"Let's say that you're a builder, and you've just finished building a house."
Ah, the "time" argument. Of course. You absolutely cannot compare physical objects or physical work to copying data. Why? Pirates don't use up any of the original authors time. They use their own time and resources to copy data.
Now, whether or not you think they should be paid for the work that they put into the original product is irrelevant. If you think they should, then perhaps you should go scold every single person who decided not to buy the product (thereby 'hurting' the artist by 'stealing' his/her potential profit). They also didn't pay the author for their time, just like a pirate didn't. Whether or not they wanted the product is again irrelevant. If you think that not paying someone money (while also not using up any of their time or resources) hurts them, then they are included in that category no matter how much you don't want it to be so.
If there truly are artists who are 'suffering', then you can turn to our illogical capitalistic society which practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for, and those who don't pay for them are labeled 'thieves' (even though they don't take anything or use up any of the original artists time).
"And if you don't do anything yet, what is your plans for the future."
Software developer.
"Because if it is anything involving technology, the bread on your table and the roof over your head is the result of selling what is inside your head."
Yes, but you see, even if I did change my opinion, that does not mean that what I said was not correct. People usually have the opinion they do on piracy for personal gain. In reality, pirates have and always will take nothing from anyone. All they do is copy data.
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 you're looking for something to blame or something to fix for these supposed artists who are 'suffering', then turn to our illogical capitalistic society that practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for, and anyone who doesn't do so will be labeled a 'thief' (even when they didn't actually take anything). Money and logic don't appear to mix well together.
"An Enterprise that buys 1 copy of my software and illegally makes 5 copies of my software deprives me of $500,000 that they owe me for the right to have 6 copies of my software."
Deprived you of $500,000... that you didn't have in the first place. So, basically you're saying that you want your money that you would have had in the future back? Alright.
Imagine that some random person decides not to buy your product. They would 'owe' you $100,000, just like a pirate apparently would. Whether or not they want it doesn't matter in the least, since you're arguing that not giving someone your money harms them, it applies to everyone who didn't buy the product. You can go on to say that choosing not to buy a product is currently legal, but that doesn't change the fact that that doesn't make any sense since they are doing the exact same thing (apparently harming you) as a pirate (except the pirate gets free media).
"They HAVE deprived me of something, my legal right, and they have inflicted serious monetary harm on me."
You must owe a lot of money to all of those people whom you didn't give your money to, then. Saying "it's legal" isn't going to make it logical.
"If I do choose to pirate a work, then that means I want the product and potentially other products the author makes. Not paying for it is detremental to gaining other products from the author and/or publisher."
That's really your problem now, isn't it? If you want the author to make more media, pay him. Not giving someone money but still copying data doesn't hurt them. I mean, it might hurt you if you want to see the artist make another product, but not the artist. If you say it does, then I will go back to my previous statement and say that this is also the fault of anyone who didn't buy the product (even if they didn't want it) because if they had, the artist would have had more money.
"You're confusing "not interested in it" with "not interested in paying for it". Nobody thinks someone should have to pay for something they don't want."
That doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is this: if they would have bought the product, the author would have had more money. Therefore, they deprived the author of potential profit similar to that of a pirate.
"And few, if anyone, would compensate the author."
My entire point is that piracy itself hurts people as much as someone simply choosing not to buy a product.
Again, if you're looking for something to fix or blame, turn to our illogical capitalistic society that practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for and anyone who does not do so will illogically be labeled a 'thief' (even though they're just copying data).
Again, to harm someone, you must first take or damage something that they own. This is not the case with piracy, not buying a product, or telling others not to buy a product.
"but it is a different situation altogether"
So, it harms them like piracy, but it's a different situation? No, it is the same. The only difference being that the pirate enjoys free entertainment, which again, does no harm by itself.
"and smashing a shop window one night and taking it"
Huh? When did I say anything about stealing physical objects or depriving anyone of anything (or damaging their property)? I didn't. We are talking about copying data here, not piracy.
"If you could duplicate a distribute a physical book for zero cost, that still doesn't change the fact that the author has spent a good portion of their life and creative energy creating the work, and deserves to be paid for it if they choose to."
But as I said, this is no more the fault of the pirate (who didn't actually take anything, mind you) than it is someone who chose not to buy the product (if they had bought it, the author would have had more money and would have been awarded for their creative effort).
"If you don't believe that creative effort doesn't deserve to be rewarded"
I never said that. However, it should be an optional endeavor. Our illogical capitalistic society demands that this not be so.
"But you can't consume it and simultaneously say there is no value to it."
I never said that there was no value. It has entertainment value, but if I can get it for free, I'd rather do that.
Again, if you're angry at people for not giving the author money for his/her "creative works," then you will want to scold every single person who didn't buy the product but also didn't pirate it. Not rewarding someone with your money clearly means that you've stolen potential profit from them!
"We are referring to an injury that copyright infringement inflicts on authors."
Again, this is nonexistence. Merely saying "copyright infringement" does not prove that any harm has been done. In order for harm to be done, something must be taken from them (or damaged).
"Yes, YOU CAN deprive someone of something that doesn't exist."
Basic logic says otherwise. Whenever I say "illogical capitalistic society," this is one of the many things that I am referring to.
"by taking product"
Which never happens in the case of piracy. Data is copied and it is always in infinite supply. No one is deprived of the product itself.
Now, let it be known that I care not for the legality of copyright infringement, but only for the harm that doing so actually causes. To say that a law is always correct (and that breaking the law inflicts harm on people even when the 'crime' you commit harms no one) is absurd.
"It is lawful to deprive someone of profit by choosing not to purchase their product."
Yes, it is. But, why? By not buying their product, you are depriving them of profit that they could, potentially, have had. If you had given them your money, they would have had more profit. Therefore, you 'stole' potential profit from them. Similar to a pirate in that they might have had more money if the pirate wouldn't have pirated the media (the difference of course being that the pirate enjoys free entertainment, but that alone doesn't inflict harm).
If you truly believe that 'stealing' potential profit causes harm, then you might want to scold everyone in existence. Lawful or not, it's illogical.
The entire point of my post is to point out that this does not hurt anyone, and thus should not be considered a crime.
"It is lawful to deprive someone of profit by choosing not to purchase their product."
I see... you are only arguing on the legality of it, and not on the actual harm that it causes. That is what I was trying to point out (that it causes no harm).
"The reality is, there are always going to be fucktards who will look to the Internet to avoid having to pay for something."
I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem with this. What are pirates taking by copying data? How are they harming others? If you say that they're stealing "potential profit," then I'm afraid that's illogical. For one thing, for someone to be taken, it must first exist. Profit that they do not yet have is not theirs (and thus the profit that they could have owned in the future does not yet exist). Second of all, everyone in existence 'steals' profit that others could have had. You do so merely by choosing not to give someone your money or by interfering with someones flow of profit. As far as I know, everyone fits that category.
If you're looking for something to fix or something to blame, you should turn to our illogical capitalistic society (at least, our current one) which practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for, and if someone doesn't, then they'll be labeled a 'thief'. If anything, that is what is causing these supposed artists to 'suffer', because it certainly isn't pirates (for reasons pointed out above).
"I'm still waiting to see any real data that shows the damages from widespread file sharing of copyrighted materials."
You'll be waiting forever because there is none. In order for something to be taken, it must first exist. The profits that they could have had in the future (which is what they try to say the pirate steals) do not exist, and therefore can't be taken. Not to mention that, again, everyone in existence 'steals' profit that others could have had. You do that by merely choosing not to give someone your money or by interfering with someones flow of profit. Everyone fits that category, as far as I know. The potential profit (demand, time, etc) argument is simply absurd.
"but it doesn't make much sense to build in the ability to give unlimited copies to everyone and think that it won't undermine the business"
Sounds like a problem with our capitalistic society rather than the process of handing out free information.
"For example, how many students are really going to buy their own digital copies of their textbooks"
Why would they? Some of them simply can't afford it. Education is far more important than money.
"but I also can't agree with the pirates desire for unlimited free copies for everyone"
How does copying data hurt anyone? We know that they aren't stealing the media itself, as they're merely copying it. Are you going to resort to using the potential profit argument? Demand? Time?
In reality, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could have had. You 'steal' profit that someone could have had whenever you decide not to buy a product. You 'steal' profit that someone could have had whenever you decide to tell other people who were originally going to buy a product not to buy the product (warning them about bad products). Basically, you 'steal' profit that others could have had whenever you choose to not give them your money or interfere with their flow of profit. I don't believe that there is a single person that doesn't fit this category.
Again, what needs fixing is our outdated and illogical capitalistic society which essentially demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for (and people who use the goods without paying are labeled as 'thieves').
Potential profit is a silly argument (in regards to piracy, this, and everything else).
"Publish the URL here, then let's revisit this argument in a month or so."
As if me changing my opinion would alter basic logic itself. Even if I did change my opinion for personal gain, that does not mean that you are correct.
Were these actually given? Also, you said "losses." Does that mean that they actually lost money from this exchange (and I don't mean money that they could, potentially, have had)?
If so, they could have just made him pay for that.
"I suspect you'll find that the punishment is very similar."
Except that, in this case, nothing was actually damaged as far as I know. The data is still there, right?
I think you should be put in jail for that highly offensive comment that you just made! It is clearly my constitutional right to not be offended and be exposed to such vulgar content that goes against my beliefs!
Seriously, how is thirty months about right? For DDoSing even a large amount of websites, that's ridiculous.
I find it odd how the constitution seems to mention nothing about unprotected speech and yet people act as if this is normal. Actually, no, that's not odd. That's just the ancient tradition of government corruption kicking in.
"therefore depriving them of money from sales that is rightfully theirs"
Here we have the "potential profit" argument again. Let me explain why this is illogical.
For one thing, it is impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. You can't deprive someone of something that doesn't exist.
Second of all, if it was possible, everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
You 'steal' potential profit every single time you decide to not buy a product. The author of the product would have had more money if you had bought it (therefore they were deprived of "money from sales," as you said). This is similar to a pirate in that if the pirate had bought the product instead of pirating it (which alone didn't hurt them since they just copy data), they would have had more money as well.
You 'steal' potential profit every single time you decide to warn others who were originally going to buy the product not to buy the product for whatever reason (perhaps it is poorly made). If they decide not to, you've deprived the artist of "money from sales." You've just 'hurt' a legitimate artist by your standards.
I could keep giving examples but it's pointless. Ultimately, the pirate does no damages whatsoever by copying data. Sure, the artist did put in time to make the original media, but when a pirate copies data, they use their own time and resources to do so, not force the original artist to do it for them. If you blame the pirate for not compensating the artist for the time spent in making the original product, then the same blame should also go to the people in the above examples since none of them gave the artist any money (and the artist would have been better off if they had).
Also, saying "but they use the artists work without permission" says nothing about damages. That alone does not hurt them at all, and taking the above examples into account, there is just no way a pirate is hurting anyone. If you want something to blame, blame our capitalistic society which practically forces you to obtain money in order to participate in it. If anything is hurting these supposed artists, it's that, because pirates logically aren't doing any harm.
"Except that the person producing the digital item has no motivation to create new ones"
It sounds like this is a problem with our capitalistic society. Again, this is no more the fault of the pirate than it is the fault of someone who just decided not to buy or use the product (the artist would have had more money if they did, and therefore 'incentive').
"The simple, moral, decision is to not use the item then."
It doesn't harm them to use the product anyway since you're not depriving anyone of anything by copying data. I think it is generous to award someone with money for a product that they made, but in the case of digital media, using the product without paying really does no harm.
Ah, I see. That's almost as bad as that time when I decided not to buy a product from a store, thereby depriving them of profit that they could, potentially, have had!
I suppose you're right. In fact, I got confused by your statement and had to read it a few times over to make sure you weren't talking about people who 'infringe copyright'.
Slashdot Mirror
"Let's say that you're a builder, and you've just finished building a house."
Ah, the "time" argument. Of course. You absolutely cannot compare physical objects or physical work to copying data. Why? Pirates don't use up any of the original authors time. They use their own time and resources to copy data.
Now, whether or not you think they should be paid for the work that they put into the original product is irrelevant. If you think they should, then perhaps you should go scold every single person who decided not to buy the product (thereby 'hurting' the artist by 'stealing' his/her potential profit). They also didn't pay the author for their time, just like a pirate didn't. Whether or not they wanted the product is again irrelevant. If you think that not paying someone money (while also not using up any of their time or resources) hurts them, then they are included in that category no matter how much you don't want it to be so.
If there truly are artists who are 'suffering', then you can turn to our illogical capitalistic society which practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for, and those who don't pay for them are labeled 'thieves' (even though they don't take anything or use up any of the original artists time).
"And if you don't do anything yet, what is your plans for the future."
Software developer.
"Because if it is anything involving technology, the bread on your table and the roof over your head is the result of selling what is inside your head."
Yes, but you see, even if I did change my opinion, that does not mean that what I said was not correct. People usually have the opinion they do on piracy for personal gain. In reality, pirates have and always will take nothing from anyone. All they do is copy data.
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 you're looking for something to blame or something to fix for these supposed artists who are 'suffering', then turn to our illogical capitalistic society that practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for, and anyone who doesn't do so will be labeled a 'thief' (even when they didn't actually take anything). Money and logic don't appear to mix well together.
"An Enterprise that buys 1 copy of my software and illegally makes 5 copies of my software deprives me of $500,000 that they owe me for the right to have 6 copies of my software."
Deprived you of $500,000... that you didn't have in the first place. So, basically you're saying that you want your money that you would have had in the future back? Alright.
Imagine that some random person decides not to buy your product. They would 'owe' you $100,000, just like a pirate apparently would. Whether or not they want it doesn't matter in the least, since you're arguing that not giving someone your money harms them, it applies to everyone who didn't buy the product. You can go on to say that choosing not to buy a product is currently legal, but that doesn't change the fact that that doesn't make any sense since they are doing the exact same thing (apparently harming you) as a pirate (except the pirate gets free media).
"They HAVE deprived me of something, my legal right, and they have inflicted serious monetary harm on me."
You must owe a lot of money to all of those people whom you didn't give your money to, then. Saying "it's legal" isn't going to make it logical.
"If I do choose to pirate a work, then that means I want the product and potentially other products the author makes. Not paying for it is detremental to gaining other products from the author and/or publisher."
That's really your problem now, isn't it? If you want the author to make more media, pay him. Not giving someone money but still copying data doesn't hurt them. I mean, it might hurt you if you want to see the artist make another product, but not the artist. If you say it does, then I will go back to my previous statement and say that this is also the fault of anyone who didn't buy the product (even if they didn't want it) because if they had, the artist would have had more money.
"You're confusing "not interested in it" with "not interested in paying for it". Nobody thinks someone should have to pay for something they don't want."
That doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is this: if they would have bought the product, the author would have had more money. Therefore, they deprived the author of potential profit similar to that of a pirate.
"And few, if anyone, would compensate the author."
My entire point is that piracy itself hurts people as much as someone simply choosing not to buy a product.
Again, if you're looking for something to fix or blame, turn to our illogical capitalistic society that practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for and anyone who does not do so will illogically be labeled a 'thief' (even though they're just copying data).
*We are talking about copying data here, not that.
Heh.
"by the way, harms them also"
Again, to harm someone, you must first take or damage something that they own. This is not the case with piracy, not buying a product, or telling others not to buy a product.
"but it is a different situation altogether"
So, it harms them like piracy, but it's a different situation? No, it is the same. The only difference being that the pirate enjoys free entertainment, which again, does no harm by itself.
"and smashing a shop window one night and taking it"
Huh? When did I say anything about stealing physical objects or depriving anyone of anything (or damaging their property)? I didn't. We are talking about copying data here, not piracy.
"If you could duplicate a distribute a physical book for zero cost, that still doesn't change the fact that the author has spent a good portion of their life and creative energy creating the work, and deserves to be paid for it if they choose to."
But as I said, this is no more the fault of the pirate (who didn't actually take anything, mind you) than it is someone who chose not to buy the product (if they had bought it, the author would have had more money and would have been awarded for their creative effort).
"If you don't believe that creative effort doesn't deserve to be rewarded"
I never said that. However, it should be an optional endeavor. Our illogical capitalistic society demands that this not be so.
"But you can't consume it and simultaneously say there is no value to it."
I never said that there was no value. It has entertainment value, but if I can get it for free, I'd rather do that.
Again, if you're angry at people for not giving the author money for his/her "creative works," then you will want to scold every single person who didn't buy the product but also didn't pirate it. Not rewarding someone with your money clearly means that you've stolen potential profit from them!
Accidentally posted too soon.
"We are referring to an injury that copyright infringement inflicts on authors."
Again, this is nonexistence. Merely saying "copyright infringement" does not prove that any harm has been done. In order for harm to be done, something must be taken from them (or damaged).
"Yes, YOU CAN deprive someone of something that doesn't exist."
Basic logic says otherwise. Whenever I say "illogical capitalistic society," this is one of the many things that I am referring to.
"by taking product"
Which never happens in the case of piracy. Data is copied and it is always in infinite supply. No one is deprived of the product itself.
Now, let it be known that I care not for the legality of copyright infringement, but only for the harm that doing so actually causes. To say that a law is always correct (and that breaking the law inflicts harm on people even when the 'crime' you commit harms no one) is absurd.
"It is lawful to deprive someone of profit by choosing not to purchase their product."
Yes, it is. But, why? By not buying their product, you are depriving them of profit that they could, potentially, have had. If you had given them your money, they would have had more profit. Therefore, you 'stole' potential profit from them. Similar to a pirate in that they might have had more money if the pirate wouldn't have pirated the media (the difference of course being that the pirate enjoys free entertainment, but that alone doesn't inflict harm).
If you truly believe that 'stealing' potential profit causes harm, then you might want to scold everyone in existence. Lawful or not, it's illogical.
"The crime is copyright infringement."
The entire point of my post is to point out that this does not hurt anyone, and thus should not be considered a crime.
"It is lawful to deprive someone of profit by choosing not to purchase their product."
I see... you are only arguing on the legality of it, and not on the actual harm that it causes. That is what I was trying to point out (that it causes no harm).
"The reality is, there are always going to be fucktards who will look to the Internet to avoid having to pay for something."
I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem with this. What are pirates taking by copying data? How are they harming others? If you say that they're stealing "potential profit," then I'm afraid that's illogical. For one thing, for someone to be taken, it must first exist. Profit that they do not yet have is not theirs (and thus the profit that they could have owned in the future does not yet exist). Second of all, everyone in existence 'steals' profit that others could have had. You do so merely by choosing not to give someone your money or by interfering with someones flow of profit. As far as I know, everyone fits that category.
If you're looking for something to fix or something to blame, you should turn to our illogical capitalistic society (at least, our current one) which practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for, and if someone doesn't, then they'll be labeled a 'thief'. If anything, that is what is causing these supposed artists to 'suffer', because it certainly isn't pirates (for reasons pointed out above).
"I'm still waiting to see any real data that shows the damages from widespread file sharing of copyrighted materials."
You'll be waiting forever because there is none. In order for something to be taken, it must first exist. The profits that they could have had in the future (which is what they try to say the pirate steals) do not exist, and therefore can't be taken. Not to mention that, again, everyone in existence 'steals' profit that others could have had. You do that by merely choosing not to give someone your money or by interfering with someones flow of profit. Everyone fits that category, as far as I know. The potential profit (demand, time, etc) argument is simply absurd.
"but it doesn't make much sense to build in the ability to give unlimited copies to everyone and think that it won't undermine the business"
Sounds like a problem with our capitalistic society rather than the process of handing out free information.
"For example, how many students are really going to buy their own digital copies of their textbooks"
Why would they? Some of them simply can't afford it. Education is far more important than money.
"but I also can't agree with the pirates desire for unlimited free copies for everyone"
How does copying data hurt anyone? We know that they aren't stealing the media itself, as they're merely copying it. Are you going to resort to using the potential profit argument? Demand? Time?
In reality, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could have had. You 'steal' profit that someone could have had whenever you decide not to buy a product. You 'steal' profit that someone could have had whenever you decide to tell other people who were originally going to buy a product not to buy the product (warning them about bad products). Basically, you 'steal' profit that others could have had whenever you choose to not give them your money or interfere with their flow of profit. I don't believe that there is a single person that doesn't fit this category.
Again, what needs fixing is our outdated and illogical capitalistic society which essentially demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for (and people who use the goods without paying are labeled as 'thieves').
"Do you generate income from it?"
Potential profit is a silly argument (in regards to piracy, this, and everything else).
"Publish the URL here, then let's revisit this argument in a month or so."
As if me changing my opinion would alter basic logic itself. Even if I did change my opinion for personal gain, that does not mean that you are correct.
"but he got what's coming to him."
A 30 month sentence? Really? Come on.
"Time"
I suppose it did take time for them to fix the problem.
"money"
In order for something to be taken, it must first exist.
At any rate, it's certainly not worth a 30 month punishment.
"If I smash one of your windows"
The key thing to note here is that no windows or physical objects were broken. Nothing was taken or lost.
"Tally up the financial losses"
Were these actually given? Also, you said "losses." Does that mean that they actually lost money from this exchange (and I don't mean money that they could, potentially, have had)?
If so, they could have just made him pay for that.
"I suspect you'll find that the punishment is very similar."
Except that, in this case, nothing was actually damaged as far as I know. The data is still there, right?
I think you should be put in jail for that highly offensive comment that you just made! It is clearly my constitutional right to not be offended and be exposed to such vulgar content that goes against my beliefs!
Seriously, how is thirty months about right? For DDoSing even a large amount of websites, that's ridiculous.
"protected free speech"
I find it odd how the constitution seems to mention nothing about unprotected speech and yet people act as if this is normal. Actually, no, that's not odd. That's just the ancient tradition of government corruption kicking in.
"When faced with undeniable facts and undeniable evidence"
Not evolution, buddy.
"therefore depriving them of money from sales that is rightfully theirs"
Here we have the "potential profit" argument again. Let me explain why this is illogical.
For one thing, it is impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. You can't deprive someone of something that doesn't exist.
Second of all, if it was possible, everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
You 'steal' potential profit every single time you decide to not buy a product. The author of the product would have had more money if you had bought it (therefore they were deprived of "money from sales," as you said). This is similar to a pirate in that if the pirate had bought the product instead of pirating it (which alone didn't hurt them since they just copy data), they would have had more money as well.
You 'steal' potential profit every single time you decide to warn others who were originally going to buy the product not to buy the product for whatever reason (perhaps it is poorly made). If they decide not to, you've deprived the artist of "money from sales." You've just 'hurt' a legitimate artist by your standards.
I could keep giving examples but it's pointless. Ultimately, the pirate does no damages whatsoever by copying data. Sure, the artist did put in time to make the original media, but when a pirate copies data, they use their own time and resources to do so, not force the original artist to do it for them. If you blame the pirate for not compensating the artist for the time spent in making the original product, then the same blame should also go to the people in the above examples since none of them gave the artist any money (and the artist would have been better off if they had).
Also, saying "but they use the artists work without permission" says nothing about damages. That alone does not hurt them at all, and taking the above examples into account, there is just no way a pirate is hurting anyone. If you want something to blame, blame our capitalistic society which practically forces you to obtain money in order to participate in it. If anything is hurting these supposed artists, it's that, because pirates logically aren't doing any harm.
"Except that the person producing the digital item has no motivation to create new ones"
It sounds like this is a problem with our capitalistic society. Again, this is no more the fault of the pirate than it is the fault of someone who just decided not to buy or use the product (the artist would have had more money if they did, and therefore 'incentive').
"The simple, moral, decision is to not use the item then."
It doesn't harm them to use the product anyway since you're not depriving anyone of anything by copying data. I think it is generous to award someone with money for a product that they made, but in the case of digital media, using the product without paying really does no harm.
Ah, I see. That's almost as bad as that time when I decided not to buy a product from a store, thereby depriving them of profit that they could, potentially, have had!
I suppose you're right. In fact, I got confused by your statement and had to read it a few times over to make sure you weren't talking about people who 'infringe copyright'.