Supply chain. The entire supply chain for electronics manufacturing currently exists almost completely in Southeast Asia and China. Not that it couldn't be moved, but you'd need a huge effort to move the whole set: raw materials like rare earths, silicon wafer processing, packaging, PCB manufacturing, case manufacturing, final assembly, etc. Instead of shipping the finished device to the US, you'd be shipping about 50 different components unless they were also available from the US.
Now, hypothetically, if you could get all of the raw materials in the US (or I suppose shipped to the US, but China is increasingly refusing to ship raw materials these days), and get companies to set up robotic manufacturing facilities in the US, then yes, you could do the whole thing in the US.
At that point, there aren't any jobs involved in the manufacture of that device, so why do we care where it's manufactured? If it's built completely by robots at every point in the supply chain, the only people making any money off of the device are the 1%er capitalists who own the factories, the people who designed the device, and the people who designed the robots (which also were presumably built by other robots). Most of that design work is still in the US. Oh and I suppose the people who own the land where the raw materials came from.
If you can't tell, I'm getting at a completely post-labor society here, which is probably still quite a ways off, but not outside the realm of thinking.
And unfortunately, we don't get to choose voltage-frequency point neither does AMD, Intel, nor NVIDIA with such flexibility.
Sure they do: at least Intel and AMD CPUs have dynamic P-states which allow the processors to run at different voltage-frequency points. If you're relying on the OS to select a P-state, it will just select the fastest one once the CPU sees a high load, without considering energy efficiency. Did you look at running these tests at the minimum P-state, i.e. lowest voltage/frequency point? I'd imagine the clockspeed would be about 1/2 of its peak (so for a 3.2GHz CPU you'd be running at 1.6GHz) which should lead to about 1/2 the performance, but much lower power due to the reduced voltage/frequency. In fact, with these high-performance CPU designs, energy efficiency might be limited by Vmin, i.e. the lowest voltage you can possibly run the part.
Slide 18 from this slide deck is where you compare energy efficiency across processors. I see two major flaws in your methodology:
You're using the TDP of each of the processors, instead of a measured power draw while running the benchmark. Are those other processors drawing their TDPs while running this benchmark? I doubt it. Usually the TDPs for any given processor are listed for some sort of power virus type test which is difficult if not impossible to hit running real code. It's possible that this benchmark hits the TDP of each of these processors, but I'd want proof of that, and generally I'd want measured power draws, not TDPs.
More importantly, dynamic power scales quadratically with Voltage (P=C*V^2*F) (Wikipedia reference). If you run these processors at a slower clockspeed and lower voltage, their power draw drops by the V^2*F factor. The performance slows down because of the lower frequency, sure, but you get a squared factor by decreasing voltage, plus some power reduction due to lower frequency, while only having a linear slowdown factor due to the lower frequency. In other words, they can get into a much more efficient power band by not running at their highest voltage/highest frequency. They can run up at high voltage/high frequency because users want super-responsive computers and super-fast GPUs, but for doing long-running power efficiency comparisons, you'd never run them that way. You'd find the sweet spot on the V/F curve and run them there. Cortex-A9 is designed to live at a different point on the perf/power/V/F curve - it's effectively already down at a lower frequency/lower power/lower peak performance point, yet at its performance point it is very efficient. You'd need to sweep across a range of freq/voltages to find the sweet spot of each processor before you compare them like this.
Given equal FABs, we wouldn't see Intel as competitive.
Intel has had a fab advantage for years, and it's only getting bigger. Ask AMD how it feels - AMD made nice gains with K8 while Intel had uarch problems (Itanium+P4), but as soon as Intel fixed that (Core2/Nehalem/Sandy/Ivy), AMD felt the pain of their fab advantage all over again, and now AMD has uarch problems AND fab disadvantage.
Saying "given equal FABs" is a ridiculously stupid way to analyze the processor market. Real chips are what people buy, not some hypothetical ARM A15 produced on Intel's 22nm FinFET or an Atom produced in TSMC 28. If you want to talk about microarchitecture, sure, take process out of the equation. But people don't buy microarchitecture, they buy a final product. Fab advantage allows Intel to hide their uarch problems until they fix them. When the next-gen Atom (Silvermon/Valleyview) comes out, then Intel won't have uarch problems AND they will still have a massive fab advantage.
Please explain how that isn't EXACTLY the same problem that the individual mandate was supposed to fix? the only difference I see is that the money goes to the government, then to the poor, then to the health care industry, whereas before it went directly to the health care industry. also please explain how it could possibly be less expensive in the long run now that there is at least one extra level of beuracracy (that must be paid for) in the middle.
I'll summarize, but these two points are on basically any website that talks about how this plan works:
ER care, which is the only type of care that the non-insured canget, is BY FAR the most expensive type of healthcare that exists. If instead you get those same people into clinics for mild colds, in for regular checkups, OB/GYN appointments, etc., you will reduce the cost of providing care far below the extra level of bureacracy you have introduced. Taxpayer subsidies for these people still exist, but they now go toward much less expensive types of care, and those types of care (preventative medicine, regular scheduled doctor visits) will reduce the number of expensive ER trips.
Insurance only works if you have enough participants to pool risk as well as money to pay for the risk. Healthy people who can afford health insurance but "choose" not to buy it drive up the cost for everyone else who pays for it. Here's how that works: eventually, those healthy people will need care. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. So when they need care, they go apply for insurance and expect to pay the "normal" healthy-person rate, except that they are coming into the risk/money pool at a time when they are going to be draining more money out of it than they are paying in - they haven't contributed anything to it at all up to this point. So guess who pays for the added risk/cost of sick people joining your insurance pool? Healthy people do, when they join the risk pool when they are healthy! Now, many more of the previously-not-paying-into-the-risk-pool healthy people either will get private health insurance, or they will pay a tax to the government which covers their risk/cost.
The argument is "Piracy doesn't harm creators - take this example of the Avengers." I'm calling this Avengers example a strawman.
Perhaps my post should have been in response to the 20-30 posts above making that argument instead of a standalone reply.
I'll need to see citations for your claims of ridiculous measures at theaters, laws, draconian enforcement, etc. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I think they are very, very rare since my anecdotal experience (myself going to movie theaters) has never encountered any of them.
This is a complete strawman argument. A camcorder copy taken in a theater has much, much lower quality than the actual movie in a theater. The video quality is poor and the audio is terrible. I wouldn't want to watch a camcorder version of just about any film, ever. I saw one once, and it was garbage. You'd have to pay me to watch one, in fact, since it's a waste of my time otherwise.
Pirated copies can hurt sales when their quality is identical to the version for sale, yet their price is $0. For example: 1) pirated digital music file vs. the for-sale digital music file, or 2) a digital rip of a DVD vs. the for-sale DVD. The pirated quality of both of those items is identical to the for-sale items, yet they cost $0.
Pirates obtain the game for $0, which makes recouping the cost of developing the game impossible with a single sale to a consumer. So game producers say okay, instead we'll recoup the cost of making the game with what amount to microtransactions (via monthly payments via the Internet connection) over the course of any person's gameplay. I don't see what the problem is. The free market works both ways folks; if pirates figure out how to not pay game developers for the game that they should be paying for, game developers find a different way to get paid.
One of the biggest cause of the recent financial crisis was too little regulation of the financial industry. I do *not* want to do it again in 5 years.
My post was addressing the (IMHO incorrect) inference that "devs pay for bandwidth" implies "there is no capacity problem." I stand by my original argument.
If you want to have a different argument about exactly what bandwidth and capacity is, and how an ISP should be amortizing their network investment, we can do that, but that in no way erodes my original argument.
unfortunately, spectrum is a limited resource and as such there are limits on competition
You seem to have missed the following, which was in my original post:
You can also argue that spectrum itself is scarce and the government grants a monopoly to these few companies, so competition is limited or nonexistent, and so they should be regulated.
You missed the part of my post where I said: "You can also argue that bandwidth is not a true "physical" resource that takes cost to produce; once a certain capacity is in place, you shouldn't charge for usage."
But you're talking about bandwidth that's sold on both the up and down side.
What are you talking about? AT&T is proposing to *not* charge on the download side, i.e. not count the bandwidth towards the download cap of the end user. Instead, they would charge for it on the upload side, to the service provider who is delivering the content. Sure, the service provider may pass that charge right along to you, but that's *still* only one charge for the bandwidth by my math.
Not to mention the fact that as a 'consumer' I have no control over the commercial side of the payload I'm required to download along with the 'content' I request.
This is a total strawman argument. Take a data plan that can handle streaming video (I don't know if there actually are any today, as this is the problem AT&T is trying to address here, but hypothetically speaking), and the ads or other junk that comes alongside it would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall bandwidth used.
While I tend to believe that this is AT&T being corporate money-grabbing assholes, I have to disagree on the inference you made, that "we will allow the apps on our network if devs pay for bandwidth" implies "there is no capacity problem".
Charging for something is a way for regulating demand for a scarce supply of something. It's literally Econ 101, supply and demand. AT&T has to charge someone for the capacity used, such that the rates charged for it will regulate it. If there's a capacity problem, the rates go up. When the rates go up, demand goes down, and the capacity eventually reaches equilibrium based on price. It's how any producer sets the price of something in limited supply and high demand.
If demand is high enough for a sustained amount of time, then it's in AT&T's best interest to expand the production capacity (i.e. increase bandwidth available on their network), thus raising the supply. The marginal price goes down, but they are selling more total bandwidth, so their total revenue goes up. If they don't expand in a timely manner, a competitor comes in with better service for the same price, and all AT&T's customers leave and join the competitor.
In any case, you need to attach a price to the thing in limited supply so that it self-regulates. If no one pays for it, that's when there's a capacity problem.
If you want to argue about AT&T selling unlimited data plans that aren't really unlimited, that's one thing. You can also argue that bandwidth is not a true "physical" resource that takes cost to produce; once a certain capacity is in place, you shouldn't charge for usage. You can also argue that spectrum itself is scarce and the government grants a monopoly to these few companies, so competition is limited or nonexistent, and so they should be regulated. These are all fair arguments. But the general inference of "devs pay for bandwidth" => "no capacity problem" is fallacious.
You're right about that, but you imply that there is no causal link between the pedophilia in Catholic priests and celibacy, and I'll argue that there is a causal link.
I'd argue that the causation is in the selection bias that the celibacy requirement creates. By saying that priests must be celibate, the Catholic church eliminates a huge chunk of good, non-pedophile men who might consider the priesthood if they could have sex.
The pedophiles are going to try to become priests no matter what - the celibacy requirement doesn't deter them. The celibacy requirement does deter non-pedophiles. And so with many fewer non-pedophile applicants, that skews the percentages towards pedophiles.
Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.
Alright, I agree. Try getting a pro-piracy advocate to admit to this though, and I'll give you a cookie. They want to be able to freely copy IP to their local drive, and then sell the original used and keep their copy. That's obviously the best of both worlds for them (IP-is-free for copying, IP-is-property for selling), but it's terribly inconsistent in terms of philosophy.
What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?
It's the same reason that pro-piracy advocates use: IP goods are not the same as physical goods. If IP can't be stolen (it's merely being copied), then there's no way to enforce sale of a "used" IP either. There's absolutely no way to enforce that when you sell your copy of the IP, that you are selling the your original copy and not merely a copy of your copy.
All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.
Pick one: artifical, government-enforced/DRM-managed scarcity + first-sale doctrine, or IP-should-be-free + no used sales. Those are your logically consistent options.
As many people on Slashdot like to say, IP (like software in this case) is not a physical good. Piracy of IP isn't theft because you haven't taken the original.
So when applied to the reverse situation, when you want to "sell" a "used" piece of IP...what does that even mean? If IP can't be stolen, how can copies of it actually be sold "used"? How can anyone enforce that you're actually selling the IP and not merely selling a copy of it? DRM? A "promise"?
Whether it is or is not justifiable is, I believe, subjective.
You're right. We can have that discussion too, but it's much longer and is much more nuanced than "copying is not stealing" one-liners.
Did he actually say that it was? It looked like he just said it wasn't stealing.
Right again. However, every time that phrase is trotted out, including this one, it's usually used to imply that free copying of things like music/movies/books/etc. should be allowed. I've seen arguments - from you in fact, IIRC - that copying bits on the internet is freedom of speech, and copyright restrictions are censorship, and that the government is limiting our rights.
But you're right, he was just trotting out the phrase.
Read my post again. I did not imply that copyright infringement results in lost profit. I never talked about money, sales, theft, stealing, or anything of that nature.
What I did say is that copyright infringement is unethical, and that it's moronic to use "copying s not stealing" as a justification for (unethical) copyright infringement.
Nope, your analogy doesn't work: I've never seen anyone use "Murder is not stealing" to justify murder, or "Stealing is not murder" to justify stealing. I have seen many, many people use "Copyright infringement is not stealing" in an attempt to justify copyright infringement.
I don't think anyone was ever arguing that a downloader should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for one download. On the other hand, uploaders are distributing the material to thousands of other people, and that's where you get hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
Slashdot Mirror
Supply chain. The entire supply chain for electronics manufacturing currently exists almost completely in Southeast Asia and China. Not that it couldn't be moved, but you'd need a huge effort to move the whole set: raw materials like rare earths, silicon wafer processing, packaging, PCB manufacturing, case manufacturing, final assembly, etc. Instead of shipping the finished device to the US, you'd be shipping about 50 different components unless they were also available from the US.
Now, hypothetically, if you could get all of the raw materials in the US (or I suppose shipped to the US, but China is increasingly refusing to ship raw materials these days), and get companies to set up robotic manufacturing facilities in the US, then yes, you could do the whole thing in the US.
At that point, there aren't any jobs involved in the manufacture of that device, so why do we care where it's manufactured? If it's built completely by robots at every point in the supply chain, the only people making any money off of the device are the 1%er capitalists who own the factories, the people who designed the device, and the people who designed the robots (which also were presumably built by other robots). Most of that design work is still in the US. Oh and I suppose the people who own the land where the raw materials came from.
If you can't tell, I'm getting at a completely post-labor society here, which is probably still quite a ways off, but not outside the realm of thinking.
And unfortunately, we don't get to choose voltage-frequency point neither does AMD, Intel, nor NVIDIA with such flexibility.
Sure they do: at least Intel and AMD CPUs have dynamic P-states which allow the processors to run at different voltage-frequency points. If you're relying on the OS to select a P-state, it will just select the fastest one once the CPU sees a high load, without considering energy efficiency. Did you look at running these tests at the minimum P-state, i.e. lowest voltage/frequency point? I'd imagine the clockspeed would be about 1/2 of its peak (so for a 3.2GHz CPU you'd be running at 1.6GHz) which should lead to about 1/2 the performance, but much lower power due to the reduced voltage/frequency. In fact, with these high-performance CPU designs, energy efficiency might be limited by Vmin, i.e. the lowest voltage you can possibly run the part.
Given equal FABs, we wouldn't see Intel as competitive.
Intel has had a fab advantage for years, and it's only getting bigger. Ask AMD how it feels - AMD made nice gains with K8 while Intel had uarch problems (Itanium+P4), but as soon as Intel fixed that (Core2/Nehalem/Sandy/Ivy), AMD felt the pain of their fab advantage all over again, and now AMD has uarch problems AND fab disadvantage.
Saying "given equal FABs" is a ridiculously stupid way to analyze the processor market. Real chips are what people buy, not some hypothetical ARM A15 produced on Intel's 22nm FinFET or an Atom produced in TSMC 28. If you want to talk about microarchitecture, sure, take process out of the equation. But people don't buy microarchitecture, they buy a final product. Fab advantage allows Intel to hide their uarch problems until they fix them. When the next-gen Atom (Silvermon/Valleyview) comes out, then Intel won't have uarch problems AND they will still have a massive fab advantage.
YouTube has deals with most of the copyright holders, and infringing stuff is either pulled or gets ads put on it.
Please explain how that isn't EXACTLY the same problem that the individual mandate was supposed to fix? the only difference I see is that the money goes to the government, then to the poor, then to the health care industry, whereas before it went directly to the health care industry. also please explain how it could possibly be less expensive in the long run now that there is at least one extra level of beuracracy (that must be paid for) in the middle.
I'll summarize, but these two points are on basically any website that talks about how this plan works:
The argument is "Piracy doesn't harm creators - take this example of the Avengers." I'm calling this Avengers example a strawman.
Perhaps my post should have been in response to the 20-30 posts above making that argument instead of a standalone reply.
I'll need to see citations for your claims of ridiculous measures at theaters, laws, draconian enforcement, etc. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I think they are very, very rare since my anecdotal experience (myself going to movie theaters) has never encountered any of them.
This is a complete strawman argument. A camcorder copy taken in a theater has much, much lower quality than the actual movie in a theater. The video quality is poor and the audio is terrible. I wouldn't want to watch a camcorder version of just about any film, ever. I saw one once, and it was garbage. You'd have to pay me to watch one, in fact, since it's a waste of my time otherwise.
Pirated copies can hurt sales when their quality is identical to the version for sale, yet their price is $0. For example: 1) pirated digital music file vs. the for-sale digital music file, or 2) a digital rip of a DVD vs. the for-sale DVD. The pirated quality of both of those items is identical to the for-sale items, yet they cost $0.
Pirates obtain the game for $0, which makes recouping the cost of developing the game impossible with a single sale to a consumer. So game producers say okay, instead we'll recoup the cost of making the game with what amount to microtransactions (via monthly payments via the Internet connection) over the course of any person's gameplay. I don't see what the problem is. The free market works both ways folks; if pirates figure out how to not pay game developers for the game that they should be paying for, game developers find a different way to get paid.
This bill reduces oversight, regulation, and investor protection measures when companies want to raise investment capital. Please read the following:
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/20/cfa-institute-against-the-jobs-bill/
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/21/jobs-disaster-looms/
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/22/last-ditch-attempt-to-save-a-little-bit-of-investor-protection-in-the-united-states/
One of the biggest cause of the recent financial crisis was too little regulation of the financial industry. I do *not* want to do it again in 5 years.
My post was addressing the (IMHO incorrect) inference that "devs pay for bandwidth" implies "there is no capacity problem." I stand by my original argument.
If you want to have a different argument about exactly what bandwidth and capacity is, and how an ISP should be amortizing their network investment, we can do that, but that in no way erodes my original argument.
unfortunately, spectrum is a limited resource and as such there are limits on competition
You seem to have missed the following, which was in my original post:
You can also argue that spectrum itself is scarce and the government grants a monopoly to these few companies, so competition is limited or nonexistent, and so they should be regulated.
if it was a hard good that was being sold
You missed the part of my post where I said: "You can also argue that bandwidth is not a true "physical" resource that takes cost to produce; once a certain capacity is in place, you shouldn't charge for usage."
But you're talking about bandwidth that's sold on both the up and down side.
What are you talking about? AT&T is proposing to *not* charge on the download side, i.e. not count the bandwidth towards the download cap of the end user. Instead, they would charge for it on the upload side, to the service provider who is delivering the content. Sure, the service provider may pass that charge right along to you, but that's *still* only one charge for the bandwidth by my math.
Not to mention the fact that as a 'consumer' I have no control over the commercial side of the payload I'm required to download along with the 'content' I request.
This is a total strawman argument. Take a data plan that can handle streaming video (I don't know if there actually are any today, as this is the problem AT&T is trying to address here, but hypothetically speaking), and the ads or other junk that comes alongside it would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall bandwidth used.
While I tend to believe that this is AT&T being corporate money-grabbing assholes, I have to disagree on the inference you made, that "we will allow the apps on our network if devs pay for bandwidth" implies "there is no capacity problem".
Charging for something is a way for regulating demand for a scarce supply of something. It's literally Econ 101, supply and demand. AT&T has to charge someone for the capacity used, such that the rates charged for it will regulate it. If there's a capacity problem, the rates go up. When the rates go up, demand goes down, and the capacity eventually reaches equilibrium based on price. It's how any producer sets the price of something in limited supply and high demand.
If demand is high enough for a sustained amount of time, then it's in AT&T's best interest to expand the production capacity (i.e. increase bandwidth available on their network), thus raising the supply. The marginal price goes down, but they are selling more total bandwidth, so their total revenue goes up. If they don't expand in a timely manner, a competitor comes in with better service for the same price, and all AT&T's customers leave and join the competitor.
In any case, you need to attach a price to the thing in limited supply so that it self-regulates. If no one pays for it, that's when there's a capacity problem.
If you want to argue about AT&T selling unlimited data plans that aren't really unlimited, that's one thing. You can also argue that bandwidth is not a true "physical" resource that takes cost to produce; once a certain capacity is in place, you shouldn't charge for usage. You can also argue that spectrum itself is scarce and the government grants a monopoly to these few companies, so competition is limited or nonexistent, and so they should be regulated. These are all fair arguments. But the general inference of "devs pay for bandwidth" => "no capacity problem" is fallacious.
You're right about that, but you imply that there is no causal link between the pedophilia in Catholic priests and celibacy, and I'll argue that there is a causal link.
I'd argue that the causation is in the selection bias that the celibacy requirement creates. By saying that priests must be celibate, the Catholic church eliminates a huge chunk of good, non-pedophile men who might consider the priesthood if they could have sex.
The pedophiles are going to try to become priests no matter what - the celibacy requirement doesn't deter them. The celibacy requirement does deter non-pedophiles. And so with many fewer non-pedophile applicants, that skews the percentages towards pedophiles.
Agree.
Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.
Alright, I agree. Try getting a pro-piracy advocate to admit to this though, and I'll give you a cookie. They want to be able to freely copy IP to their local drive, and then sell the original used and keep their copy. That's obviously the best of both worlds for them (IP-is-free for copying, IP-is-property for selling), but it's terribly inconsistent in terms of philosophy.
What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?
It's the same reason that pro-piracy advocates use: IP goods are not the same as physical goods. If IP can't be stolen (it's merely being copied), then there's no way to enforce sale of a "used" IP either. There's absolutely no way to enforce that when you sell your copy of the IP, that you are selling the your original copy and not merely a copy of your copy.
All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.
Pick one: artifical, government-enforced/DRM-managed scarcity + first-sale doctrine, or IP-should-be-free + no used sales. Those are your logically consistent options.
As many people on Slashdot like to say, IP (like software in this case) is not a physical good. Piracy of IP isn't theft because you haven't taken the original.
So when applied to the reverse situation, when you want to "sell" a "used" piece of IP...what does that even mean? If IP can't be stolen, how can copies of it actually be sold "used"? How can anyone enforce that you're actually selling the IP and not merely selling a copy of it? DRM? A "promise"?
Whether it is or is not justifiable is, I believe, subjective.
You're right. We can have that discussion too, but it's much longer and is much more nuanced than "copying is not stealing" one-liners.
Did he actually say that it was? It looked like he just said it wasn't stealing.
Right again. However, every time that phrase is trotted out, including this one, it's usually used to imply that free copying of things like music/movies/books/etc. should be allowed. I've seen arguments - from you in fact, IIRC - that copying bits on the internet is freedom of speech, and copyright restrictions are censorship, and that the government is limiting our rights.
But you're right, he was just trotting out the phrase.
People us "Copyright infringement is not stealing" in an attempt to correct you morons that say it is.
"You morons"? I never said copyright infringement is stealing. I acknowledge that it is not, in fact.
That line is not a value judgement on the inherent justifications of copyright infringement. It is a statement of fact, nothing more.
I disagree with this statement completely.
Read my post again. I did not imply that copyright infringement results in lost profit. I never talked about money, sales, theft, stealing, or anything of that nature.
What I did say is that copyright infringement is unethical, and that it's moronic to use "copying s not stealing" as a justification for (unethical) copyright infringement.
Nope, your analogy doesn't work: I've never seen anyone use "Murder is not stealing" to justify murder, or "Stealing is not murder" to justify stealing. I have seen many, many people use "Copyright infringement is not stealing" in an attempt to justify copyright infringement.
I don't think anyone was ever arguing that a downloader should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for one download. On the other hand, uploaders are distributing the material to thousands of other people, and that's where you get hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
How many times do you morons have to keep repeating this stupid distinction to convince yourselves that your unethical actions are justifiable?
COPYING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS NOT YOUR RIGHT, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAY IT IS!!!!!