works. It makes life hell for the entire country. Mission accomplished!
Just ban everything. It's pointless not to at this point. Anything and everything can be used as a weapon, so why not? Just strip away all of our privacy and rights to 'keep away' those evil 'terrorists'!
Yes, it is. Why does everything need to be black and white with you people? Do you honestly think the way things are going now that the system is working well? Hint: it's not.
Again, what we need is balance. The government should not be able to pass bills/laws as it sees fit without the consent of the people, nor should the people be able to pass bills/laws that violate the constitution without needing checks and balances. As it stands, the government has far too much power and the people have far too little.
"The electoral college exists as a check to Tyranny of the Majority."
No, no. Now we're just ruled by the rich and those in power (those who try to take away our freedom with laws and bills), right? Much better! While we still remain in this capitalistic society, what we need is balance. The government should not be able to pass bills and laws that violate our freedoms (for any reason) without at least a majority vote, nor should the people be able to pass laws or bills that violate the freedoms of the minority without government interference. It doesn't have to be black and white. Currently, the government has far too much power for their own good and uses deception to fool the weak-minded into thinking that they are doing the 'right' thing. The way things are now, this corruption will continue.
You mean the one that is ruled by the rich because of the people who let it be ruled by the rich (and the people that vote for the same two parties over and over again)? Yeah, what a nice democracy! I just love it when the government is able to pass bills and laws which clearly violate our freedom and privacy without the consent of the people, and what's worse is that people seem to support these bills and laws because they 'stop' those dirty 'terrorists'. I'd say these idiots are in need of some actual education, and no, the public school system isn't cutting it.
"Just because there are other things that can harm the copyright owner does not mean that making illegal copies does not exact economic damage upon the copyright owner."
That's merely a single point that I made. However, since harming someone by not giving them money doesn't really hurt them (unless you waste your time, which pirates don't do), your point is moot.
If not giving someone your money does cause harm (it doesn't), perhaps we should eliminate consumer choice, competition between businesses, and some degree of freedom of speech (speech that interferes with the flow of profit).
Every single time you say that pirates are hurting someone by not giving them their money you are including everyone who did not buy the product. Piracy is illegal while not buying a product is not. Perhaps it should be illegal, huh? Going by your logic, yes, it should.
"The existence of people who don't have their desire for the product satisfied means, there is a chance the copyright owner may be able to sell to them in the future"
You're not taking into account people who protest a business and refuse to buy the product. Or people who don't like the product. Or people who don't and never will have money to buy the product. Or people who aren't even near the area in which the product is being sold. Or perhaps the pirate may even decide to give the author money in the future, who is to say? We are talking about "maybes" here. All of them, including the pirate, have a "chance" to eventually award the author with their money, as unlikely as that may be.
However, like I said before, all of this is moot in light of the fact that if not giving someone your money economically harms someone (it doesn't, as that goes against basic logic, which doesn't appear to mix with capitalistic minds), then just about everyone in existence is 'guilty' of this.
"No, it's saying I want money that has to be paid to me as a condition for my software being used to provide the benefit obtained."
What does it hurt you if they don't? You never had it in the first place.
"Copyright law is designed to protect my rights against people who would otherwise copy my software to obtain the benefits without paying me the amount due in exchange for receiving those benefits from each copy of my software."
As I said, I care not for copyright law as all I'm saying is piracy doesn't actually hurt anyone.
"If they obtained the benefit of having a copy of my product and running it on their computer, then yes, they would owe me 100,000."
I'm getting genuinely confused. First you say that harm was done to you because a pirate didn't give you money, but then you say it doesn't apply to non-pirates who didn't buy your product. Obviously the fact that they use your software itself doesn't hurt you. So, what is it? The only thing I can think of is that they didn't give you their money, which therefore includes non-pirates as well.
"No one HAS to make the deal, and exchange 100,000 for the benefit of running a copy of my product."
No one has to pay you, either. They can use your product without hurting you in the least.
"OR them running an extra copy without paying me 100,000."
Why? I'd say it's pretty fair for them to copy data and share it with others at absolutely no expense to you.
"I never said that not giving someone money inflicts harm -- *unless you would have otherwise done so*."
Yes, so you're basically saying "if those pirates had given the artist their money, the artist would have been better off." Whether or not they would have given the artist money if they were not a pirate is irrelevant. You are specifically stating that since they did not give the artist their money, harm was done. Therefore, everyone who didn't buy the product did harm to the artist because if they had bought the product, the artist would have been better off.
"You cannot argue (sanely) that this isn't true and does not represent a true loss to the property owner."
Right, and that must mean that since I played violent video games as a child (and my parents owned guns), I am a murderer.
Speaking of which, if they aren't able to differentiate between fact and fiction, it sounds like a combination of bad parenting and a lack of mental prowess (in the case of video games and unrealistic looking media, since even five year olds know that that is fiction).
"I should also point out that the hypothetical assholes in this scenario are not using any of the builder's time"
That's where you're wrong. They instructed the builder to complete a job for them, which in turn used up their time. Do you truly believe that doing a job, or taking any action whatsoever, does not require time? The people in your scenario specifically requested it knowing that they would have to pay the builder because they are the ones who used up the builders time.
"Oh, and I find it amusing that you think it's convincing to invent a name for an argument, as though it has been thoroughly countered, even when it clearly has not. I call that the "naming" argument, and it has been thoroughly countered."
I invent a name for it because it is far more simple to call it by a name than by describing it in detail every single time I want to reference it.
"Why? Aside from the fact that you wish to trivialise my opinion so that you have any hope of rebutting it?"
Read the next few sentences after that.
"I refer you to my analogy (which you really must read). Just because we expect the people to pay the builder at the end of the job, does not mean we expect everyone to pay the builder."
No, but apparently pirates are 'stealing' potential profit while people who simply decide not to buy the product are not. Again, the only difference is that the pirate enjoys free entertainment. Neither of them gave the artist any money, so using the logic of those who use the potential profit argument, each of them 'stole' profit that the artist could, potentially, have had.
"You're also demonstrating an embarrassing lack of understanding of copyright law"
I don't really care about copyright law. All I'm trying to show is that pirates do not actually harm anyone.
"basic literacy"
I have read all that you have written, but it simply wasn't convincing.
"then people are inevitably going to start having without buying."
If they can get it for free at the expense of no one, why not?
"You broke the law, you are liable to pay damages."
Right now, at least. Obviously I do not care for such laws.
"which makes artists unable to survive as artists."
How do pirates hurt these artists anymore than someone who chose not to buy it? Neither actually took anything from the artist (except perhaps potential profit, but only if you're going by that line of logic) or used the artists time (unlike instructing someone to build something for you). If either of them had given their money to the artist, he/she would have been better off, would they not?
"Nobody, except those who push your particular strawman, is claiming that everyone owes artists."
In order for it to be a straw man, I would have to be specifically telling you or others that you believe that everyone owes artists. As far as I know, all I've done is state that people who simply choose not to buy a product are, like pirates, 'stealing' profit that the artist could, potentially, have had if they would have granted them their money.
"The next door neighbours didn't pay the builder either! I'm sure those asshole customers didn't hesitate to try to shift the blame to the neighbours for their own selfishness."
Of course, I don't really believe this. I don't really believe that profit that only exists in a future that never was can be stolen. All that statement meant to do was state that neither of them compensated the artist, and if they had, the artist would have been better off. Is that not correct? In reality, by not doing so, neither of them have harmed the artist (or helped them). If artists can't survive in a system without being paid for products that are in an infinite supply, and in that system there exist people who are labeled as thieves (even when they haven't actually taken anything, including the artists time) simply because they don't give their money away for the product, chances are that it is a problem with the system itself and the old business model that
Oh, believe me, I've seen it. It doesn't have any effect on me at all.
"Is that the sort of thing you want your kids seeing?"
Is that the sort of thing you want anyone seeing? Might as well ban everyone from the internet, since even you said it affects adults.
"Or maybe it's just text, and they read something that creeps them out, and will make them wake up crying every night for the next 6 months *shrugs*."
Maybe it's the same with you. Perhaps the government should cut off your access to the internet because you might instantly turn into a murderer/rapist from viewing the content.
"But the point remains, your silly knee-jerk reactions about how any parent who wants to know what their kid views is "indoctrinating" their kid shows your ignorance."
No, I just heavily dislike pointless censorship.
"It's not exactly THE SKY IS FALLING scenario, but it does mean that the idea of putting a "Do you want to continue" here to prevent accidental clickage isn't a bad idea."
Why? It's annoying. If they don't like it, they can just get out.
"It has to do with Googles customers having a reasonable expectation that their ads not show up supporting something they might think is questionable."
But, really, who are we talking about here? Anyone who doesn't like the website can just... not visit it. It's not hard to understand, but then again we are talking about people that are so detached from reality that they can't possibly be saved, so I wouldn't be surprised if this decision was encouraged by them.
"it just has a quick warning blurb in front of it that in now way hinders it's affect."
Yeah, but that still doesn't make this any less annoying and pointless.
A giant corporation with a large amount of influence dropping support for people that dare say something against their views? I mean, yes, if censorship exists at all, I'd rather have this happen than the government doing it, but that doesn't mean that censorship isn't completely pointless and an obscenity in and of itself.
"As a mature adult, I object to having every aspect of my media dumbed down to avoid inflicting the truth on children."
As someone who isn't completely detached from reality, I object to censoring (yes, I know that this isn't necessarily censorship) anything in the name of children. Even children know what is fiction and what is not, and even if they don't, they won't magically become a murder/rapist because of content that they viewed.
Protect in this sense of course means "indoctrinate." I don't see the problem with sexual/violent content at all. There's nothing to protect them from. A person who is normal to begin with doesn't magically become a murderer/rapist when they view content.
While I agree with that, I don't think most politicians do. They only agree with something if it doesn't get in the way of their goals. There's this thing called "unprotected speech," which inherently means that no, speech in the US is not truly free.
"You're presuming that everyone who pirated the product would not have purchased it otherwise."
What? No, I didn't. That bit of information is irrelevant to me and the argument that I am making. Here, let me quote what I've already written.
"Let me ask you this: are you happy to know that there are people out there who don't buy your product? These people just decide not to buy it at all, thereby 'depriving' you of profit that you could have had if they would have bought it. They apparently 'damage' you and make artists live on the streets because they can no longer do what they love. They are very similar to pirates."
If not giving someone your money inflicts harm upon them (as pirates allegedly do), then you will want to blame what is likely every person in existence. Merely choosing not to buy a product, whether or not you wanted it, would 'inflict harm' upon the authors if we are going to go by your logic.
I believe that you're confusing me with someone who recycles the same argument again and again even after its logic has been put into question.
Trolling? You apparently do not know what that word means. I have thought extensively about the topic of piracy and legitimately do not see how it causes anymore harm than someone simply choosing not to buy a product.
Slashdot Mirror
"Failing to follow the norms set down by society harms society as a whole, as determined by society."
Ah, I see. You're not suggesting that laws should always be followed, are you? If so, perhaps you should take a look at the civil rights movement and the act of civil disobedience.
Also, where is this harm? You still haven't showed how it's logical to think that something that doesn't exist can be stolen.
"Society sets rules to minimize the total harm and ensure justice and fairness"
Yet sometimes, those rules are simply illogical. Not just this one, either. The corrupt governments of the world provide proof of this.
"In the absence of copyright, there is no market for copyright works"
Is that not a problem with the current capitalistic society which demands that you have money in order to participate in it? That is why there would be no market for it. Artists can't survive without money, but blaming it on pirates (which don't take anything or use up any of the artists time) is absurd. Just as it's absurd to say that someone not buying something harms the creator because they stole an object that does not exist. A world where something that is in an infinite supply is not distributed freely is an illogical world.
"Because the legality is important."
No, it's not. It has nothing to do with harm caused by pirates.
"And has to do with ability or failure to comply with social norms with respect to lawful behavior."
If everyone followed "social norms," everyone would be exactly the same. An indoctrinated drone that does exactly as they are told. Someone that believes everything they are told. Someone that votes the same way every single time. Someone that never considers what consequences lie in wait in the future. It would be even worse than it is now.
If everyone followed the law all of the time, nothing would ever change. Civil disobedience is a very powerful tactic, especially when injustice is being done. Although, those that object to this disobedience usually claim that no injustice is being done. Unsurprising.
One more time: violating copyright does not alone harm someone and things that don't exist can't be stolen.
"The percentage of pirates who "recant" and ultimately pay is so small as to be completely neglected, these people don't exist on a large enough scale to make any difference economically."
The same can be said about half of the type of people that I listed, especially the people without any money in the first place.
"There is HARM caused by not doing business with someone who wants you to do business with them"
Basic logic says that in order for you to be able to take something, it must first exist. I've said that a few times before, actually.
"Being forced to do business and obtain their goods or services is at least equally harmful."
Not to the artists which you're supposedly defending. They would be better off for it.
"Logicians call this a straw man. You are basically warping my argument, by modifying it into one that you can punch holes in."
I didn't warp your argument at all. I'm saying that using the same logic as you (regarding potential profit), you can conclude that people who do not buy the product are doing as much 'harm' (note: the harm doesn't exist since they never had the money in the first place) as a pirate is. I didn't specifically say that you said anything along those lines, which is what a straw man actually is.
"To say that a copyright owner is economically damaged by people making copies of their work, in no way implies that a copyright owner is equally damaged by people simply refusing to buy their work"
Well, I don't see how it doesn't. We certainly know that no one is hurt by the pirate merely copying the data itself, as that deprives no one of anything. The next conclusion that I came to was "potential profit," (which doesn't exist, and therefore can't be taken, anyway) which also applies to anyone who merely didn't buy the product.
"This is different from someone conducting a crime against you (such as copyright infringement), that exacts economic damage upon you."
You mean aside from the fact that using the law of "potential profit," neither of them granted the artist money, and (using that line of logic) deprived them of profit that they could, potentially, have had? Yeah, completely different.
"People in society have a right to not like your product."
But apparently they don't have a right to not grant you their money even if it does no harm to you.
"It is just as absurd as your example, and has no bearing on the very real economic harm caused by copyright infringement."
When I say "money and logic don't mix well together," this is one of the things that I mean. Saying that you are able to steal objects that don't exist is absurd and goes against basic logic.
"The crime is already committed"
Of "copyright infringement"? I already stated that I don't care about that because merely saying "copyright infringement" doesn't imply any harm was done. Copying data using your own time and resources doesn't do harm. Not granting someone money doesn't do harm. Where is the harm?
Also, why are you even bothering to mention the legality of copyright infringement? I've stated multiple times that I don't care. 'Right', 'wrong', and 'harm' have absolutely nothing to do with legality. Mentioning crimes and legality isn't disproving my point, nor does it prove your point that piracy does harm to someone. Obviously I want the laws changed, so I don't care about how legal or illegal something currently is.
"That's the kind of stuff I'd expect at a high school level"
Really? I wouldn't. Visual Basic is so simple that anyone should be able to grasp it (or at least the simple things that were being taught in that class). Besides that, a function? Really? That's terrible, high school or no.
I came to the same conclusion. What's worse is that the class I was in was a Visual Basic class. Most of them didn't care about programming, the ones who did performed very poorly at it (and in Visual Basic no less), and the teacher didn't even know what a function was (sure, he is a math teacher, but he had been teaching that class for three years). Disturbing.
I'm surprised that they haven't done this yet. All they're proving is that terrorism works. It makes life hell for the entire country. Mission accomplished!
Just ban everything. It's pointless not to at this point. Anything and everything can be used as a weapon, so why not? Just strip away all of our privacy and rights to 'keep away' those evil 'terrorists'!
"For as messed up as our system is"
Yes, it is. Why does everything need to be black and white with you people? Do you honestly think the way things are going now that the system is working well? Hint: it's not.
Again, what we need is balance. The government should not be able to pass bills/laws as it sees fit without the consent of the people, nor should the people be able to pass bills/laws that violate the constitution without needing checks and balances. As it stands, the government has far too much power and the people have far too little.
"The electoral college exists as a check to Tyranny of the Majority."
No, no. Now we're just ruled by the rich and those in power (those who try to take away our freedom with laws and bills), right? Much better! While we still remain in this capitalistic society, what we need is balance. The government should not be able to pass bills and laws that violate our freedoms (for any reason) without at least a majority vote, nor should the people be able to pass laws or bills that violate the freedoms of the minority without government interference. It doesn't have to be black and white. Currently, the government has far too much power for their own good and uses deception to fool the weak-minded into thinking that they are doing the 'right' thing. The way things are now, this corruption will continue.
"our democracy"
You mean the one that is ruled by the rich because of the people who let it be ruled by the rich (and the people that vote for the same two parties over and over again)? Yeah, what a nice democracy! I just love it when the government is able to pass bills and laws which clearly violate our freedom and privacy without the consent of the people, and what's worse is that people seem to support these bills and laws because they 'stop' those dirty 'terrorists'. I'd say these idiots are in need of some actual education, and no, the public school system isn't cutting it.
"Just because there are other things that can harm the copyright owner does not mean that making illegal copies does not exact economic damage upon the copyright owner."
That's merely a single point that I made. However, since harming someone by not giving them money doesn't really hurt them (unless you waste your time, which pirates don't do), your point is moot.
If not giving someone your money does cause harm (it doesn't), perhaps we should eliminate consumer choice, competition between businesses, and some degree of freedom of speech (speech that interferes with the flow of profit).
Every single time you say that pirates are hurting someone by not giving them their money you are including everyone who did not buy the product. Piracy is illegal while not buying a product is not. Perhaps it should be illegal, huh? Going by your logic, yes, it should.
"The existence of people who don't have their desire for the product satisfied means, there is a chance the copyright owner may be able to sell to them in the future"
You're not taking into account people who protest a business and refuse to buy the product. Or people who don't like the product. Or people who don't and never will have money to buy the product. Or people who aren't even near the area in which the product is being sold. Or perhaps the pirate may even decide to give the author money in the future, who is to say? We are talking about "maybes" here. All of them, including the pirate, have a "chance" to eventually award the author with their money, as unlikely as that may be.
However, like I said before, all of this is moot in light of the fact that if not giving someone your money economically harms someone (it doesn't, as that goes against basic logic, which doesn't appear to mix with capitalistic minds), then just about everyone in existence is 'guilty' of this.
"Of course they are."
Which is...? I can see you didn't read my previous comment at all and choose to continue to cling to the potential profit argument.
"You will not steal it from me"
I wasn't planning to. I was just planning to copy the data.
"No, it's saying I want money that has to be paid to me as a condition for my software being used to provide the benefit obtained."
What does it hurt you if they don't? You never had it in the first place.
"Copyright law is designed to protect my rights against people who would otherwise copy my software to obtain the benefits without paying me the amount due in exchange for receiving those benefits from each copy of my software."
As I said, I care not for copyright law as all I'm saying is piracy doesn't actually hurt anyone.
"If they obtained the benefit of having a copy of my product and running it on their computer, then yes, they would owe me 100,000."
I'm getting genuinely confused. First you say that harm was done to you because a pirate didn't give you money, but then you say it doesn't apply to non-pirates who didn't buy your product. Obviously the fact that they use your software itself doesn't hurt you. So, what is it? The only thing I can think of is that they didn't give you their money, which therefore includes non-pirates as well.
"No one HAS to make the deal, and exchange 100,000 for the benefit of running a copy of my product."
No one has to pay you, either. They can use your product without hurting you in the least.
"OR them running an extra copy without paying me 100,000."
Why? I'd say it's pretty fair for them to copy data and share it with others at absolutely no expense to you.
"I never said that not giving someone money inflicts harm -- *unless you would have otherwise done so*."
Yes, so you're basically saying "if those pirates had given the artist their money, the artist would have been better off." Whether or not they would have given the artist money if they were not a pirate is irrelevant. You are specifically stating that since they did not give the artist their money, harm was done. Therefore, everyone who didn't buy the product did harm to the artist because if they had bought the product, the artist would have been better off.
"You cannot argue (sanely) that this isn't true and does not represent a true loss to the property owner."
Yes, I can. Nothing was taken.
"Bullshit. Children learn by imitating."
Right, and that must mean that since I played violent video games as a child (and my parents owned guns), I am a murderer.
Speaking of which, if they aren't able to differentiate between fact and fiction, it sounds like a combination of bad parenting and a lack of mental prowess (in the case of video games and unrealistic looking media, since even five year olds know that that is fiction).
"I should also point out that the hypothetical assholes in this scenario are not using any of the builder's time"
That's where you're wrong. They instructed the builder to complete a job for them, which in turn used up their time. Do you truly believe that doing a job, or taking any action whatsoever, does not require time? The people in your scenario specifically requested it knowing that they would have to pay the builder because they are the ones who used up the builders time.
"Oh, and I find it amusing that you think it's convincing to invent a name for an argument, as though it has been thoroughly countered, even when it clearly has not. I call that the "naming" argument, and it has been thoroughly countered."
I invent a name for it because it is far more simple to call it by a name than by describing it in detail every single time I want to reference it.
"Why? Aside from the fact that you wish to trivialise my opinion so that you have any hope of rebutting it?"
Read the next few sentences after that.
"I refer you to my analogy (which you really must read). Just because we expect the people to pay the builder at the end of the job, does not mean we expect everyone to pay the builder."
No, but apparently pirates are 'stealing' potential profit while people who simply decide not to buy the product are not. Again, the only difference is that the pirate enjoys free entertainment. Neither of them gave the artist any money, so using the logic of those who use the potential profit argument, each of them 'stole' profit that the artist could, potentially, have had.
"You're also demonstrating an embarrassing lack of understanding of copyright law"
I don't really care about copyright law. All I'm trying to show is that pirates do not actually harm anyone.
"basic literacy"
I have read all that you have written, but it simply wasn't convincing.
"then people are inevitably going to start having without buying."
If they can get it for free at the expense of no one, why not?
"You broke the law, you are liable to pay damages."
Right now, at least. Obviously I do not care for such laws.
"which makes artists unable to survive as artists."
How do pirates hurt these artists anymore than someone who chose not to buy it? Neither actually took anything from the artist (except perhaps potential profit, but only if you're going by that line of logic) or used the artists time (unlike instructing someone to build something for you). If either of them had given their money to the artist, he/she would have been better off, would they not?
"Nobody, except those who push your particular strawman, is claiming that everyone owes artists."
In order for it to be a straw man, I would have to be specifically telling you or others that you believe that everyone owes artists. As far as I know, all I've done is state that people who simply choose not to buy a product are, like pirates, 'stealing' profit that the artist could, potentially, have had if they would have granted them their money.
"The next door neighbours didn't pay the builder either! I'm sure those asshole customers didn't hesitate to try to shift the blame to the neighbours for their own selfishness."
Of course, I don't really believe this. I don't really believe that profit that only exists in a future that never was can be stolen. All that statement meant to do was state that neither of them compensated the artist, and if they had, the artist would have been better off. Is that not correct? In reality, by not doing so, neither of them have harmed the artist (or helped them). If artists can't survive in a system without being paid for products that are in an infinite supply, and in that system there exist people who are labeled as thieves (even when they haven't actually taken anything, including the artists time) simply because they don't give their money away for the product, chances are that it is a problem with the system itself and the old business model that
"There's a lot of weird stuff on the internet."
Oh, believe me, I've seen it. It doesn't have any effect on me at all.
"Is that the sort of thing you want your kids seeing?"
Is that the sort of thing you want anyone seeing? Might as well ban everyone from the internet, since even you said it affects adults.
"Or maybe it's just text, and they read something that creeps them out, and will make them wake up crying every night for the next 6 months *shrugs*."
Maybe it's the same with you. Perhaps the government should cut off your access to the internet because you might instantly turn into a murderer/rapist from viewing the content.
"But the point remains, your silly knee-jerk reactions about how any parent who wants to know what their kid views is "indoctrinating" their kid shows your ignorance."
No, I just heavily dislike pointless censorship.
"It's not exactly THE SKY IS FALLING scenario, but it does mean that the idea of putting a "Do you want to continue" here to prevent accidental clickage isn't a bad idea."
Why? It's annoying. If they don't like it, they can just get out.
"It has to do with Googles customers having a reasonable expectation that their ads not show up supporting something they might think is questionable."
But, really, who are we talking about here? Anyone who doesn't like the website can just... not visit it. It's not hard to understand, but then again we are talking about people that are so detached from reality that they can't possibly be saved, so I wouldn't be surprised if this decision was encouraged by them.
"it just has a quick warning blurb in front of it that in now way hinders it's affect."
Yeah, but that still doesn't make this any less annoying and pointless.
"i hear thats what all the kids are saying these days"
Kids? Anyone with sense can see how corrupt the government is and always has been, not just kids. You're right, it failed before it even began.
"This is exactly how censorship should work."
A giant corporation with a large amount of influence dropping support for people that dare say something against their views? I mean, yes, if censorship exists at all, I'd rather have this happen than the government doing it, but that doesn't mean that censorship isn't completely pointless and an obscenity in and of itself.
"As a mature adult, I object to having every aspect of my media dumbed down to avoid inflicting the truth on children."
As someone who isn't completely detached from reality, I object to censoring (yes, I know that this isn't necessarily censorship) anything in the name of children. Even children know what is fiction and what is not, and even if they don't, they won't magically become a murder/rapist because of content that they viewed.
"self-taught genius experts"
Sounds about right.
"if parents want to "protect" their children"
Protect in this sense of course means "indoctrinate." I don't see the problem with sexual/violent content at all. There's nothing to protect them from. A person who is normal to begin with doesn't magically become a murderer/rapist when they view content.
While I agree with that, I don't think most politicians do. They only agree with something if it doesn't get in the way of their goals. There's this thing called "unprotected speech," which inherently means that no, speech in the US is not truly free.
"You're presuming that everyone who pirated the product would not have purchased it otherwise."
What? No, I didn't. That bit of information is irrelevant to me and the argument that I am making. Here, let me quote what I've already written.
"Let me ask you this: are you happy to know that there are people out there who don't buy your product? These people just decide not to buy it at all, thereby 'depriving' you of profit that you could have had if they would have bought it. They apparently 'damage' you and make artists live on the streets because they can no longer do what they love. They are very similar to pirates."
If not giving someone your money inflicts harm upon them (as pirates allegedly do), then you will want to blame what is likely every person in existence. Merely choosing not to buy a product, whether or not you wanted it, would 'inflict harm' upon the authors if we are going to go by your logic.
I believe that you're confusing me with someone who recycles the same argument again and again even after its logic has been put into question.
Trolling? You apparently do not know what that word means. I have thought extensively about the topic of piracy and legitimately do not see how it causes anymore harm than someone simply choosing not to buy a product.