Ugh. People like you make me sick! The DMCA protects authors and their intellectual property that is in an infinite supply, and the ACTA, if it passes (hopefully it will), will accomplish this goal further and eliminate those evil pirates who dare steal profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money!
Censorship, DRM, and surveillance are all very dangerous and annoying things that only hurt the average person. It's hardly going to affect the pirates and will likely only affect 'normal' people, robbing them of some of their rights in the process. These corporations must be stopped, that much is clear.
"If you're going to choose a cause to stand up for, that one seems a bit strange."
No it isn't, and it's very easy, really. You don't just walk up to people and randomly start saying that swearing is fine and explain why. You say that when the opportunity comes up (like in this article).
"I do try to talk to people if they have problems with us doing Parkour as it's something that is worth the effort"
It depends on what is worth it to you. To me, trying to convince someone that swearing is fine is worth it.
Point is, I'm not going to sit back and take it, as nothing will change, then.
"If there were no offensive words, you'd never be able to offend someone who cut you off on the road or wanted to punch you in the face to prove they're tougher than you etc. In fact, if there were no offensive words, people would invent them."
Uh, you completely missed my point. My point was that they are merely words (they could be classified with other 'offensive' words such as "idiot," I guess), and that censoring or banning them is completely idiotic.
"If you bruise egos, expect the person to react."
I didn't say otherwise. I merely said that censoring, banning, or acting like specific words shouldn't be used by certain people is completely illogical.
"Society just has developed a lot of weird rules about how things "should" be over time and most people never question why things should be how they are."
I'm saying that it's illogical. I'm going to swear as much as I please (even though I technically don't do it that often, anyway), regardless of whether society makes up some illogical rule and states that you shouldn't say certain words for no apparent reason.
I like AMD because their processors are usually fast enough for me and are usually much cheaper than the processors that Intel sells. I really can't afford to pay nearly as much for the processor as I do every other part for the computer combined, so I go with AMD.
"You know, dropping the F bomb every other word for giggles or because it's "fuckin' cool, man. Fuck." How unintelligent."
Not really unintelligent. They just feel like saying it. However, if society would stop treating these words as something 'bad', I can almost guarantee that hardly anyone would say them merely to be 'cool'.
"do we really need these words spliced into our conversations?"
Sure, why not? You're aware that they have meanings, right? If used in the right way, why not? They don't harm anyone.
"And if the current crop of swear words have lost their impact to shock, are we going to have to put up with more shocking, more grotesque visual imagery to get our point across?"
That depends on how idiotic and illogical society feels on being. If it's feeling especially idiotic and illogical, it will probably decide that more words are considered profanity even though they're just words.
"Adding profanities to most sentences doesn't add value and these days rarely adds weight to your point."
It does if they fit in the sentence! That's like saying that using words in your sentence at all doesn't add value to it.
"So why aren't we asking the question, what's the point of using these words?"
Mainly because, at this time, they have actual meanings.
"Swearing is a complete lack of originality."
But regurgitating words that you've read in a dictionary isn't? Ha.
I think the better question would be: why shouldn't I swear? What does it hurt anyone? It's just a word, and if you can't handle it, you're not going to last very long, and you shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Why should I have my voice taken away just because people don't like certain words? If people stopped treating these words as 'bad', I can almost guarantee that kids would stop saying them just to be 'cool' (they're not harmful or cool).
"I fail to see how choosing not to swear and show disrespect to others is being irrational and weak..."
I fail to see how choosing to swear and not being offended by mere words is harmful at all. If you get offended by words, you're not going to last long. This is simply illogical.
"Obviously the employee who doesn't swear at me and show disrespect on a regular basis."
You can show disrespect without swearing, too. The fact that someone swore in front of you doesn't mean they disrespected you. That is just someones illogical perception of ordinary words.
You still didn't explain how swearing harms anyone, or why people who want to control others by not letting them say mere words should be given the power to do so.
I fail to see how swearing is harmful at all. They're just words. Am I missing something, or is it just that the people who take offense to mere words (and expect everyone else not to say them) are, in fact, the idiots?
Not sarcasm. Really, who cares? Swear words are just words with meanings and nothing more. The fact that people take offense to mere words used without context just proves that they are idiots. At most, if a child hears a swear word, they'll repeat it. But, taking what I said before into account, who cares? What does this harm? Censorship is idiotic, and so is taking offense to certain words.
"I point out even with meat people still starve making it a necessity right now and in the past."
Ugh. Come on, now. I've said numerous times that if this is the case, I don't personally have a problem with people eating meat.
"Humans have been eating meat to survive."
It's not void. I've seen people that believe that slaughtering animals for no other reason than to satisfy their taste buds is okay, and go on to claim that humans are 'moral' and 'intelligent', even though that person just proved how they can't even control themselves in the face of desire, even if it means harming another being. I'm aware that people starve today.
"So humans call themselves moral and intelligent b/c they eat meat to keep members of there species from dying."
I'd eat a human to survive.
"That is a smart and moral thing to do (the way we do it today with sustained livestock and humane treatment)"
See, I don't know about that. Not always are animals treated properly before they die. Need better regulations on that.
Besides that, I'm also heavily against skinning animals for their fur, and yet for some reason, it not only legal to do that, but also acceptable to wear the fur. What's the point of this? You don't need animal fur to make coats anymore, we know of plenty of alternate materials that do just as well, if not better.
"And don't go trying to say that you said if there is an overabundance of food with your first post containing"
You merely misunderstood me. I was clearly talking about the people who think that way (I've seen them).
"Right there you accuse humans of doing it to only satisfy their tastebuds which means you somehow think/thought just the plants we have could sustain us."
No, I accused people who think that way of doing that if there were an overabundance of foods besides meat.
"Also, I notice you're conveniently ignoring the other half of my post from the other thread, where I prove that piracy is harmful."
I didn't ignore any of your post in the other thread, as I read it in its entirety. I just don't quote the entire thing.
"I think, before you reply, you need to look back at my arguments, pinpoint exactly where I went wrong"
Already did that with my other reply (and my new one, as well). Your "demand" argument makes no more sense than the "potential profit" argument (which I pointed out in my other posts).
"because otherwise you're just going to start arguing in circles."
I have a feeling I'm going to be arguing in circles, anyway, because you'll keep insisting that somehow demand is hurt.
"Oh, OK. Then I'll gladly take it off your hands. I won't take much of your time. I'll even buy you dinner and drinks, if it will sweeten the deal.
Or perhaps you misunderstand what "worth" actually is. If you don't want to part with it, it's worth something (to you)."
Ultimately, it is worthless. That is what I was saying.
"and the best rebuttal essentially amounts to "well, it's not harmful because it's not harmful". It's not helpful to your argument."
Odd, I don't remember saying that.
"For example, if you assume that they have access to the internet, you fail it already."
What? I was obviously talking about people who only have enough money to buy what they need (food, shelter, etc), perhaps a little more (internet access), but not enough to buy media (like me). I never assumed that, either.
"but at least the artist has a chance of fairly competing"
Why doesn't an artist who has had their media pirated have a chance of fairly competing? How can people who didn't actually take anything from them hurt them in the process (or stop them from competing)?
"It is assumed that the consumer is not buying the work because he does not want it."
Not really a problem with the pirate, since they've neither hurt or helped them. Sure, the pirates may have wanted it and the artist won't know (unless he goes to a torrent website and sees a massive amount of people pirating it), but in reality, the pirates (assuming they didn't donate or something) didn't help or hurt the artist by doing this.
"If you can show to me, beyond doubt, that people do not want what they are pirating, then I will agree that pirating and refusing to buy are morally equivalent."
Of course people want what they are pirating. However, that is irrelevant, as again, you cannot hurt someone without taking something from them (financially). The artist may get confused and think that no one wants the media, but that is no more the fault of the pirate (as pointed out above) than it is someone who simply didn't have money at the time to buy the media, but also wanted it.
"There's no monetary cost, but as we established previously, there is some harm done nonetheless."
You didn't manage to establish anything, as I pointed out above.
"With people who do not buy the product, either there was no demand to begin with (so no reduction), or the demand is suppressed by some other condition (e.g. price is too high), which is something the artist can often work with."
That's also the case with people who, at the time, don't have any money for the media (they need to spend it on more important things), but still want to buy it. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many of those people actually exist. They must be hurting demand!
"How can you turn a pirate's demand into a sale?"
By somehow getting them to buy the product, I would think. Not all pirates refuse to buy things. The key is knowing how to get them to, if possible.
"People who would potentially have bought the work can pirate it."
So, basically, pirates are stealing potential profit? Is that what you're trying to say here?
"Repeating "nothing was taken" doesn't change the fact that the artist was harmed."
It's because I want to emphasize that point. Repeating "demand was hurt" doesn't change the fact that the pirates didn't hurt the artist.
"Piracy doesn't actually contribute new works back."
No, but it doesn't stop them from existing, either.
"so piracy more or less decimates the artist's ability to turn a profit"
Piracy doesn't stop other people from buying their product, nor does a pirate take anything from the artist. The artists simply just don't know they exist, like someone who didn't buy their product.
"And as more people decide to pirate, the music doesn't become any cheaper..."
Sounds like a problem with the artist raising the prices, and not the pirate. The music would also have been cheaper if people who didn't buy the product bought it.
"You still don't show explain how eating meat makes humans less intelligent than they claim to be. You show no facts only your opinion."
"it seems to me"
It seems to me that if they were truly moral or intelligent that they'd be able to at least control themselves by not slaughtering another being (humans included) unless needed. Aren't we supposed to be above that? Or, at least, some people claim that we are.
"There isn't an over abundance of food right now."
Yeah, you haven't understood anything I've said. I'm aware of that. I've been aware. I merely said that if there is an over abundance of other food, that there's no point in eating meat and slaughtering animals.
That piracy doesn't harm anyone. You claimed that it did, and I provided a reason that it doesn't.
"The whole point is that the copyright owner has the right to do what he wants with his property and the fact that making an illegal copy has little actual physical or financial ramifications has nothing to do it."
Uh, no. The pirates effortlessly copied it, it is no longer under the artists control. Besides, why? It doesn't harm the artist, clearly.
"If I break into your house just to have a look around and I don't cause any damage it doesn't mean that what I am doing is OK or that it should be legalized."
That's idiotic and isn't anything like piracy. Pirates copy software, whereas breaking into someones home invades their privacy. You have no way to be certain if someone breaking into your house and invading your privacy is going to steal or cause damage (and it's very fair to assume that they're going to). This example has nothing to do with anything.
"You as owner have the complete to decide what can or cannot be done with your property."
Did they make their own copy of my house and break into that? If so, I don't care, and I can't stop them. It doesn't hurt me, and in the case of them copying my house, doesn't invade my privacy, either, because that copy isn't mine.
"Let me ask you this, why do YOU think that piracy should be legalized. Personally, I think it's just an excuse so that people can get stuff they can't afford or are not willing to pay for for free."
I think the reason is clear. It doesn't actually hurt anyone, as you even pointed out above. There's simply no reason for it to be illegal. No more than making consumer choice illegal, or making competition illegal.
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.
"Assuming pirates wouldn't buy the Media if they couldn't pirate"
I never assumed that. The fact remains, however, that they didn't buy the media, and in the process, nothing was actually lost.
"but until it becomes known and proven, my system is by far the best chance we have for actually instituting effective change."
It is unlikely that it can be known or proven until it is first tried.
"Pretending that you know that my carefully reasoned arguments are pretence just makes you sound like an idiot. Sorry, but it's true.:-/"
Your "carefully reasoned arguments" aren't so carefully reasoned. They merely replaced the words "potential profit" with "demand" and formed the same illogical arguments that I've seen time and time again.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh. People like you make me sick! The DMCA protects authors and their intellectual property that is in an infinite supply, and the ACTA, if it passes (hopefully it will), will accomplish this goal further and eliminate those evil pirates who dare steal profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money!
Censorship, DRM, and surveillance are all very dangerous and annoying things that only hurt the average person. It's hardly going to affect the pirates and will likely only affect 'normal' people, robbing them of some of their rights in the process. These corporations must be stopped, that much is clear.
"If you're going to choose a cause to stand up for, that one seems a bit strange."
No it isn't, and it's very easy, really. You don't just walk up to people and randomly start saying that swearing is fine and explain why. You say that when the opportunity comes up (like in this article).
"I do try to talk to people if they have problems with us doing Parkour as it's something that is worth the effort"
It depends on what is worth it to you. To me, trying to convince someone that swearing is fine is worth it.
Point is, I'm not going to sit back and take it, as nothing will change, then.
"Swearing in front of someone's kids is likely to get you in trouble and foster ill will for no reason."
Then I'll continue to speak out against people with such illogical beliefs, like I've been doing, and try to help them realize why it's illogical.
"If there were no offensive words, you'd never be able to offend someone who cut you off on the road or wanted to punch you in the face to prove they're tougher than you etc. In fact, if there were no offensive words, people would invent them."
Uh, you completely missed my point. My point was that they are merely words (they could be classified with other 'offensive' words such as "idiot," I guess), and that censoring or banning them is completely idiotic.
"If you bruise egos, expect the person to react."
I didn't say otherwise. I merely said that censoring, banning, or acting like specific words shouldn't be used by certain people is completely illogical.
"Society just has developed a lot of weird rules about how things "should" be over time and most people never question why things should be how they are."
I'm saying that it's illogical. I'm going to swear as much as I please (even though I technically don't do it that often, anyway), regardless of whether society makes up some illogical rule and states that you shouldn't say certain words for no apparent reason.
I like AMD because their processors are usually fast enough for me and are usually much cheaper than the processors that Intel sells. I really can't afford to pay nearly as much for the processor as I do every other part for the computer combined, so I go with AMD.
"I mean real damages I'm ok with, they're real."
Piracy doesn't inflict any real damage on anyone, as nothing is actually taken.
"You know, dropping the F bomb every other word for giggles or because it's "fuckin' cool, man. Fuck." How unintelligent."
Not really unintelligent. They just feel like saying it. However, if society would stop treating these words as something 'bad', I can almost guarantee that hardly anyone would say them merely to be 'cool'.
"do we really need these words spliced into our conversations?"
Sure, why not? You're aware that they have meanings, right? If used in the right way, why not? They don't harm anyone.
"And if the current crop of swear words have lost their impact to shock, are we going to have to put up with more shocking, more grotesque visual imagery to get our point across?"
That depends on how idiotic and illogical society feels on being. If it's feeling especially idiotic and illogical, it will probably decide that more words are considered profanity even though they're just words.
"Adding profanities to most sentences doesn't add value and these days rarely adds weight to your point."
It does if they fit in the sentence! That's like saying that using words in your sentence at all doesn't add value to it.
"So why aren't we asking the question, what's the point of using these words?"
Mainly because, at this time, they have actual meanings.
"Swearing is a complete lack of originality."
But regurgitating words that you've read in a dictionary isn't? Ha.
Right, so forbidding swear words hinders crime! That makes complete sense.
They're using profanity because they wish to do so. It doesn't hurt anyone, so why not?
I think the better question would be: why shouldn't I swear? What does it hurt anyone? It's just a word, and if you can't handle it, you're not going to last very long, and you shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Why should I have my voice taken away just because people don't like certain words? If people stopped treating these words as 'bad', I can almost guarantee that kids would stop saying them just to be 'cool' (they're not harmful or cool).
"I fail to see how choosing not to swear and show disrespect to others is being irrational and weak..."
I fail to see how choosing to swear and not being offended by mere words is harmful at all. If you get offended by words, you're not going to last long. This is simply illogical.
"Obviously the employee who doesn't swear at me and show disrespect on a regular basis."
You can show disrespect without swearing, too. The fact that someone swore in front of you doesn't mean they disrespected you. That is just someones illogical perception of ordinary words.
You still didn't explain how swearing harms anyone, or why people who want to control others by not letting them say mere words should be given the power to do so.
I fail to see how swearing is harmful at all. They're just words. Am I missing something, or is it just that the people who take offense to mere words (and expect everyone else not to say them) are, in fact, the idiots?
Not sarcasm. Really, who cares? Swear words are just words with meanings and nothing more. The fact that people take offense to mere words used without context just proves that they are idiots. At most, if a child hears a swear word, they'll repeat it. But, taking what I said before into account, who cares? What does this harm? Censorship is idiotic, and so is taking offense to certain words.
"I point out even with meat people still starve making it a necessity right now and in the past."
Ugh. Come on, now. I've said numerous times that if this is the case, I don't personally have a problem with people eating meat.
"Humans have been eating meat to survive."
It's not void. I've seen people that believe that slaughtering animals for no other reason than to satisfy their taste buds is okay, and go on to claim that humans are 'moral' and 'intelligent', even though that person just proved how they can't even control themselves in the face of desire, even if it means harming another being. I'm aware that people starve today.
"So humans call themselves moral and intelligent b/c they eat meat to keep members of there species from dying."
I'd eat a human to survive.
"That is a smart and moral thing to do (the way we do it today with sustained livestock and humane treatment)"
See, I don't know about that. Not always are animals treated properly before they die. Need better regulations on that.
Besides that, I'm also heavily against skinning animals for their fur, and yet for some reason, it not only legal to do that, but also acceptable to wear the fur. What's the point of this? You don't need animal fur to make coats anymore, we know of plenty of alternate materials that do just as well, if not better.
"And don't go trying to say that you said if there is an overabundance of food with your first post containing"
You merely misunderstood me. I was clearly talking about the people who think that way (I've seen them).
"Right there you accuse humans of doing it to only satisfy their tastebuds which means you somehow think/thought just the plants we have could sustain us."
No, I accused people who think that way of doing that if there were an overabundance of foods besides meat.
"Also, I notice you're conveniently ignoring the other half of my post from the other thread, where I prove that piracy is harmful."
I didn't ignore any of your post in the other thread, as I read it in its entirety. I just don't quote the entire thing.
"I think, before you reply, you need to look back at my arguments, pinpoint exactly where I went wrong"
Already did that with my other reply (and my new one, as well). Your "demand" argument makes no more sense than the "potential profit" argument (which I pointed out in my other posts).
"because otherwise you're just going to start arguing in circles."
I have a feeling I'm going to be arguing in circles, anyway, because you'll keep insisting that somehow demand is hurt.
"Oh, OK. Then I'll gladly take it off your hands. I won't take much of your time. I'll even buy you dinner and drinks, if it will sweeten the deal.
Or perhaps you misunderstand what "worth" actually is. If you don't want to part with it, it's worth something (to you)."
Ultimately, it is worthless. That is what I was saying.
"and the best rebuttal essentially amounts to "well, it's not harmful because it's not harmful". It's not helpful to your argument."
Odd, I don't remember saying that.
"For example, if you assume that they have access to the internet, you fail it already."
What? I was obviously talking about people who only have enough money to buy what they need (food, shelter, etc), perhaps a little more (internet access), but not enough to buy media (like me). I never assumed that, either.
"but at least the artist has a chance of fairly competing"
Why doesn't an artist who has had their media pirated have a chance of fairly competing? How can people who didn't actually take anything from them hurt them in the process (or stop them from competing)?
"It is assumed that the consumer is not buying the work because he does not want it."
Not really a problem with the pirate, since they've neither hurt or helped them. Sure, the pirates may have wanted it and the artist won't know (unless he goes to a torrent website and sees a massive amount of people pirating it), but in reality, the pirates (assuming they didn't donate or something) didn't help or hurt the artist by doing this.
"If you can show to me, beyond doubt, that people do not want what they are pirating, then I will agree that pirating and refusing to buy are morally equivalent."
Of course people want what they are pirating. However, that is irrelevant, as again, you cannot hurt someone without taking something from them (financially). The artist may get confused and think that no one wants the media, but that is no more the fault of the pirate (as pointed out above) than it is someone who simply didn't have money at the time to buy the media, but also wanted it.
"There's no monetary cost, but as we established previously, there is some harm done nonetheless."
You didn't manage to establish anything, as I pointed out above.
"With people who do not buy the product, either there was no demand to begin with (so no reduction), or the demand is suppressed by some other condition (e.g. price is too high), which is something the artist can often work with."
That's also the case with people who, at the time, don't have any money for the media (they need to spend it on more important things), but still want to buy it. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many of those people actually exist. They must be hurting demand!
"How can you turn a pirate's demand into a sale?"
By somehow getting them to buy the product, I would think. Not all pirates refuse to buy things. The key is knowing how to get them to, if possible.
"People who would potentially have bought the work can pirate it."
So, basically, pirates are stealing potential profit? Is that what you're trying to say here?
"Repeating "nothing was taken" doesn't change the fact that the artist was harmed."
It's because I want to emphasize that point. Repeating "demand was hurt" doesn't change the fact that the pirates didn't hurt the artist.
"Piracy doesn't actually contribute new works back."
No, but it doesn't stop them from existing, either.
"so piracy more or less decimates the artist's ability to turn a profit"
Piracy doesn't stop other people from buying their product, nor does a pirate take anything from the artist. The artists simply just don't know they exist, like someone who didn't buy their product.
"And as more people decide to pirate, the music doesn't become any cheaper..."
Sounds like a problem with the artist raising the prices, and not the pirate. The music would also have been cheaper if people who didn't buy the product bought it.
"You still don't show explain how eating meat makes humans less intelligent than they claim to be. You show no facts only your opinion."
"it seems to me"
It seems to me that if they were truly moral or intelligent that they'd be able to at least control themselves by not slaughtering another being (humans included) unless needed. Aren't we supposed to be above that? Or, at least, some people claim that we are.
"There isn't an over abundance of food right now."
Yeah, you haven't understood anything I've said. I'm aware of that. I've been aware. I merely said that if there is an over abundance of other food, that there's no point in eating meat and slaughtering animals.
"What are you trying to prove?"
That piracy doesn't harm anyone. You claimed that it did, and I provided a reason that it doesn't.
"The whole point is that the copyright owner has the right to do what he wants with his property and the fact that making an illegal copy has little actual physical or financial ramifications has nothing to do it."
Uh, no. The pirates effortlessly copied it, it is no longer under the artists control. Besides, why? It doesn't harm the artist, clearly.
"If I break into your house just to have a look around and I don't cause any damage it doesn't mean that what I am doing is OK or that it should be legalized."
That's idiotic and isn't anything like piracy. Pirates copy software, whereas breaking into someones home invades their privacy. You have no way to be certain if someone breaking into your house and invading your privacy is going to steal or cause damage (and it's very fair to assume that they're going to). This example has nothing to do with anything.
"You as owner have the complete to decide what can or cannot be done with your property."
Did they make their own copy of my house and break into that? If so, I don't care, and I can't stop them. It doesn't hurt me, and in the case of them copying my house, doesn't invade my privacy, either, because that copy isn't mine.
"Let me ask you this, why do YOU think that piracy should be legalized. Personally, I think it's just an excuse so that people can get stuff they can't afford or are not willing to pay for for free."
I think the reason is clear. It doesn't actually hurt anyone, as you even pointed out above. There's simply no reason for it to be illegal. No more than making consumer choice illegal, or making competition illegal.
"dual core 1.6mhz"
"1.6mhz"
I can see why!
"Pirates are potential clients"
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.
"Assuming pirates wouldn't buy the Media if they couldn't pirate"
I never assumed that. The fact remains, however, that they didn't buy the media, and in the process, nothing was actually lost.
"but until it becomes known and proven, my system is by far the best chance we have for actually instituting effective change."
It is unlikely that it can be known or proven until it is first tried.
"Pretending that you know that my carefully reasoned arguments are pretence just makes you sound like an idiot. Sorry, but it's true. :-/"
Your "carefully reasoned arguments" aren't so carefully reasoned. They merely replaced the words "potential profit" with "demand" and formed the same illogical arguments that I've seen time and time again.