"Your arguments are so silly and simplified that they can be used to deny people the right to their privacy"
Your arguments are so silly and simplified that by your own logic, everyone would be convicted of 'stealing' potential profit. I already responded to your privacy comment, but apparently you didn't listen.
"Those are your arguments why piracy causes no damage"
Yet you still haven't shown why they aren't true.
"I'd say, grow some ethics and stop consuming capitalistic media if that bothers you so much"
It's not all or nothing. There is little I can do about it if I want to live in this society. All I can do is recommend that better systems be used and attempt to educate people.
"and if you can't you will just have to play by the rules of society."
No, I'll just continue to pirate media that is in infinite supply while not doing any harm to the artists.
"I'll stop responding to your "retorts" because I think you really lack the ability to understand the basic facts about supply, demand, the free market and basically the entire process that goes into creating something"
I know it takes effort to create something. If this something was a physical item, I would agree that people should be paid for it, because its supply is not infinite. However, for something in an infinite supply that you can effortlessly copy, paying for it is not only absurd, but copying it is harmless, as you don't take anything while doing so. The rule of law is irrelevant, as that is what I want changed. Just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong.
"and how the creators are supposed to sustain themselves and create more art if you deny them the right to sell copies of their work"
You haven't even bothered to read my comments, my examples, or pretty much anything. How can businesses thrive if competition is allowed? How can artists survive if consumer choice is legal? Consumers should have to buy every product in existence in order to sustain the artists.
"Having said that, it does not exactly prove that piracy does "no harm,""
Those examples weren't meant to prove that. Those were meant to show how illogical it would be to make 'stealing' potential profit illegal. Piracy does no harm because it is simply illogical to state that someone can steal profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. In order to harm them, something they already have must be taken.
"Because of piracy, Microsoft is harmed by $50"
That would only be true if the pirate physically stole money from them.
"because it's really hard to imagine a world where that can possibly be true."
This world, in fact, is such a world.
"and if piracy is prevalent enough, it can indeed create a situation where a producer no longer has enough incentive to create new innovative products, resulting in a net loss to society far greater than net gains from small-scale piracy."
No. That is not the fault of piracy, that is the fault of this illogical capitalistic society (which merely encourages greed, corruption, and selfishness). There exists a thing called free software, proving that worthless artificial currency is not needed for people to have incentive to create. It's just that in this current society which uses an artificial currency, they are indoctrinated to believe such. Piracy isn't the one doing the harm here.
Basically, it's illogical to state that you did harm to someone if you didn't actually take anything from them (and again, no, profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money doesn't count). Besides that, the mere fact that consumers can choose to buy or not buy goods can put legitimate businesses out of business. Better get rid of consumer choice.
I'm well aware that it's not an easy thing to deal with. However, the emotional pain is temporary in most cases, even if it does take quite a while to make a full mental recovery. When you're dead, you have absolutely no chance to make a recovery. That is what I meant.
"Oh, I know that. You just missed the sarcasm. Apparently you have no problem defending a right like privacy which, when broken, causes no physical harm whatsoever. But you cannot grant the right of intellectual property."
I never missed the sarcasm. I knew exactly what you were implying. If you're breaking into someones house, even if you don't break or steal anything and invading their privacy, you're definitely an individual I wouldn't want to be around. That does, in fact, invade their privacy. Piracy doesn't invade anyones privacy or harm anyone in any noticeable way. You know when someone breaks into your house, but you likely don't know when someone pirates something.
"I am assuming that content creators created the content knowing that the law protects their intellectual property and that this law will allow them to recuperate their investments."
There's nothing to recuperate. What is hurting these artists is the capitalistic society that requires that they have worthless artificial currency in order to survive and continue living their dream.
"And by your own logic if I can't afford the car I want we should change the law so that stealing cars is legal."
What? Are you absolutely insane? When you steal a physical object, you're not copying anything, you're actually taking it away from its original owner. This is harmful and does have an impact on the person, as the object has monetary value, and likely emotional value as well. Pirates aren't depriving anything from anyone. How hard is this to understand?
"This only shows that you either have no clue what is going on in the gaming market or that you have no problem leaving logic and common sense out of the discussion if the interfere in making your point."
What? I asked that if you could prove that it was directly because of pirates that this happened (hint: you can't, not only because accurate piracy statistics are virtually impossible to obtain, but logically, pirates don't hurt anyone).
""This is where you have it all wrong. You are not "rewarding" developers when you pay them for their product, you are fulfilling your social and legal obligation to pay for the work they have done in creating the product, just like your boss is not "rewarding you" with a paycheck, he must pay if he wants to or not.
Physical labor, and your boss agreed to pay you to begin with. Pirates never agreed to anything, and have no "social" obligation to pay for media that is in infinite supply.
"Piracy in this case cost the company $500 or $5 per pirate."
Pirates broke into the companies office and stole either $500 or $500 worth of equipment? The fact that they expected to make more money has no relation to piracy, as they've still taken nothing. It could be blamed on people who simply didn't buy it as much as it could a pirate.
"You are living in a capitalistic society and the content you are interested in was created by capitalistic companies who rely on capitalistic laws that will protect their investments. If you despise capitalism that much then you can simply ignore their content. Obviously you want to have your cake and it eat too"
Obviously I'm talking about a system without any worthless artificial currencies that only encourage corruption (government, corporations), greed (restrict the flow of information), and selfishness, all while causing numerous other problems as a side effect.
"And how are pirates a symptom of a capitalistic society?"
People are trying to restrict media that is in an infinite supply. Some realize that such unlimited goods should not cost money, so they do not pay (and doing so, they also don't take anything, because they're merely copying data).
Also, allow me to quote two of my previous examples that illustrate exactly why making 'stealing' potential profit illegal would be a very, very terrible thing to do.
I don't see much wrong with merely possessing such a picture. I think the problem arises when they actually buy them, thereby encouraging them to continue making such content. It's would be hard to tell either way, though.
Yeah, that would be horrible if you touched some kids. Clearly raping someone and causing temporary emotion distress is much, much worse than brutally murdering them!
"I hypothesize that there are some potential consumers that do not end up buying a digital media product, because they know how to get it for free via P2P, if they can afford the extra risk associated with doing this."
Let me give you a few examples that illustrate why this mindset is wrong (thinking that piracy should be illegal because it 'hurts sales').
"Let's say that someone buys some media from someone and doesn't like it, so they decide to tell all of their friends that were originally going to buy the media not to buy it because it is of poor quality in the eyes of the person who originally bought it. They decide not to buy it after their friend tells them not to. The artist(s), in this case, has just lost potential profit from actual potential clients. Both the informant and the previous potential clients have taken potential profit from the artist(s).
Let's say that a potential client of two businesses decides to go to one business to buy media instead of going to another business. This means that the second business that the potential client didn't go to has just had some of its potential profit stolen because the first business exists and because the potential client decided not to go to the second business. If either the first business had not existed or the potential client had gone to the second business, instead (which means the second business would have stolen potential profit from the first business), the second business would have had more money, which means both the first business and the potential client stole potential profit from the second business. Competition and consumer choice have harmed a legitimate business in this scenario, and potential clients were involved."
Not only can word of mouth sometimes hurt sales, but competition can as well. Pirates aren't actually doing any harm by copying data, as they didn't take anything (and no, profit that exists only in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money can't be 'stolen').
They have a right to privacy, and someone breaking into your home would, by any sensible person, be identified as a criminal. That is, assuming we live in a capitalistic society where there exists a thing called "private property." I'm not in favor of it, however, for the time being, such a thing exists for physical possessions that actually can be stolen. If someone breaks into your house, you can almost be sure that they will steal something. Otherwise, why would they break in? That is why that law is in place (other than protecting your privacy). Also, what kind of fool would put no value in privacy? That is exactly how corrupt governments oftentimes operate. Rid people of their privacy.
"You have no way to be certain a person that pirates your media wasn't going to purchase it (it's fair to assume there at least small chance he did. He is obviously interested in the media enough to pirate it)."
I never assumed that, and you've completely missed my point. Again.
"Of course piracy causes damages. Who will buy the media if piracy is legalized?"
You're assuming that because someone doesn't buy something, that means that something is harmful. By your own logic, that means that the act of not buying something should be illegal and that consumers should have to buy every single product in existence, or else they'll be hurting sales (which could make some businesses/artists go out of business)!
How would they successfully convince people to reward them with their worthless hard earned currency? Find a new way to do so, or scrap the current capitalistic society altogether (not likely). Sadly, as long as we live in such an illogical capitalistic society, illogical practices such as the war on piracy will continue.
"Just take a look at the sad state of the PC gaming market and see the harm piracy does."
Can you prove that it was because of piracy and not just because of people exercising their right to not buy products? Even if it was 'because' of piracy, the pirates simply didn't feel it worth it to reward (yes, reward) the developers with money for their product. They didn't take anything in the process, and no harm was actually done. The harm is done by the capitalistic society, not the pirates (which are merely symptoms of such a society).
I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply, as you're not saying anything new, and you're clearly not reading my posts or my examples.
"It isn't insane and you better care what the law says."
I believe it is. By "I don't care," I meant that just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong.
"Like I said, 'Freedom of speech' doesn't allow you to harass people"
If you're arresting people/charging them with crimes for no other reason than them speaking words which wouldn't actually cause any normal person to be in danger (such as yelling "fire" in a crowded place, or something), it certainly is infringing on their right to free speech. There are no exceptions in the constitution to freedom of speech, and this one is especially useless and harmful. Many people are offended by many different choices of words. People shouldn't be charged with a crime/sued simply because they said something that someone didn't like.
"You think it is idiotic to allow people freedom to pursue their own liberty and happiness without being persecuted by others"
That's where you're wrong. There is no right to not be offended, and to suggest that there should be one/there is one is absurd. As I said before, many people are offended by many different things for many inane reasons. If we lived in a world where offending someone meant that you were disallowing them to pursue their own "liberty and happiness without being persecuted by others," it would be an even sadder world than it is now.
"How can people take them as a normal word? They were not made to be normal words."
They're imaginary strings of letters with meanings. They're words. The definitions of words also change over time, and not all swear words are originally intended to be offensive. Eventually, the definition is somehow changed, or someone decided that the meaning is offensive, so therefore the word is offensive. They act on illogical emotions, nothing less.
"I'm not implying that at all."
Odd, because it sounded like you were saying that you were in favor of that. It still does, in fact.
"You can be offended all you like by it, but it is the law."
Laws can be changed. I will do everything in my power to change these idiotic laws.
"What is offensive is your belittling people who have been harassed to the point that they did kill themselves."
Right, these weak, oversensitive idiots would have probably killed themselves if they hadn't already had they read my comments about them. I'm offended, so I'm going to kill myself and then expect the world to blame someone other than myself for my own demise!
"but you obviously have no idea what they have been through."
I've been called many things, been relentlessly bullied many times in the past, and have dealt with many people who I simply didn't like. Someone calling me mean words are the least of my worries. If they're physically abusing me, then it becomes a problem.
"Then you're mentioning it, why?"
In case you felt that way.
"but they hurt people mentally and physically"
Physically? Uh, no. By definition words can only hurt someone emotionally or mentally, not physically. What they may do to themselves later doesn't mean that words themselves hurt people physically.
"You think swearing are words with meanings. That's not being debated either."
All right. I never meant to imply that words can never hurt someones feelings. I just don't believe in these so-called "harassment" charges that come about when someone speaks words.
"Insulting people for no reason is not covered by freedom of speech, it's actually a form of harassment and people can be sued for it."
Wow. I don't care what the law says, that's insane. Let's ignore parts of the constitution that we don't like and make exceptions to certain parts of it! Good idea!
"No, it isn't "too bad". If it is harassment, then a crime has been committed"
Not in my eyes. I don't support such idiotic laws.
"The fact that they can be used without being disrespectful is not in contention here, the fact that they can be is"
A butter knife, pencil, and pencil can be used to stab someone. That's not what they're for, but they can be used that way.
"is that you claimed words couldn't hurt"
I merely claimed that words can't do any physical (real) damage to someone. Well, actually, I probably didn't word it that way, but it is what I meant, and that if someone gets so upset over mere words, our society is simply doomed to fail (while it pretty much already is, that's besides the point).
"It isn't illogical. As previously stated, swear words were made to be offensive."
My point was that they don't have to be. Someone could take them as a normal word, and it's simply illogical to treat them as anything other than such.
"As I keep saying, if the offensive words didn't exist then someone will invent them specifically so they can offend someone."
Words that offend that aren't considered swear words do exist.
"If someone kills themselves over words aimed at them and their character then whoever was directing the words at them will face a law suit."
Oh, no! Someone killed themselves because someone previously called them a "stupid head!" Let's arrest that meanie because he... clearly killed them, even though they killed themselves! Oh, wait, this isn't about them killing themselves, this is about the fact that the person was such a weakling that they couldn't handle words (which are unavoidable) so they killed themselves.
Actually, I find the fact that you might be implying that people should be subjected to a law suit if they call someone some mean words highly offensive! I'm going to kill myself and hope that you're charged with harassment!
"Straw man argument."
This is no straw man. I wasn't assuming that you said anything related to that, but I was merely talking about people who do think that way.
"Like I keep coming back to, my point was that words can hurt."
I never debated that they could "hurt someones feeling," I'm merely saying that swear words shouldn't be treated as anything other than words with meanings. I don't care if they were made to offend, they are merely imaginary strings of letters that have a meaning just as any other word.
"you can't reasonably claim that every person who pirated it *wouldn't* have bought it"
What? I never even claimed that in the first place. You must have misunderstood me.
"but that doesn't mean that piracy doesn't cost some sales"
Apparently you didn't understand my argument. I can go through example after example of how so many things "cost some sales." You'd be surprised at how many people are guilty of stealing 'potential sales'. The reality, however, is that pirates have taken nothing, and claiming that they cost the artist a sale is completely illogical. It's also a bad idea. In fact, the first example I gave in the comment you replied to illustrates this.
Let's say that a potential customer of two different businesses is thinking about going to either business. He decides to go to the first business instead of going to the second business to buy products. If the first business hadn't existed or the potential customer had gone to the second business, the second business would have had more money. Therefore, the first business and the potential customer have "cost" the second business a sale. Competition and consumer choice have just robbed a legitimate business of a sale.
"This doesn't change the fact that most kids these days need to tone down their language and stop pretending they are tougher than they are."
Insulting everyone for no reason? I don't like such people, but I also believe that it's freedom of speech. If they want to say such things, they shouldn't be censored or anything like that. If people kill themselves over it, well, too bad.
"Respect has a lot to do with swear words"
If I said "fuck" because I stubbed my toe, how exactly would that be disrespectful? If I said "you're a fucking retard" to someone, how exactly would that hold anymore "weight" than just "you're a retard"? This is the illogical perception that many people have. If they truly believe that swear words hold some magical, evil meaning that gives everything more weight and are different than the average word simply because society indoctrinated them to believe this, then that is their own fault. It's simply illogical.
"Thank you for that ad hominem attack. I will ignore it."
I didn't attack you, I attacked the idea.
"As per my last comment, my point is that words can hurt, something contrary to your argument that words can't hurt."
Well, too bad. If someone swears at someone and they kill themselves, I'll look at it exactly like this: they killed themselves. Swear words are words with meanings, just as any other word, and if people can't handle it, they'll just have to deal with it. I hold no sympathy for people who kill themselves over hearing words.
"Most people who drive someone to suicide through bullying with words use plenty of swear words at them. Yes, you can insult someone without swear words. My point has always been that words can hurt. I never mentioned anything about adding swear words without context. It is adding them within context that is the driving factor here, they are deliberately being used to hurt someone."
Same as above. If I want to swear, other people should either deal with it or get out, not expect everyone else to conform to their little standards because they're offended by a context-less swear word that I said when I was angry.
"One thing children need to learn today is a bit of respect for others."
Why can't you have respect for others and swear? If these words were considered normal, I can almost guarantee that people would stop saying them merely to be 'cool'. Respect has nothing to do with swear words. You can be disrespectful with almost any combination of words, and swear words can be used appropriately. You don't need to ban them in order to teach respect. That is not only illogical, but idiotic.
"Do words hurt? Yes. People have been known to kill themselves over words."
So should they be banned? No. These people are weak and likely would have killed themselves eventually, anyway.
"The kids of today are hiding behind the very same argument that it is 'only words' and they 'can't hurt', yet when you use the same words towards them they do get hurt emotionally and react, sometimes quite violently."
If people kill themselves over words, I suspect that they wouldn't last long, anyway. This is nothing to do with swear words, anyway, as you can insult someone without using them. Adding a few swear words into the sentence without any context isn't the last straw that will make them suicide (suicide, as in kill themselves).
"In the case of copyright, it becomes very difficult to argue for the social necessity"
Not really. It should be clear to everyone that our capitalistic society is what is 'hurting' these alleged artists. Pirates aren't damaging anyone (as I pointed out in another comment). I really don't care what terms people use, as long as they know the facts.
"Isn't revenue being "stolen", in a similar way to shoplifting?"
Can't say I didn't see the "potential profit" argument coming. No, you can't steal profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist(s) made more money.
Now, let's say that someone buys media from an artist, doesn't like it, and tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy it as well not to buy it. The friends then decide not to buy it because their friend told them not to. In this case, potential profit was lost to the business. This means that the person who told his friends not to buy the product and his friends have deprived potential profit from the business.
This is hardly different than piracy, as in both cases, nothing was really taken (except "potential profit").
What are you hiding? If you're not a dirty criminal, what have you got to lose? The government is nice enough to provide all kinds of other things for you, and can be trusted. Stop acting like a conspiracy theorist.
Slashdot Mirror
"speaking of failing high school civics"
Huh. All I remember from that is propaganda and "capitalism is best!"
I don't care if he was trolling, that's pretty much how I feel about these people.
"When will the governments of the world finally say "Enough is enough" to these clowns?"
When these giant corporations stop paying them massive amounts of money to support them.
"Your arguments are so silly and simplified that they can be used to deny people the right to their privacy"
Your arguments are so silly and simplified that by your own logic, everyone would be convicted of 'stealing' potential profit. I already responded to your privacy comment, but apparently you didn't listen.
"Those are your arguments why piracy causes no damage"
Yet you still haven't shown why they aren't true.
"I'd say, grow some ethics and stop consuming capitalistic media if that bothers you so much"
It's not all or nothing. There is little I can do about it if I want to live in this society. All I can do is recommend that better systems be used and attempt to educate people.
"and if you can't you will just have to play by the rules of society."
No, I'll just continue to pirate media that is in infinite supply while not doing any harm to the artists.
"I'll stop responding to your "retorts" because I think you really lack the ability to understand the basic facts about supply, demand, the free market and basically the entire process that goes into creating something"
I know it takes effort to create something. If this something was a physical item, I would agree that people should be paid for it, because its supply is not infinite. However, for something in an infinite supply that you can effortlessly copy, paying for it is not only absurd, but copying it is harmless, as you don't take anything while doing so. The rule of law is irrelevant, as that is what I want changed. Just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong.
"and how the creators are supposed to sustain themselves and create more art if you deny them the right to sell copies of their work"
You haven't even bothered to read my comments, my examples, or pretty much anything. How can businesses thrive if competition is allowed? How can artists survive if consumer choice is legal? Consumers should have to buy every product in existence in order to sustain the artists.
"You don't *need* unlimited data;"
Except people who upload/download a tremendous amount of things.
"Having said that, it does not exactly prove that piracy does "no harm,""
Those examples weren't meant to prove that. Those were meant to show how illogical it would be to make 'stealing' potential profit illegal. Piracy does no harm because it is simply illogical to state that someone can steal profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. In order to harm them, something they already have must be taken.
"Because of piracy, Microsoft is harmed by $50"
That would only be true if the pirate physically stole money from them.
"because it's really hard to imagine a world where that can possibly be true."
This world, in fact, is such a world.
"and if piracy is prevalent enough, it can indeed create a situation where a producer no longer has enough incentive to create new innovative products, resulting in a net loss to society far greater than net gains from small-scale piracy."
No. That is not the fault of piracy, that is the fault of this illogical capitalistic society (which merely encourages greed, corruption, and selfishness). There exists a thing called free software, proving that worthless artificial currency is not needed for people to have incentive to create. It's just that in this current society which uses an artificial currency, they are indoctrinated to believe such. Piracy isn't the one doing the harm here.
Basically, it's illogical to state that you did harm to someone if you didn't actually take anything from them (and again, no, profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money doesn't count). Besides that, the mere fact that consumers can choose to buy or not buy goods can put legitimate businesses out of business. Better get rid of consumer choice.
I'm well aware that it's not an easy thing to deal with. However, the emotional pain is temporary in most cases, even if it does take quite a while to make a full mental recovery. When you're dead, you have absolutely no chance to make a recovery. That is what I meant.
"Oh, I know that. You just missed the sarcasm. Apparently you have no problem defending a right like privacy which, when broken, causes no physical harm whatsoever. But you cannot grant the right of intellectual property."
I never missed the sarcasm. I knew exactly what you were implying. If you're breaking into someones house, even if you don't break or steal anything and invading their privacy, you're definitely an individual I wouldn't want to be around. That does, in fact, invade their privacy. Piracy doesn't invade anyones privacy or harm anyone in any noticeable way. You know when someone breaks into your house, but you likely don't know when someone pirates something.
"I am assuming that content creators created the content knowing that the law protects their intellectual property and that this law will allow them to recuperate their investments."
There's nothing to recuperate. What is hurting these artists is the capitalistic society that requires that they have worthless artificial currency in order to survive and continue living their dream.
"And by your own logic if I can't afford the car I want we should change the law so that stealing cars is legal."
What? Are you absolutely insane? When you steal a physical object, you're not copying anything, you're actually taking it away from its original owner. This is harmful and does have an impact on the person, as the object has monetary value, and likely emotional value as well. Pirates aren't depriving anything from anyone. How hard is this to understand?
"This only shows that you either have no clue what is going on in the gaming market or that you have no problem leaving logic and common sense out of the discussion if the interfere in making your point."
What? I asked that if you could prove that it was directly because of pirates that this happened (hint: you can't, not only because accurate piracy statistics are virtually impossible to obtain, but logically, pirates don't hurt anyone).
""This is where you have it all wrong. You are not "rewarding" developers when you pay them for their product, you are fulfilling your social and legal obligation to pay for the work they have done in creating the product, just like your boss is not "rewarding you" with a paycheck, he must pay if he wants to or not.
Physical labor, and your boss agreed to pay you to begin with. Pirates never agreed to anything, and have no "social" obligation to pay for media that is in infinite supply.
"Piracy in this case cost the company $500 or $5 per pirate."
Pirates broke into the companies office and stole either $500 or $500 worth of equipment? The fact that they expected to make more money has no relation to piracy, as they've still taken nothing. It could be blamed on people who simply didn't buy it as much as it could a pirate.
"You are living in a capitalistic society and the content you are interested in was created by capitalistic companies who rely on capitalistic laws that will protect their investments. If you despise capitalism that much then you can simply ignore their content. Obviously you want to have your cake and it eat too"
Obviously I'm talking about a system without any worthless artificial currencies that only encourage corruption (government, corporations), greed (restrict the flow of information), and selfishness, all while causing numerous other problems as a side effect.
http://thevenusproject.com/
That is the system I'm talking about.
"And how are pirates a symptom of a capitalistic society?"
People are trying to restrict media that is in an infinite supply. Some realize that such unlimited goods should not cost money, so they do not pay (and doing so, they also don't take anything, because they're merely copying data).
Also, allow me to quote two of my previous examples that illustrate exactly why making 'stealing' potential profit illegal would be a very, very terrible thing to do.
"L
I don't see much wrong with merely possessing such a picture. I think the problem arises when they actually buy them, thereby encouraging them to continue making such content. It's would be hard to tell either way, though.
Yeah, that would be horrible if you touched some kids. Clearly raping someone and causing temporary emotion distress is much, much worse than brutally murdering them!
Not only did I receive poor service whenever I went to their stores, but I don't rent videos anymore. I don't even watch movies anymore, actually.
"I hypothesize that there are some potential consumers that do not end up buying a digital media product, because they know how to get it for free via P2P, if they can afford the extra risk associated with doing this."
Let me give you a few examples that illustrate why this mindset is wrong (thinking that piracy should be illegal because it 'hurts sales').
"Let's say that someone buys some media from someone and doesn't like it, so they decide to tell all of their friends that were originally going to buy the media not to buy it because it is of poor quality in the eyes of the person who originally bought it. They decide not to buy it after their friend tells them not to. The artist(s), in this case, has just lost potential profit from actual potential clients. Both the informant and the previous potential clients have taken potential profit from the artist(s).
Let's say that a potential client of two businesses decides to go to one business to buy media instead of going to another business. This means that the second business that the potential client didn't go to has just had some of its potential profit stolen because the first business exists and because the potential client decided not to go to the second business. If either the first business had not existed or the potential client had gone to the second business, instead (which means the second business would have stolen potential profit from the first business), the second business would have had more money, which means both the first business and the potential client stole potential profit from the second business. Competition and consumer choice have harmed a legitimate business in this scenario, and potential clients were involved."
Not only can word of mouth sometimes hurt sales, but competition can as well. Pirates aren't actually doing any harm by copying data, as they didn't take anything (and no, profit that exists only in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money can't be 'stolen').
"What's the harm in invading someones privacy?"
They have a right to privacy, and someone breaking into your home would, by any sensible person, be identified as a criminal. That is, assuming we live in a capitalistic society where there exists a thing called "private property." I'm not in favor of it, however, for the time being, such a thing exists for physical possessions that actually can be stolen. If someone breaks into your house, you can almost be sure that they will steal something. Otherwise, why would they break in? That is why that law is in place (other than protecting your privacy). Also, what kind of fool would put no value in privacy? That is exactly how corrupt governments oftentimes operate. Rid people of their privacy.
"You have no way to be certain a person that pirates your media wasn't going to purchase it (it's fair to assume there at least small chance he did. He is obviously interested in the media enough to pirate it)."
I never assumed that, and you've completely missed my point. Again.
"Of course piracy causes damages. Who will buy the media if piracy is legalized?"
You're assuming that because someone doesn't buy something, that means that something is harmful. By your own logic, that means that the act of not buying something should be illegal and that consumers should have to buy every single product in existence, or else they'll be hurting sales (which could make some businesses/artists go out of business)!
How would they successfully convince people to reward them with their worthless hard earned currency? Find a new way to do so, or scrap the current capitalistic society altogether (not likely). Sadly, as long as we live in such an illogical capitalistic society, illogical practices such as the war on piracy will continue.
"Just take a look at the sad state of the PC gaming market and see the harm piracy does."
Can you prove that it was because of piracy and not just because of people exercising their right to not buy products? Even if it was 'because' of piracy, the pirates simply didn't feel it worth it to reward (yes, reward) the developers with money for their product. They didn't take anything in the process, and no harm was actually done. The harm is done by the capitalistic society, not the pirates (which are merely symptoms of such a society).
I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply, as you're not saying anything new, and you're clearly not reading my posts or my examples.
"It isn't insane and you better care what the law says."
I believe it is. By "I don't care," I meant that just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong.
"Like I said, 'Freedom of speech' doesn't allow you to harass people"
If you're arresting people/charging them with crimes for no other reason than them speaking words which wouldn't actually cause any normal person to be in danger (such as yelling "fire" in a crowded place, or something), it certainly is infringing on their right to free speech. There are no exceptions in the constitution to freedom of speech, and this one is especially useless and harmful. Many people are offended by many different choices of words. People shouldn't be charged with a crime/sued simply because they said something that someone didn't like.
"You think it is idiotic to allow people freedom to pursue their own liberty and happiness without being persecuted by others"
That's where you're wrong. There is no right to not be offended, and to suggest that there should be one/there is one is absurd. As I said before, many people are offended by many different things for many inane reasons. If we lived in a world where offending someone meant that you were disallowing them to pursue their own "liberty and happiness without being persecuted by others," it would be an even sadder world than it is now.
"How can people take them as a normal word? They were not made to be normal words."
They're imaginary strings of letters with meanings. They're words. The definitions of words also change over time, and not all swear words are originally intended to be offensive. Eventually, the definition is somehow changed, or someone decided that the meaning is offensive, so therefore the word is offensive. They act on illogical emotions, nothing less.
"I'm not implying that at all."
Odd, because it sounded like you were saying that you were in favor of that. It still does, in fact.
"You can be offended all you like by it, but it is the law."
Laws can be changed. I will do everything in my power to change these idiotic laws.
"What is offensive is your belittling people who have been harassed to the point that they did kill themselves."
Right, these weak, oversensitive idiots would have probably killed themselves if they hadn't already had they read my comments about them. I'm offended, so I'm going to kill myself and then expect the world to blame someone other than myself for my own demise!
"but you obviously have no idea what they have been through."
I've been called many things, been relentlessly bullied many times in the past, and have dealt with many people who I simply didn't like. Someone calling me mean words are the least of my worries. If they're physically abusing me, then it becomes a problem.
"Then you're mentioning it, why?"
In case you felt that way.
"but they hurt people mentally and physically"
Physically? Uh, no. By definition words can only hurt someone emotionally or mentally, not physically. What they may do to themselves later doesn't mean that words themselves hurt people physically.
"You think swearing are words with meanings. That's not being debated either."
All right. I never meant to imply that words can never hurt someones feelings. I just don't believe in these so-called "harassment" charges that come about when someone speaks words.
"Do words hurt? Yes."
Not me. Deal with it.
"I believe P2P is only hurting sales a few percent at most"
More like not at all. That's like saying consumer choice is hurting sales because people can choose whether or not they will buy something.
"Insulting people for no reason is not covered by freedom of speech, it's actually a form of harassment and people can be sued for it."
Wow. I don't care what the law says, that's insane. Let's ignore parts of the constitution that we don't like and make exceptions to certain parts of it! Good idea!
"No, it isn't "too bad". If it is harassment, then a crime has been committed"
Not in my eyes. I don't support such idiotic laws.
"The fact that they can be used without being disrespectful is not in contention here, the fact that they can be is"
A butter knife, pencil, and pencil can be used to stab someone. That's not what they're for, but they can be used that way.
"is that you claimed words couldn't hurt"
I merely claimed that words can't do any physical (real) damage to someone. Well, actually, I probably didn't word it that way, but it is what I meant, and that if someone gets so upset over mere words, our society is simply doomed to fail (while it pretty much already is, that's besides the point).
"It isn't illogical. As previously stated, swear words were made to be offensive."
My point was that they don't have to be. Someone could take them as a normal word, and it's simply illogical to treat them as anything other than such.
"As I keep saying, if the offensive words didn't exist then someone will invent them specifically so they can offend someone."
Words that offend that aren't considered swear words do exist.
"If someone kills themselves over words aimed at them and their character then whoever was directing the words at them will face a law suit."
Oh, no! Someone killed themselves because someone previously called them a "stupid head!" Let's arrest that meanie because he... clearly killed them, even though they killed themselves! Oh, wait, this isn't about them killing themselves, this is about the fact that the person was such a weakling that they couldn't handle words (which are unavoidable) so they killed themselves.
Actually, I find the fact that you might be implying that people should be subjected to a law suit if they call someone some mean words highly offensive! I'm going to kill myself and hope that you're charged with harassment!
"Straw man argument."
This is no straw man. I wasn't assuming that you said anything related to that, but I was merely talking about people who do think that way.
"Like I keep coming back to, my point was that words can hurt."
I never debated that they could "hurt someones feeling," I'm merely saying that swear words shouldn't be treated as anything other than words with meanings. I don't care if they were made to offend, they are merely imaginary strings of letters that have a meaning just as any other word.
"you can't reasonably claim that every person who pirated it *wouldn't* have bought it"
What? I never even claimed that in the first place. You must have misunderstood me.
"but that doesn't mean that piracy doesn't cost some sales"
Apparently you didn't understand my argument. I can go through example after example of how so many things "cost some sales." You'd be surprised at how many people are guilty of stealing 'potential sales'. The reality, however, is that pirates have taken nothing, and claiming that they cost the artist a sale is completely illogical. It's also a bad idea. In fact, the first example I gave in the comment you replied to illustrates this.
Let's say that a potential customer of two different businesses is thinking about going to either business. He decides to go to the first business instead of going to the second business to buy products. If the first business hadn't existed or the potential customer had gone to the second business, the second business would have had more money. Therefore, the first business and the potential customer have "cost" the second business a sale. Competition and consumer choice have just robbed a legitimate business of a sale.
"This doesn't change the fact that most kids these days need to tone down their language and stop pretending they are tougher than they are."
Insulting everyone for no reason? I don't like such people, but I also believe that it's freedom of speech. If they want to say such things, they shouldn't be censored or anything like that. If people kill themselves over it, well, too bad.
"Respect has a lot to do with swear words"
If I said "fuck" because I stubbed my toe, how exactly would that be disrespectful? If I said "you're a fucking retard" to someone, how exactly would that hold anymore "weight" than just "you're a retard"? This is the illogical perception that many people have. If they truly believe that swear words hold some magical, evil meaning that gives everything more weight and are different than the average word simply because society indoctrinated them to believe this, then that is their own fault. It's simply illogical.
"Thank you for that ad hominem attack. I will ignore it."
I didn't attack you, I attacked the idea.
"As per my last comment, my point is that words can hurt, something contrary to your argument that words can't hurt."
Well, too bad. If someone swears at someone and they kill themselves, I'll look at it exactly like this: they killed themselves. Swear words are words with meanings, just as any other word, and if people can't handle it, they'll just have to deal with it. I hold no sympathy for people who kill themselves over hearing words.
"Most people who drive someone to suicide through bullying with words use plenty of swear words at them. Yes, you can insult someone without swear words. My point has always been that words can hurt. I never mentioned anything about adding swear words without context. It is adding them within context that is the driving factor here, they are deliberately being used to hurt someone."
Same as above. If I want to swear, other people should either deal with it or get out, not expect everyone else to conform to their little standards because they're offended by a context-less swear word that I said when I was angry.
"One thing children need to learn today is a bit of respect for others."
Why can't you have respect for others and swear? If these words were considered normal, I can almost guarantee that people would stop saying them merely to be 'cool'. Respect has nothing to do with swear words. You can be disrespectful with almost any combination of words, and swear words can be used appropriately. You don't need to ban them in order to teach respect. That is not only illogical, but idiotic.
"Do words hurt? Yes. People have been known to kill themselves over words."
So should they be banned? No. These people are weak and likely would have killed themselves eventually, anyway.
"The kids of today are hiding behind the very same argument that it is 'only words' and they 'can't hurt', yet when you use the same words towards them they do get hurt emotionally and react, sometimes quite violently."
If people kill themselves over words, I suspect that they wouldn't last long, anyway. This is nothing to do with swear words, anyway, as you can insult someone without using them. Adding a few swear words into the sentence without any context isn't the last straw that will make them suicide (suicide, as in kill themselves).
"In the case of copyright, it becomes very difficult to argue for the social necessity"
Not really. It should be clear to everyone that our capitalistic society is what is 'hurting' these alleged artists. Pirates aren't damaging anyone (as I pointed out in another comment). I really don't care what terms people use, as long as they know the facts.
"thus depriving the creator of income counts as theft in my book"
What income are they depriving the creator of? Is it potential profit? If it is, refer to my comment above yours.
"Isn't revenue being "stolen", in a similar way to shoplifting?"
Can't say I didn't see the "potential profit" argument coming. No, you can't steal profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist(s) made more money.
Now, let's say that someone buys media from an artist, doesn't like it, and tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy it as well not to buy it. The friends then decide not to buy it because their friend told them not to. In this case, potential profit was lost to the business. This means that the person who told his friends not to buy the product and his friends have deprived potential profit from the business.
This is hardly different than piracy, as in both cases, nothing was really taken (except "potential profit").
"The thought of spending a lot of money and time inventing something only to have someone else just come by and copy it and profit from it"
What harm have the pirates done? Have they taken profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money?
"No, we need IP laws and the lack of them will bring innovation to a standstill."
We don't need illogical laws, we need an end to our capitalistic society (that will be far in the future, if it happens at all).
"Copying other people's stuff and giving it away isn't "sharing.""
Then what is it? It's certainly not stealing, as nothing is being taken from anyone.
What are you hiding? If you're not a dirty criminal, what have you got to lose? The government is nice enough to provide all kinds of other things for you, and can be trusted. Stop acting like a conspiracy theorist.