What would be the incentive to innovate if you cannot profit from it?
I've already answered your first concern in my other post. However, blaming people who logically aren't harming anyone is both irresponsible and illogical. Introducing artificial scarcity (I provided a link to a blog post explaining that in my other reply) in order to keep in place a fundamentally broken system is not the answer, nor is blaming people who again, don't deprive anyone of anything (and again, them not being able to control something does not alone hurt them).
In a society that doesn't utilize artificial currency, their incentive would come from the love of their profession, not from paper that is ultimately worthless. Gone would be the people who only work for money (perhaps they could do something that actually interests them). The people who work because they make money but still love their profession, however, would not be gone.
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
Uh, their ego has significant value? If I said that I should be able to control all of the money in the world and I was unable to, then I've lost something of significant value? Just because the law provides it, that doesn't be it has significant value, so that can't be it.
Secondly you speak of 'fixing the system' but you propose no such fix, nor specifically identify the flaw.
No, he's mainly upset because the exchange for the good or service hasn't occurred fully. One side gets a benefit for nothing and the other doesn't get the benefit of revenue or income, not profit for the first 150,000 copies.
But, one side getting a free benefit doesn't deprive the author of anything that they previously had. The author was not harmed in the least.
You've avoided the question that's been asked several time by saying the debate isn't about what fixes the system or truly even what is broken.
If you've truly read my other comments, you'd see that I didn't avoid the question about what is broken. Here's one thing that's broken.
Supposedly, in order for artists of digital media (perhaps other media, too) to make a profit in the current system, they must introduce artificial scarcity and try to limit the amount of their work that exists only to those who paid (even though merely copying their work didn't deprive them of anything that they already owned, and therefore didn't hurt them). Sometimes, them or others, even though pirates aren't actually interacting with them at all, try to force the pirate to pay money even though no damages were inflicted upon them. How is that not broken? I don't blame the artists for trying to make money, I blame the system which forces them to earn money if they would like to produce more content.
Currently I assume you're bitching about a highly regulated capitalist model as being insufficient to get you and others free stuff.
If you had actually read my comments, you'd see that I'm "bitching" because, currently, people who are doing no harm to anyone else are being treated as criminals.
Either of those would be worse than current.
You neglected to mention the almost infinite amount of other ideas that haven't even been thought of yet. Reducing that amount to a choice between two different systems is illogical.
hence why would anyone even be motivated to learn those skills in the first place?
In a system that doesn't utilize artificial currency, people would be motivated by the love of their profession, not by their desire to get more money at all costs. Gone would be the people who only work for money. The people that work for money now only because they have to, however, would not be gone.
Neither of those other solutions seem any more adequate, so I'd love to know your solution to the so called broken system that is yet to be clearly defined.
The broken system is capitalism. Again, my inability to think of a viable alternative does not make my criticism of the current system moot. I only know that it is broken.
Remember: merely not giving someone money does not harm them. You only harm them by wasting their time (which pirates don't do because the pirate wasn't the one that specifically requested they make the media), stealing money that they already had (they never had potential profit), wasting their resources, or depriving them of property (copying doesn't deprive them of their property, if that's what you can even call data).
Saying that it is possible to steal potential profit (and that it harms people) would be either indirectly or directly blaming almost everyone in existence. Everyone who decided not to buy a product or not to give someone else money. Everyone who told others not to buy a product.
Yes, we still live in a system which requires that you have money, but blaming pirates (who don't deprive anyone of anything that they already had, and therefore don't harm them) for the inability of artists to turn a profit instead of the broken capitalistic society itself is both irresponsible and illogical. Ignoring the real problem isn't going to help anything.
Yes, but the thing is, pirates aren't actually depriving the artists of anything.
In order to deprive someone of something, they must have had it in the first place. The artists never had the potential profit (hence its name).
The pirates have not directly wasted the artists time, their resources, or taken anything from them. Blaming them is as foolish as blaming someone for merely not buying a product.
According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?
You're right, they haven't been deprived of anything. Not just according to my logic, but logic itself. They must have had the money in the first place in order to be deprived of it.
I suggest that we blame the illogical capitalistic society which is what is really at fault for this supposed suffering. The first step is to admit the problem, and then work towards fixing it.
In any case what you've taken from them is the exclusivity to distribute something they created, so - by your logic - it's ok to take what they have created and re-sell it wherever they have it for sale at a lower price.
Yes, but how does merely copying something hurt them? They've been deprived of nothing. Not time (the pirates didn't specifically request they do a job and then not pay them, they chose it on their own), money (they never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive them of property). Merely not giving someone money if you haven't even interacted with them at all (and therefore not wasted their time or resources) doesn't hurt them (or else you'd be blaming everyone in existence).
So what you've taken is their exclusivity and because of that you have taken effectively all their sales too, i mean why would anyone buy from them if they can legally get it from you at a lower price?
Taking the above into consideration, pirates really aren't doing harm to them. It is a flaw in this illogical capitalistic society. Think about it. If artists have to extort/sue people who do no harm to them and create artificial scarcity so that they may make a profit so that they can continue producing media, then that system is inherently flawed. Blaming the pirates instead of fixing the system is both irresponsible and illogical.
I did not claim otherwise. Please note that I have nothing against charging for your work. Just that I'm against the illogical notion that not granting someone your money somehow harms them. I don't blame the artists, but the system itself.
If you think copying it and giving it to someone else to play doesn't hurt me, you're wrong.
It doesn't hurt you. The pirates have deprived you of nothing that you already had. Not time (you're the one who decided to make the game, the pirates didn't request that you do and then not pay you), money (you never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive you of property).
It ultimately boils down to the fact that the pirates are only hurting themselves if they fail to pay the artist and the artist is unable to produce more media.
But, again, the need for artificial scarcity is clearly a flaw in this broken system. I do understand why artists want money, however (but even so, pirates aren't harming them).
I fail to see how something that entertains me for 20 hours isn't worth the few bucks an hour.
Please note that I'm not saying it's a bad thing to give artists money for their efforts, just that merely copying a product does not harm the author and that not granting someone your money does not harm them either. It's a good thing if they give them money for their efforts, but if they don't and the author is unable to continue producing media, then that have only hurt themselves.
If you get caught stealing you have to pay a fine/do some time.
"Stealing"? I'm sorry, but could you explain what is being stolen? Even the law which you're defending clearly differentiates between copyright infringement and theft. In order for it to be considered stealing, the pirate must steal money that they previously had. In order to harm them at all, the pirate must do one of the following things: waste their time directly (specifically request that they complete a job promising payment and then not pay them), steal money that they already had, steal physical property that they already had, or waste their resources. Pirates do none of those things.
If someone decides to not buy a product from a store, they won't have said product to use. Piracy has all the benefits of choosing not to buy combined with all the benefits of buying.
You're right. But, I ask again, since merely copying the product does not alone harm the author (since they're not deprived of anything from the action of copying), how does someone merely having the product hurt them? People who do not buy the product are doing the exact same thing that many people seem to think causes harm to authors: not giving them money. Since merely copying the product does not harm the author, they're nearly doing the same thing as the pirate.
But, not giving someone money doesn't harm them anyway. In order for you to harm then, you'd need to steal money they already had, waste their time (specifically request that they do a job promising payment and then not pay them), waste their resources, or deprive them of property (not merely copy) that they already had.
Just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong. Yes, one action is indeed currently legal, but I was saying that that is illogical because they are doing almost the exact same thing as a pirate (not giving the business their money). The pirate may have the media, but the sole act of copying (which doesn't deprive anyone of anything) does not by itself harm someone.
Just to make absolutely sure this time, you're arguing that if we continue to allow piracy and it becomes widespread, artists won't make money and therefore won't be able to produce anymore digital media, correct?
So the point is that the idea that preventing someone from making money due to direct actions on your part may, under some circumstances, be direct harm to that person, is hardly a novel legal concept, and you shouldn't treat it as one.
Ah, I see. The law may think that in some circumstances it's logical, but it really isn't. In order for it to harm someone, they must actually lose money, time, resources, or property that they already had.
I did read your comment, and I already responded to at least twenty-five other posts using the same argument. The "potential sale" argument is simply illogical.
Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.
Ultimately, nearly everyone can be counted as a lost sale. If they would have bought the product or given another person their money, that person would have been better off.
Fortunately, however, it is not possible to harm someone merely by not giving them your money. In order for you to harm them, you must steal money that they already have, waste their time (as in, you must specifically request that they work for you while promising that you'll pay them but ultimately don't), waste their resources, or steal property that they already had. Pirates do none of those things (the authors of the media are the ones who decided to make the media).
I suppose it's hard to argue against "no harm done so who cares" especially among slashdot crowd.
If no harm is being done, then it is not a wrong thing to do. If people don't give the author a reward for their efforts and they eventually can't produce any media, the people have only hurt themselves (because again, the act of copying does not deprive the author of anything). The only way a pirate could hurt an artist is if they wasted their time (as in, the pirate interacted with the author and requested that they do a job with promises of payment), wasted their resources, or stole property that they previously had (potential profit does not exist).
Though I could make the same argument about people sneaking into theatres or museums without paying admission.
I've already responded to that argument. It really only harms the theatre if they were full (or perhaps the customer who bought the seat).
Violating social contracts does, generally. The simple test is this: what would happen if everyone did it?
People would hurt themselves (and only themselves) by not giving the author a reward for their effort, and in the current system, the author wouldn't be able to produce more media. Again, the mere action of not granting someone money does not harm them. In order to harm them, they must have had the money in the first place and then have it taken away. Other possible ways to harm a worker would be to waste their time directly (and not have it be of their own choice), waste their resources, or actually steal something that they previously owned.
It doesn't matter that pirates are or are not hurting sales. The point that is relevant is that they are cheating the system by enjoying stuff for free that they are supposed to be paying for.
But again, if you've already admitted that they aren't taking anything, then why act like what they are doing is a bad thing?
If artists (or anyone else) must introduce artificial scarcity in order to provide incentive, and people that do something that logically harms no one are being treated as criminals, then don't you think it is the system which needs fixing?
If there are no consequences to just taking the game, and people can see that there are no consequences for just taking the game, why would anyone pay for it?
They probably wouldn't. But since each individual is doing zero harm in the first place, that equates to zero harm in the end (to others). If they harm themselves by not paying for something (because the artists no longer have money), then that is their problem (as well as a fault in the broken system).
The system which forces artists (and others) to introduce artificial scarcity and treat as criminals those who do something that logically harms no one is what needs to be fixed.
But the person has wasted their time and resources, they worked on the product and then someone has essentially just used the time and resources that was put into the work without the legitimate compensation.
Yes, but they only did so once. The pirate also did not specifically request that they do so, nor did they use up any of their time or resources.
Again, this basically boils down to people who merely didn't buy the product. Whether they wanted it or not is irrelevant. If you think the action of someone not giving the author money harms them (which it doesn't) because they spent time and effort on the product, you are either directly or indirectly including these people as well.
After all, these people don't have a right to obtain people's work for free if these people wish to charge for it.
Taking every point that I've made into account, my question is: why? What harm does it do? How does merely not granting someone money when they didn't interact with them (therefore they didn't use their time or resources) or deprive them of anything harm someone?
You don't see people duplicating Philips HD TVs, they have to buy them if they want it.
I think in order to fix this problem, the solution is introduce the actual limitations that a physical product has with regards to it's duplication.
The solution is not to introduce more artificial scarcity, but to figure out a way in which it will no longer be 'needed'. Capitalism has failed in this regard. The least that could be done is attempting to find a solution, but the ones in power do not even acknowledge the problem (likely due to the existence of money and bribery in the first place). The people must therefore be the ones to do so.
The time and effort it went into making a game that the thief enjoyed enough to bother downloading.
But that went into making the content one single time. It can't be stolen after that. Pirates use their own time and effort to copy the data while not interacting with the artist in any way.
So your argument is that digital (non-tangible) content creators should only create stuff if someone ask them specifically to make it?
No, it's that pirates aren't actually causing any harm. I can understand how someone would think that pirates are causing harm due to the way that the current system works, but they are not depriving anyone of anything (not time, money, resources, or property).
I'm trying to get you to think about the *reason* society has created laws to that allow artists to charge money when people want to consume their creations.
I know of the reasons already, but I don't agree with them. I feel that placing blame on people who aren't actually taking anything (not time, resources, money, or property) instead of attempting (at least attempting) to come up with a viable alternative is irresponsible and illogical.
Does that wording make you happier?
Yes. When you used that word, I misinterpreted your position. It gets confusing when so many people mistake copyright infringement for theft.
But I see that you conveniently ignored my main point:
I'm sorry, but I've gotten so many replies that it's difficult to respond to every single point.
To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it?
I never claimed that it has no entertainment value. It does. Pirates are only hurting themselves if they wish to see more content produced by the author and fail to pay them.
If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws?
Aside from the fact that plenty of content actually is created for free, my suggestion would be to find a viable alternative to a system which uses artificial currency entirely. Perhaps a resource-based economy (just a simple answer). While this would surely be the end of people who produce content just to receive money and don't actually enjoy what they do, it wouldn't mean the end of people who actually enjoy what they do producing content. There are plenty of artists who merely agree with copyright because they feel it benefits them. Eliminate the need for money, and you eliminate the need to create artificial scarcity and can continue doing what you love to do.
Except my time, you mean. This is different than specifically and directly asking someone to perform a job for you and then not paying them because in that example you have used their time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy data.
That's right. They have no reasonable expectation that anyone will even buy their product.
If you think that not giving someone money whilst also not using up any of their time or resources and not depriving them of anything physical harms them, then you are indirectly saying that people who merely decide not to buy a product are harming the artists. The same goes for people who tell others not to buy a product.
Again, the problem lies with the way that the system currently works. If artists are unable to make money without going after people who deprive them of nothing (not time, resources, money, or property), then that system is inherently flawed, whether or not it is the only viable system.
No, as that is an expected part of the "contract" between consumers and producers.
But I'm saying that that doesn't make sense because logically, they aren't taking anything from them. Not time, money, property, or resources. They aren't even directly interacting with the author at all. Similar to people who don't buy the product at all.
Of course it does.
The action of violating a law or contract by itself does not do harm. The harm done depends on the situation.
As for your examples, if you're saying that pirates are hurting everyone by choosing not to spend their money on media, then again, you're also including people who merely choose not to buy the product. What if they don't have enough buyers and have to close down, leaving the people who did want more products disappointed? In reality, if the pirate wanted more media, they should have paid. The pirate has hurt themselves in this regard, but not anyone else.
Finally, can you please explain to us why it is ok to make use of a product that has take real time and money to produce without ever giving the makers the a cent?
Nothing is being specifically taken from them. Not time, not money, not property, and not resources. Absolutely nothing. If you argue "potential profit," then again, this includes people who have merely decided not to buy the product.
Slashdot Mirror
What would be the incentive to innovate if you cannot profit from it?
I've already answered your first concern in my other post. However, blaming people who logically aren't harming anyone is both irresponsible and illogical. Introducing artificial scarcity (I provided a link to a blog post explaining that in my other reply) in order to keep in place a fundamentally broken system is not the answer, nor is blaming people who again, don't deprive anyone of anything (and again, them not being able to control something does not alone hurt them).
In a society that doesn't utilize artificial currency, their incentive would come from the love of their profession, not from paper that is ultimately worthless. Gone would be the people who only work for money (perhaps they could do something that actually interests them). The people who work because they make money but still love their profession, however, would not be gone.
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
Uh, their ego has significant value? If I said that I should be able to control all of the money in the world and I was unable to, then I've lost something of significant value? Just because the law provides it, that doesn't be it has significant value, so that can't be it.
Secondly you speak of 'fixing the system' but you propose no such fix, nor specifically identify the flaw.
Artificial scarcity.
I don't need to have a viable alternative in order for my criticisms of the current system to be valid.
No, he's mainly upset because the exchange for the good or service hasn't occurred fully. One side gets a benefit for nothing and the other doesn't get the benefit of revenue or income, not profit for the first 150,000 copies.
But, one side getting a free benefit doesn't deprive the author of anything that they previously had. The author was not harmed in the least.
You've avoided the question that's been asked several time by saying the debate isn't about what fixes the system or truly even what is broken.
If you've truly read my other comments, you'd see that I didn't avoid the question about what is broken. Here's one thing that's broken.
Supposedly, in order for artists of digital media (perhaps other media, too) to make a profit in the current system, they must introduce artificial scarcity and try to limit the amount of their work that exists only to those who paid (even though merely copying their work didn't deprive them of anything that they already owned, and therefore didn't hurt them). Sometimes, them or others, even though pirates aren't actually interacting with them at all, try to force the pirate to pay money even though no damages were inflicted upon them. How is that not broken? I don't blame the artists for trying to make money, I blame the system which forces them to earn money if they would like to produce more content.
Currently I assume you're bitching about a highly regulated capitalist model as being insufficient to get you and others free stuff.
If you had actually read my comments, you'd see that I'm "bitching" because, currently, people who are doing no harm to anyone else are being treated as criminals.
Either of those would be worse than current.
You neglected to mention the almost infinite amount of other ideas that haven't even been thought of yet. Reducing that amount to a choice between two different systems is illogical.
hence why would anyone even be motivated to learn those skills in the first place?
In a system that doesn't utilize artificial currency, people would be motivated by the love of their profession, not by their desire to get more money at all costs. Gone would be the people who only work for money. The people that work for money now only because they have to, however, would not be gone.
Neither of those other solutions seem any more adequate, so I'd love to know your solution to the so called broken system that is yet to be clearly defined.
The broken system is capitalism. Again, my inability to think of a viable alternative does not make my criticism of the current system moot. I only know that it is broken.
Remember: merely not giving someone money does not harm them. You only harm them by wasting their time (which pirates don't do because the pirate wasn't the one that specifically requested they make the media), stealing money that they already had (they never had potential profit), wasting their resources, or depriving them of property (copying doesn't deprive them of their property, if that's what you can even call data).
Saying that it is possible to steal potential profit (and that it harms people) would be either indirectly or directly blaming almost everyone in existence. Everyone who decided not to buy a product or not to give someone else money. Everyone who told others not to buy a product.
Yes, we still live in a system which requires that you have money, but blaming pirates (who don't deprive anyone of anything that they already had, and therefore don't harm them) for the inability of artists to turn a profit instead of the broken capitalistic society itself is both irresponsible and illogical. Ignoring the real problem isn't going to help anything.
Yes, but the thing is, pirates aren't actually depriving the artists of anything.
In order to deprive someone of something, they must have had it in the first place. The artists never had the potential profit (hence its name).
The pirates have not directly wasted the artists time, their resources, or taken anything from them. Blaming them is as foolish as blaming someone for merely not buying a product.
According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?
You're right, they haven't been deprived of anything. Not just according to my logic, but logic itself. They must have had the money in the first place in order to be deprived of it.
I suggest that we blame the illogical capitalistic society which is what is really at fault for this supposed suffering. The first step is to admit the problem, and then work towards fixing it.
In any case what you've taken from them is the exclusivity to distribute something they created, so - by your logic - it's ok to take what they have created and re-sell it wherever they have it for sale at a lower price.
Yes, but how does merely copying something hurt them? They've been deprived of nothing. Not time (the pirates didn't specifically request they do a job and then not pay them, they chose it on their own), money (they never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive them of property). Merely not giving someone money if you haven't even interacted with them at all (and therefore not wasted their time or resources) doesn't hurt them (or else you'd be blaming everyone in existence).
So what you've taken is their exclusivity and because of that you have taken effectively all their sales too, i mean why would anyone buy from them if they can legally get it from you at a lower price?
Taking the above into consideration, pirates really aren't doing harm to them. It is a flaw in this illogical capitalistic society. Think about it. If artists have to extort/sue people who do no harm to them and create artificial scarcity so that they may make a profit so that they can continue producing media, then that system is inherently flawed. Blaming the pirates instead of fixing the system is both irresponsible and illogical.
The thing is, people need to survive.
I did not claim otherwise. Please note that I have nothing against charging for your work. Just that I'm against the illogical notion that not granting someone your money somehow harms them. I don't blame the artists, but the system itself.
If you think copying it and giving it to someone else to play doesn't hurt me, you're wrong.
It doesn't hurt you. The pirates have deprived you of nothing that you already had. Not time (you're the one who decided to make the game, the pirates didn't request that you do and then not pay you), money (you never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive you of property).
It ultimately boils down to the fact that the pirates are only hurting themselves if they fail to pay the artist and the artist is unable to produce more media.
But, again, the need for artificial scarcity is clearly a flaw in this broken system. I do understand why artists want money, however (but even so, pirates aren't harming them).
I fail to see how something that entertains me for 20 hours isn't worth the few bucks an hour.
Please note that I'm not saying it's a bad thing to give artists money for their efforts, just that merely copying a product does not harm the author and that not granting someone your money does not harm them either. It's a good thing if they give them money for their efforts, but if they don't and the author is unable to continue producing media, then that have only hurt themselves.
If you get caught stealing you have to pay a fine/do some time.
"Stealing"? I'm sorry, but could you explain what is being stolen? Even the law which you're defending clearly differentiates between copyright infringement and theft. In order for it to be considered stealing, the pirate must steal money that they previously had. In order to harm them at all, the pirate must do one of the following things: waste their time directly (specifically request that they complete a job promising payment and then not pay them), steal money that they already had, steal physical property that they already had, or waste their resources. Pirates do none of those things.
Sorry if that's not what you meant.
If someone decides to not buy a product from a store, they won't have said product to use. Piracy has all the benefits of choosing not to buy combined with all the benefits of buying.
You're right. But, I ask again, since merely copying the product does not alone harm the author (since they're not deprived of anything from the action of copying), how does someone merely having the product hurt them? People who do not buy the product are doing the exact same thing that many people seem to think causes harm to authors: not giving them money. Since merely copying the product does not harm the author, they're nearly doing the same thing as the pirate.
But, not giving someone money doesn't harm them anyway. In order for you to harm then, you'd need to steal money they already had, waste their time (specifically request that they do a job promising payment and then not pay them), waste their resources, or deprive them of property (not merely copy) that they already had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_law
Just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong. Yes, one action is indeed currently legal, but I was saying that that is illogical because they are doing almost the exact same thing as a pirate (not giving the business their money). The pirate may have the media, but the sole act of copying (which doesn't deprive anyone of anything) does not by itself harm someone.
Just to make absolutely sure this time, you're arguing that if we continue to allow piracy and it becomes widespread, artists won't make money and therefore won't be able to produce anymore digital media, correct?
So the point is that the idea that preventing someone from making money due to direct actions on your part may, under some circumstances, be direct harm to that person, is hardly a novel legal concept, and you shouldn't treat it as one.
Ah, I see. The law may think that in some circumstances it's logical, but it really isn't. In order for it to harm someone, they must actually lose money, time, resources, or property that they already had.
I did read your comment, and I already responded to at least twenty-five other posts using the same argument. The "potential sale" argument is simply illogical.
Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.
Ultimately, nearly everyone can be counted as a lost sale. If they would have bought the product or given another person their money, that person would have been better off.
Fortunately, however, it is not possible to harm someone merely by not giving them your money. In order for you to harm them, you must steal money that they already have, waste their time (as in, you must specifically request that they work for you while promising that you'll pay them but ultimately don't), waste their resources, or steal property that they already had. Pirates do none of those things (the authors of the media are the ones who decided to make the media).
I suppose it's hard to argue against "no harm done so who cares" especially among slashdot crowd.
If no harm is being done, then it is not a wrong thing to do. If people don't give the author a reward for their efforts and they eventually can't produce any media, the people have only hurt themselves (because again, the act of copying does not deprive the author of anything). The only way a pirate could hurt an artist is if they wasted their time (as in, the pirate interacted with the author and requested that they do a job with promises of payment), wasted their resources, or stole property that they previously had (potential profit does not exist).
Though I could make the same argument about people sneaking into theatres or museums without paying admission.
I've already responded to that argument. It really only harms the theatre if they were full (or perhaps the customer who bought the seat).
Violating social contracts does, generally. The simple test is this: what would happen if everyone did it?
People would hurt themselves (and only themselves) by not giving the author a reward for their effort, and in the current system, the author wouldn't be able to produce more media. Again, the mere action of not granting someone money does not harm them. In order to harm them, they must have had the money in the first place and then have it taken away. Other possible ways to harm a worker would be to waste their time directly (and not have it be of their own choice), waste their resources, or actually steal something that they previously owned.
It doesn't matter that pirates are or are not hurting sales. The point that is relevant is that they are cheating the system by enjoying stuff for free that they are supposed to be paying for.
But again, if you've already admitted that they aren't taking anything, then why act like what they are doing is a bad thing?
If artists (or anyone else) must introduce artificial scarcity in order to provide incentive, and people that do something that logically harms no one are being treated as criminals, then don't you think it is the system which needs fixing?
If there are no consequences to just taking the game, and people can see that there are no consequences for just taking the game, why would anyone pay for it?
They probably wouldn't. But since each individual is doing zero harm in the first place, that equates to zero harm in the end (to others). If they harm themselves by not paying for something (because the artists no longer have money), then that is their problem (as well as a fault in the broken system).
The system which forces artists (and others) to introduce artificial scarcity and treat as criminals those who do something that logically harms no one is what needs to be fixed.
But the person has wasted their time and resources, they worked on the product and then someone has essentially just used the time and resources that was put into the work without the legitimate compensation.
Yes, but they only did so once. The pirate also did not specifically request that they do so, nor did they use up any of their time or resources.
Again, this basically boils down to people who merely didn't buy the product. Whether they wanted it or not is irrelevant. If you think the action of someone not giving the author money harms them (which it doesn't) because they spent time and effort on the product, you are either directly or indirectly including these people as well.
After all, these people don't have a right to obtain people's work for free if these people wish to charge for it.
Taking every point that I've made into account, my question is: why? What harm does it do? How does merely not granting someone money when they didn't interact with them (therefore they didn't use their time or resources) or deprive them of anything harm someone?
You don't see people duplicating Philips HD TVs, they have to buy them if they want it.
Of course not. But they would if they had the ability to. If it was possible, I'm sure that they would try to restrict that too. This is why I don't like artificial scarcity.
I think in order to fix this problem, the solution is introduce the actual limitations that a physical product has with regards to it's duplication.
The solution is not to introduce more artificial scarcity, but to figure out a way in which it will no longer be 'needed'. Capitalism has failed in this regard. The least that could be done is attempting to find a solution, but the ones in power do not even acknowledge the problem (likely due to the existence of money and bribery in the first place). The people must therefore be the ones to do so.
The time and effort it went into making a game that the thief enjoyed enough to bother downloading.
But that went into making the content one single time. It can't be stolen after that. Pirates use their own time and effort to copy the data while not interacting with the artist in any way.
So your argument is that digital (non-tangible) content creators should only create stuff if someone ask them specifically to make it?
No, it's that pirates aren't actually causing any harm. I can understand how someone would think that pirates are causing harm due to the way that the current system works, but they are not depriving anyone of anything (not time, money, resources, or property).
I'm trying to get you to think about the *reason* society has created laws to that allow artists to charge money when people want to consume their creations.
I know of the reasons already, but I don't agree with them. I feel that placing blame on people who aren't actually taking anything (not time, resources, money, or property) instead of attempting (at least attempting) to come up with a viable alternative is irresponsible and illogical.
Does that wording make you happier?
Yes. When you used that word, I misinterpreted your position. It gets confusing when so many people mistake copyright infringement for theft.
But I see that you conveniently ignored my main point:
I'm sorry, but I've gotten so many replies that it's difficult to respond to every single point.
To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it?
I never claimed that it has no entertainment value. It does. Pirates are only hurting themselves if they wish to see more content produced by the author and fail to pay them.
If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws?
Aside from the fact that plenty of content actually is created for free, my suggestion would be to find a viable alternative to a system which uses artificial currency entirely. Perhaps a resource-based economy (just a simple answer). While this would surely be the end of people who produce content just to receive money and don't actually enjoy what they do, it wouldn't mean the end of people who actually enjoy what they do producing content. There are plenty of artists who merely agree with copyright because they feel it benefits them. Eliminate the need for money, and you eliminate the need to create artificial scarcity and can continue doing what you love to do.
Except my time, you mean. This is different than specifically and directly asking someone to perform a job for you and then not paying them because in that example you have used their time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy data.
no expectation of getting the money back???
That's right. They have no reasonable expectation that anyone will even buy their product.
If you think that not giving someone money whilst also not using up any of their time or resources and not depriving them of anything physical harms them, then you are indirectly saying that people who merely decide not to buy a product are harming the artists. The same goes for people who tell others not to buy a product.
Again, the problem lies with the way that the system currently works. If artists are unable to make money without going after people who deprive them of nothing (not time, resources, money, or property), then that system is inherently flawed, whether or not it is the only viable system.
No, as that is an expected part of the "contract" between consumers and producers.
But I'm saying that that doesn't make sense because logically, they aren't taking anything from them. Not time, money, property, or resources. They aren't even directly interacting with the author at all. Similar to people who don't buy the product at all.
Of course it does.
The action of violating a law or contract by itself does not do harm. The harm done depends on the situation. As for your examples, if you're saying that pirates are hurting everyone by choosing not to spend their money on media, then again, you're also including people who merely choose not to buy the product. What if they don't have enough buyers and have to close down, leaving the people who did want more products disappointed? In reality, if the pirate wanted more media, they should have paid. The pirate has hurt themselves in this regard, but not anyone else.
However whining about the system being broken is getting a bit repetitive.
Sorry, I've gotten so many similar replies that I've found myself repeating the same thing over and over again.
where is the artificial scarcity in this case?
They are trying to stop people from copying a product that is essentially in an unlimited supply. Here's an article that pretty much talks about what I'm saying.
Finally, can you please explain to us why it is ok to make use of a product that has take real time and money to produce without ever giving the makers the a cent?
Nothing is being specifically taken from them. Not time, not money, not property, and not resources. Absolutely nothing. If you argue "potential profit," then again, this includes people who have merely decided not to buy the product.