How about rational reasons? Cooperation frequently works, for example, and can lead to better outcomes for everyone. Other repliers have noted that the completely self-serving reasons work too. It's awfully inconvenient when everyone can shoot whoever they want and take whatever they can get away with.
Note however the original poster wasn't speaking of cooperation, but rather an elaborate rationalization for taking from those who have to give to people, whose only claim of merit is that they happen to live in the same country. That's not cooperation.
pirating in mass quantities has the same effect as stealing.
Unless one consequence is that it increases demand for the legitimate product. That actually can happen such as when the product can take advantage of the network effect (increased value from more widespread adoption by pirates).
Show me this "social contract". I think a big part of the problem here is delusional reasoning based on imaginary things that don't actually exist. I grant that there is cooperation in a society, it is an inherent and necessary component. But to claim that is a "contract", requires that the thing be voluntary and agreed to. That generally is not the case.
I find that most of the people who use the term, "social contract" want me to do things for them, but can't be bothered to come up with reasons aside from vacuous, moralistic bullshit for doing them. My view is that these "social contracts", such as they are, are driving societies into the ground by creating all sorts of hefty obligations without providing the empowering means for satisfying those obligations..
Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.
Whoa, let's not jump to conclusions here. The whole point of my original argument was that this was wholly unsubstantiated. I gather, for example, that Microsoft extended its market share (and as a result the network effect value of having more people using their product) due to piracy.
This is quite possibly the worst cop out I've heard from piracy supporters.
You must be new to the debate then. I wouldn't have pushed that particular rebuttal because I don't think physical versus virtual is all that different. I still would characterize your original argument as remarkably stupid simply for two reasons. First, you aren't stealing any resources from the owner of the music or intellectual property. There is no analogy to the resources put into making a car. The owner doesn't lose CDs, bits, etc by the act of pirating their property. They lose potential opportunity.
Second, the obvious analogy you should have put forth is pirating the design of the car and making a knock-off. That's something that actually happens in the real world.
So what now? Can we be done with the "nobody lost anything because of downloading" argument once and for all and move on to something more substantial as a reason for both copyright reform and ethical Internet usage?
Of course not. You aren't the only alleged pirate out there. And your behavior may be typical of the breed, but that hasn't been shown.
deposited into the Highway Account, to be used on road construction and maintenance and anything else Congress sees fit to stick in there
Again, just because taxes are raised doesn't mean that they'll go to roads. Let us keep in mind also that the US currently is outspending its revenue by almost 20%. They magically decide what imaginary bin that overspending is attributed to (generally none at all as your above example shows).
But nothing physical was taken. How is that loss different from pirated videos or music?
The value of pirated videos or music has no demonstrated value. There's no evidence that the provider of music or video actually suffered a loss. The bitcoins in question had a monetary value of $400 million. That is, they could be exchanged for that much at the time. $400 million buys you a lot of physical stuff.
Reagan was not even REMOTELY fiscally conservative.
Hmmm, there's a point to that.
Though going into the 1980 election, Reagan did have a favorable record from his California governorship where he did. He had increased taxation, but coupled with spending cuts and a budget running a slight surplus ($33 million in the 1974-75 fiscal year according to this budget report).
And social conservatism isn't fiscal conservatism. Reagan probably would be able to appeal to both groups today just as he did back in 1980.
Finally, would Reagan acted the same in today's political environment as he did following the election in 1980? I think it's doubtful that he would have deliberately acted in a way that alienates his supporters. That's basic politician instincts there.
As to Cantor, I think there's more to the story than he was a "RINO". To lose when an incumbent outspends the opponent so much (around a factor of 40) is not just a sign of national level sea changes, but also a sign that they failed badly to satisfy their constituency (at least the part that was Republican).
We are all quite aware that losing $400 million of your customers' money due to slapdash incompetence or outright fraud is immoral even when it is legal to do so.
No, infrastructure is too expensive for the funding we have in place.
Let's not get too hasty here. Calling this "infrastructure" is an abuse of the term. Sure, there are roads and bridges. There's also a huge system of corruption as well. I wouldn't call that part "infrastructure".
And the subsequent poster didn't buy that the law was broken here.
So what? There was such a law or the case would have been thrown out of court. And at that point, deciding whether a law has been broken is a case for a court not a citation.
And who says nobody ever sat down and properly designed one?
Burden is on you to show it. Recall that the original poster claimed that nuclear bombs were designed to blow up/irradiate (in the case of the neutron bomb) an area, not render it uninhabitable. To the best of our (public) knowledge, that's the only kind that's been built and deployed. Public knowledge is quite extensive in some ways. For example, a nuclear power couldn't conceal a cobalt bomb test even if it were detonated underground.
Exactly why "when it comes to government"? Maybe it would be very constructive and healthy for you to seek treatment for paranoia.
Because governments have a long and storied history of overstepping their bonds sometimes to the tune of tens of millions of deaths. You don't start to say "Maybe we ought to keep an eye on these people" when you're on the conveyor belt at the glue factory.
I believe this has greater significance than merely a turf war in some backwater market. We have a direct connection between development of a new technology and the challenging of a significant evil of the developed world, institutionalized rent-seeking. A similar thing is happening with the ride sharing services challenging taxis and other escort businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
How about rational reasons? Cooperation frequently works, for example, and can lead to better outcomes for everyone. Other repliers have noted that the completely self-serving reasons work too. It's awfully inconvenient when everyone can shoot whoever they want and take whatever they can get away with.
Note however the original poster wasn't speaking of cooperation, but rather an elaborate rationalization for taking from those who have to give to people, whose only claim of merit is that they happen to live in the same country. That's not cooperation.
pirating in mass quantities has the same effect as stealing.
Unless one consequence is that it increases demand for the legitimate product. That actually can happen such as when the product can take advantage of the network effect (increased value from more widespread adoption by pirates).
It's still not valid to price a significant portion of a "commodity" at the marginal rate.
Like the price that the pirated digital goods currently sell for in the legitimate markets? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
according to our social contract
Show me this "social contract". I think a big part of the problem here is delusional reasoning based on imaginary things that don't actually exist. I grant that there is cooperation in a society, it is an inherent and necessary component. But to claim that is a "contract", requires that the thing be voluntary and agreed to. That generally is not the case.
I find that most of the people who use the term, "social contract" want me to do things for them, but can't be bothered to come up with reasons aside from vacuous, moralistic bullshit for doing them. My view is that these "social contracts", such as they are, are driving societies into the ground by creating all sorts of hefty obligations without providing the empowering means for satisfying those obligations..
Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.
Whoa, let's not jump to conclusions here. The whole point of my original argument was that this was wholly unsubstantiated. I gather, for example, that Microsoft extended its market share (and as a result the network effect value of having more people using their product) due to piracy.
This is quite possibly the worst cop out I've heard from piracy supporters.
You must be new to the debate then. I wouldn't have pushed that particular rebuttal because I don't think physical versus virtual is all that different. I still would characterize your original argument as remarkably stupid simply for two reasons. First, you aren't stealing any resources from the owner of the music or intellectual property. There is no analogy to the resources put into making a car. The owner doesn't lose CDs, bits, etc by the act of pirating their property. They lose potential opportunity.
Second, the obvious analogy you should have put forth is pirating the design of the car and making a knock-off. That's something that actually happens in the real world.
If pirated movies or music had no demonstrated value, then nobody would be uploading or downloading them.
Downloading for free. That's the whole point of software piracy. And that deflates your argument.
Your saying entertainment has no demonstrated value?
No, I didn't say that.
So what now? Can we be done with the "nobody lost anything because of downloading" argument once and for all and move on to something more substantial as a reason for both copyright reform and ethical Internet usage?
Of course not. You aren't the only alleged pirate out there. And your behavior may be typical of the breed, but that hasn't been shown.
And it is extremely important to note that try as we might, we have found no other causal factors that apply to the situation.
Demographics. The US population is aging and becoming moderately more female in composition. Crime is predominately a young man's game.
deposited into the Highway Account, to be used on road construction and maintenance and anything else Congress sees fit to stick in there
Again, just because taxes are raised doesn't mean that they'll go to roads. Let us keep in mind also that the US currently is outspending its revenue by almost 20%. They magically decide what imaginary bin that overspending is attributed to (generally none at all as your above example shows).
But nothing physical was taken. How is that loss different from pirated videos or music?
The value of pirated videos or music has no demonstrated value. There's no evidence that the provider of music or video actually suffered a loss. The bitcoins in question had a monetary value of $400 million. That is, they could be exchanged for that much at the time. $400 million buys you a lot of physical stuff.
Reagan was not even REMOTELY fiscally conservative.
Hmmm, there's a point to that.
Though going into the 1980 election, Reagan did have a favorable record from his California governorship where he did. He had increased taxation, but coupled with spending cuts and a budget running a slight surplus ($33 million in the 1974-75 fiscal year according to this budget report).
And social conservatism isn't fiscal conservatism. Reagan probably would be able to appeal to both groups today just as he did back in 1980.
Finally, would Reagan acted the same in today's political environment as he did following the election in 1980? I think it's doubtful that he would have deliberately acted in a way that alienates his supporters. That's basic politician instincts there.
As to Cantor, I think there's more to the story than he was a "RINO". To lose when an incumbent outspends the opponent so much (around a factor of 40) is not just a sign of national level sea changes, but also a sign that they failed badly to satisfy their constituency (at least the part that was Republican).
We are all quite aware that losing $400 million of your customers' money due to slapdash incompetence or outright fraud is immoral even when it is legal to do so.
No, infrastructure is too expensive for the funding we have in place.
Let's not get too hasty here. Calling this "infrastructure" is an abuse of the term. Sure, there are roads and bridges. There's also a huge system of corruption as well. I wouldn't call that part "infrastructure".
If it wasn't against the law in Japan, then it's legal. He's still walking around so I guess it probably wasn't obviously illegal.
And the subsequent poster didn't buy that the law was broken here.
So what? There was such a law or the case would have been thrown out of court. And at that point, deciding whether a law has been broken is a case for a court not a citation.
It's been said- and I believe it, that Reagan would be considered a "RINO" today.
If it's "been said", then it must be true. I have an alternate theory. Reagan would still be considered conservative today because he was.
Both the republican and democratic parties have gone to the right since Reagan was elected.
To the contrary, things have actually gotten more liberal with the involvement of the Libertarians and Tea Party people.
And who says nobody ever sat down and properly designed one?
Burden is on you to show it. Recall that the original poster claimed that nuclear bombs were designed to blow up/irradiate (in the case of the neutron bomb) an area, not render it uninhabitable. To the best of our (public) knowledge, that's the only kind that's been built and deployed. Public knowledge is quite extensive in some ways. For example, a nuclear power couldn't conceal a cobalt bomb test even if it were detonated underground.
so it can be used as some political advantage.
Like a continual reminder to the public that a crime occurred? That's a political advantage somehow?
Exactly why "when it comes to government"? Maybe it would be very constructive and healthy for you to seek treatment for paranoia.
Because governments have a long and storied history of overstepping their bonds sometimes to the tune of tens of millions of deaths. You don't start to say "Maybe we ought to keep an eye on these people" when you're on the conveyor belt at the glue factory.
More choices would make it *more* like a real free market, so it makes no sense to legally limit people's choices from a free marketeer's perspective.
Exactly. It's not, by definition, free marketers who advocate dealership rent seeking.
I believe this has greater significance than merely a turf war in some backwater market. We have a direct connection between development of a new technology and the challenging of a significant evil of the developed world, institutionalized rent-seeking. A similar thing is happening with the ride sharing services challenging taxis and other escort businesses.
So "ANYONE and EVERYONE" is now IRS agents?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Ok, what makes you think this can be adequately explained by stupidity?
Yet another reason corporations aren't people and shouldn't have rights.
Only if the IRS falls under those rules too.