Not really. You can't steal something that doesn't exist.
Oh, and, saying "but you don't have the right to copy data without the permission of the original artist" doesn't mean anything. No harm is done to them by doing it.
"The real issue is that a person put time into something"
Pirates don't take time from anyone. They use their own time and resources to copy data.
You 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by not buying a product. If you had bought the product, they would have had more money, which means that you 'stole' potential profit from them (since apparently we live in a world where that's possible and 'rational' people believe it is). This is similar to a pirate in that someone might have made more profit if they had not pirated the media.
You 'deprive' someone of profit that they could, potentially, have had every single time you decide to inform other people about a poorly made product and they ultimately decide not to buy it. If you hadn't told them not to buy it, they would have, so therefore you 'stole' the artists potential profit.
I can keep giving examples, but it's pointless. You can mix and match the potential profit argument any way you want (time, demand, etc), it will never work because it doesn't make sense and it applies to everyone. Again, if artists are really suffering, this is not the fault of the pirates (no more so than people who didn't give the artist their money but also didn't pirate it), but our capitalistic society.
What you said made sense. However, I was merely referencing to the fact that if artists 'suffer' due to people not buying their songs, it is ultimately not the fault of pirates since they logically deprive no one of anything. If anything is to be blamed, it would be more appropriate to blame our capitalistic society in which you need money in order to participate in. The problem is, if everyone pirates things, how would artists make money (again, it's still not the fault of the pirates)? In a capitalistic society, they would either have to go without money (and be unable to buy necessities) or make media as a hobby.
As a pirate, neither do I. Pirates merely copy data and deprive no one else of anything at all. You could say that they 'steal' profit that others could, potentially, have had, but it is impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. Also, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (as you 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by not giving them your money).
The problem here is that people are deluding themselves into believing that copying data somehow damages the original authors, but that is simply not true. As such, the "fair price" would be zero.
How is this even possible? The harm done by copying data is nonexistent. Stealing money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money is impossible, and if it wasn't, then everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (you 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by not giving them your money).
I think the problem here is that many people are actually deluding themselves into believing that copying data somehow deprives someone of something, and that is simply not true.
"If you would never have paid for it why are you downloading it?"
Just because they downloaded does not mean that the product is worth paying for. Besides, this is completely irrelevant. Logically, pirates take nothing from anyone. The only argument that I've ever seen (and it's a terrible one) is the "potential profit" argument. But, really, it's impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. Also, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (you 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by choosing not to buy a product). Our illogical capitalistic society is what needs fixing.
"I don't think the courts would look kindly on your agreeing to only the parts of the agreement you like."
I know they wouldn't. What I'm saying is that if you buy something, it should be yours whether or not some EULA tells you otherwise. Yes, I know this isn't how it currently works, but I'm just expressing my contempt towards the current system.
"So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms."
Not really. Again, the only people who seem to get caught are those who are technologically inept. I mean, sure, they get hit with insane fines and/or jail terms, but if you're not like them, the chances of you getting caught for such a harmless action are slim to none.
Yes, because trusting the government with our last ounce of privacy is always a good idea! It will never be abused in the least! Now we should let them install security cameras in our homes (including the bathroom to make sure that no illegal activities are being done in there) so that we can catch *all* of the terrorists. What? You don't want that? You must have something to hide, because the government would never abuse this!
This entire fiasco just proves one thing: terrorism works!
So don't fly, you terrorist! The government has every right to invade your very last ounce of privacy (to stop those evil terrorists) and violate it to the fullest extent! What kind of fool wouldn't trust a government who does that!?
"the passengers of United 93 did what they had to do and crashed their own plane"
Actually, I'd rather they crash into a building owned by the corrupt government than crash into nothing at all. Seriously, what an absolute waste. This is almost as bad as stopping someone from destroying the MPAA/RIAA headquarters. Typical drones.
Don't pat downs and strip searches take more time, though? If so, it would drain even more of their time. Think of it as a form of protest. If everyone puts up with these 'safety measures' designed to fight those evil 'terrorists' that only manage to invade our privacy, nothing will ever change.
"prefer the safety that these provide"
They don't really provide that much safety in reality. Not to mention that people who give up their freedom and privacy in exchange for a sense of security are an absolute disgrace. Governments take advantage of this fear and use it against you.
"Since copyright is the only way to protect the rights of people who make money for their creations, you've just contradicted yourself."
It is? I did? If people want to award the author with their money, that is fine. I don't really care, but pirates aren't actually taking anything.
"Breaking my copyright is the same as breaking a pipe open at my dairy or stealing my car."
Well, I can see how much thought you've given this topic: absolutely none. Pirates copy data, not steal physical objects. When they pirate something, no one is deprived of anything.
But hey, since you've broken down and used the "potential profit" argument, let me demonstrate exactly how illogical that is.
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.
Second of all, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
You deprive a store of profit that they could have potentially had whenever you choose not to buy a product. They would have had more money if you did, much like an artist would have had more money if the pirate chose to buy the media instead of pirating it.
You deprive someone of profit that they could have potentially had whenever you decide to tell others about a bad product and they decide not to buy it. They would have had more money if you hadn't done that, so therefore, you 'stole' profit that they could, potentially, have had.
Naturally, the limits of the potential profit argument knows no bounds. What needs fixing is our illogical capitalistic society (if anything truly needs fixing at all, blame that), because pirates logically aren't hurting anyone at all. No more so than the people in the above examples.
Also note that saying "but they're using my intellectual property without my permission" has absolutely nothing to do with harm that they've caused artists because that alone doesn't do any harm. Take the above examples into consideration and the "potential profit" argument doesn't make any logical sense.
"Still, what you are calling a "moron" may be more than 50% of internet users."
Yes, and they're absolute morons. They should either learn how to use the computer and internet responsibly or stop using it all together (not likely).
"What a load of rubbish, people have the right to offend and be offended"
Much like I have the right to offend people who are offended!
"it does not make either one of them weak-minded"
If they get mad over a simple joke, to me, it does. I personally think that anyone who gets upset over mere words (such as swear words) is a sign that they have a weak mind. They're just strings of imaginary letters.
"For every MP3 that exists, someone spent time and creativity to produce the song that is encoded."
The original media, yes. The pirate, however, uses his own time and resources to make a copy, thereby depriving the author of no time or creativity. If you think the pirate is 'stealing' profit that the author could, potentially, have had, then you must also think that about everyone in existence. If someone does so much as decide not to buy a product, they have 'taken' (impossible, anyway) profit that the store could, potentially, have had. The only difference is that they aren't getting any free entertainment.
"Thus, the pirate is actually taking the product of someone else's work."
The product is still there, thus they took nothing.
I still agree with you that the actual cost of the song would be a more appropriate fine than this, but it still wouldn't make sense.
"If it's valueless to you, then why argue so loudly for the right to copy it without paying for it?"
It's not valueless, it has entertainment value. Entertainment that can be gotten for free and at the expense of no one. If pirates didn't want it, they wouldn't download it. This isn't difficult to understand.
"That's the hypocrisy"
There is no hypocrisy. It's just as I described above. It obviously has entertainment value. However, pirates still do not take anything from the artist/business. No more so than someone simply not buying a product (thereby 'depriving' the store of profit that they could, potentially, have had). The only 'hypocrisy' (which isn't an argument in the first place) here is the "potential profit" argument (because everyone in existence 'steals' profit that others could, potentially, have had).
Right, because they 'steal' profit that others could, potentially, have had, right? You know, like everyone on the planet? Also, it's impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, that's just a stupid analogy."
Not really. You can't steal something that doesn't exist.
Oh, and, saying "but you don't have the right to copy data without the permission of the original artist" doesn't mean anything. No harm is done to them by doing it.
"The real issue is that a person put time into something"
Pirates don't take time from anyone. They use their own time and resources to copy data.
You 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by not buying a product. If you had bought the product, they would have had more money, which means that you 'stole' potential profit from them (since apparently we live in a world where that's possible and 'rational' people believe it is). This is similar to a pirate in that someone might have made more profit if they had not pirated the media.
You 'deprive' someone of profit that they could, potentially, have had every single time you decide to inform other people about a poorly made product and they ultimately decide not to buy it. If you hadn't told them not to buy it, they would have, so therefore you 'stole' the artists potential profit.
I can keep giving examples, but it's pointless. You can mix and match the potential profit argument any way you want (time, demand, etc), it will never work because it doesn't make sense and it applies to everyone. Again, if artists are really suffering, this is not the fault of the pirates (no more so than people who didn't give the artist their money but also didn't pirate it), but our capitalistic society.
What you said made sense. However, I was merely referencing to the fact that if artists 'suffer' due to people not buying their songs, it is ultimately not the fault of pirates since they logically deprive no one of anything. If anything is to be blamed, it would be more appropriate to blame our capitalistic society in which you need money in order to participate in. The problem is, if everyone pirates things, how would artists make money (again, it's still not the fault of the pirates)? In a capitalistic society, they would either have to go without money (and be unable to buy necessities) or make media as a hobby.
"I don't steal."
As a pirate, neither do I. Pirates merely copy data and deprive no one else of anything at all. You could say that they 'steal' profit that others could, potentially, have had, but it is impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. Also, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (as you 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by not giving them your money).
The problem here is that people are deluding themselves into believing that copying data somehow damages the original authors, but that is simply not true. As such, the "fair price" would be zero.
"induce harm upon others"
How is this even possible? The harm done by copying data is nonexistent. Stealing money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money is impossible, and if it wasn't, then everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (you 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by not giving them your money).
"damages"
I think the problem here is that many people are actually deluding themselves into believing that copying data somehow deprives someone of something, and that is simply not true.
I'm just going to stick with what I said before. Pirates logically don't take anything from anyone or do any harm whatsoever.
"If you would never have paid for it why are you downloading it?"
Just because they downloaded does not mean that the product is worth paying for. Besides, this is completely irrelevant. Logically, pirates take nothing from anyone. The only argument that I've ever seen (and it's a terrible one) is the "potential profit" argument. But, really, it's impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. Also, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (you 'deprive' someone of potential profit merely by choosing not to buy a product). Our illogical capitalistic society is what needs fixing.
"I don't think the courts would look kindly on your agreeing to only the parts of the agreement you like."
I know they wouldn't. What I'm saying is that if you buy something, it should be yours whether or not some EULA tells you otherwise. Yes, I know this isn't how it currently works, but I'm just expressing my contempt towards the current system.
"So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms."
Not really. Again, the only people who seem to get caught are those who are technologically inept. I mean, sure, they get hit with insane fines and/or jail terms, but if you're not like them, the chances of you getting caught for such a harmless action are slim to none.
"Legal movies?"
Considering the fact that you have to be technologically inept to get caught in the first place, how does this add value to the subscriptions?
"Apparently you have not read the EULA. If you had, you'd realize that you are actually leasing a rented license."
I certainly don't care about the EULA. They can say "we're just renting it to you" all they like, but it's still mine.
"People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."
Yes, because trusting the government with our last ounce of privacy is always a good idea! It will never be abused in the least! Now we should let them install security cameras in our homes (including the bathroom to make sure that no illegal activities are being done in there) so that we can catch *all* of the terrorists. What? You don't want that? You must have something to hide, because the government would never abuse this!
This entire fiasco just proves one thing: terrorism works!
So don't fly, you terrorist! The government has every right to invade your very last ounce of privacy (to stop those evil terrorists) and violate it to the fullest extent! What kind of fool wouldn't trust a government who does that!?
"the passengers of United 93 did what they had to do and crashed their own plane"
Actually, I'd rather they crash into a building owned by the corrupt government than crash into nothing at all. Seriously, what an absolute waste. This is almost as bad as stopping someone from destroying the MPAA/RIAA headquarters. Typical drones.
Don't pat downs and strip searches take more time, though? If so, it would drain even more of their time. Think of it as a form of protest. If everyone puts up with these 'safety measures' designed to fight those evil 'terrorists' that only manage to invade our privacy, nothing will ever change.
"prefer the safety that these provide"
They don't really provide that much safety in reality. Not to mention that people who give up their freedom and privacy in exchange for a sense of security are an absolute disgrace. Governments take advantage of this fear and use it against you.
"Since copyright is the only way to protect the rights of people who make money for their creations, you've just contradicted yourself."
It is? I did? If people want to award the author with their money, that is fine. I don't really care, but pirates aren't actually taking anything.
"Breaking my copyright is the same as breaking a pipe open at my dairy or stealing my car."
Well, I can see how much thought you've given this topic: absolutely none. Pirates copy data, not steal physical objects. When they pirate something, no one is deprived of anything.
But hey, since you've broken down and used the "potential profit" argument, let me demonstrate exactly how illogical that is.
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.
Second of all, everyone in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
You deprive a store of profit that they could have potentially had whenever you choose not to buy a product. They would have had more money if you did, much like an artist would have had more money if the pirate chose to buy the media instead of pirating it.
You deprive someone of profit that they could have potentially had whenever you decide to tell others about a bad product and they decide not to buy it. They would have had more money if you hadn't done that, so therefore, you 'stole' profit that they could, potentially, have had.
Naturally, the limits of the potential profit argument knows no bounds. What needs fixing is our illogical capitalistic society (if anything truly needs fixing at all, blame that), because pirates logically aren't hurting anyone at all. No more so than the people in the above examples.
Also note that saying "but they're using my intellectual property without my permission" has absolutely nothing to do with harm that they've caused artists because that alone doesn't do any harm. Take the above examples into consideration and the "potential profit" argument doesn't make any logical sense.
"Still, what you are calling a "moron" may be more than 50% of internet users."
Yes, and they're absolute morons. They should either learn how to use the computer and internet responsibly or stop using it all together (not likely).
"What a load of rubbish, people have the right to offend and be offended"
Much like I have the right to offend people who are offended!
"it does not make either one of them weak-minded"
If they get mad over a simple joke, to me, it does. I personally think that anyone who gets upset over mere words (such as swear words) is a sign that they have a weak mind. They're just strings of imaginary letters.
"For every MP3 that exists, someone spent time and creativity to produce the song that is encoded."
The original media, yes. The pirate, however, uses his own time and resources to make a copy, thereby depriving the author of no time or creativity. If you think the pirate is 'stealing' profit that the author could, potentially, have had, then you must also think that about everyone in existence. If someone does so much as decide not to buy a product, they have 'taken' (impossible, anyway) profit that the store could, potentially, have had. The only difference is that they aren't getting any free entertainment.
"Thus, the pirate is actually taking the product of someone else's work."
The product is still there, thus they took nothing.
I still agree with you that the actual cost of the song would be a more appropriate fine than this, but it still wouldn't make sense.
"If it's valueless to you, then why argue so loudly for the right to copy it without paying for it?"
It's not valueless, it has entertainment value. Entertainment that can be gotten for free and at the expense of no one. If pirates didn't want it, they wouldn't download it. This isn't difficult to understand.
"That's the hypocrisy"
There is no hypocrisy. It's just as I described above. It obviously has entertainment value. However, pirates still do not take anything from the artist/business. No more so than someone simply not buying a product (thereby 'depriving' the store of profit that they could, potentially, have had). The only 'hypocrisy' (which isn't an argument in the first place) here is the "potential profit" argument (because everyone in existence 'steals' profit that others could, potentially, have had).
Yes.
"and I do not support people who does it"
Right, because they 'steal' profit that others could, potentially, have had, right? You know, like everyone on the planet? Also, it's impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money.
No, that would be silly! Defending an evil pirate who didn't actually take anything is just idiotic!
"If Jamie earns--excuse me, NETS--$50k per year, this would take 30 years to pay off."
But then Jamie would be dead because they couldn't afford any food.