Making and keeping track of plenty of friends (by the facebook definition) is the point of facebook, according to the many people who patiently explained facebook to me.
Out of curiosity, is it me stating my opinions that you object to, or just this perception of volume? Or is it that you can't connect my opinions with your concerns?
a. Assuming the little brother keeps quiet, it was him, not the media companies, who infringed the copyright. b. Even assuming that the record companies got blamed, they are only liable for damages, which would be... well... pretty much nothing since you weren't planning to distribute commercially, and the company didn't distribute.
It's not too difficult to cause the legal system to come up with a false negative, but manufacturing false positives takes real skill (unless you're in a position of power).
Financial strain. If you're a commercial artist, and people are less inclined to buy your product, then that will cause strain. It ain't rocket science.
You've just assumed all that: cause, effect, the lot is all just your unsupported claim.
Wait, what? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Of course not. I SAID "by which I meant the marginal cost: of physical duplication and distribution" which you actually quoted, so I don't know how you could have missed it.
I didn't miss it. There was just a little confusion, because you also mentioned "charging more" for the product. The "charging more" doesn't actually apply to marginal costs; it applies to new works. Prices for new works have been (largely) going up, but prices for existing prices have been (largely) dropping.
I just wanted to clear the confusion. So you were talking about the decreasing costs and decreasing prices of existing media. If that's the case, then what's the problem?
You're just trying to pull on heartstrings without producing any actual facts. I'm sure you're sincere but you're not actually answering any of my points, just attaching your own statements to mine. Please just make an independent post rather than replying.
That's rubbish. You first posted about how prices have dropped in Hong Kong, and I responded with an explanation as to why that is. In your next post, you claimed that this was hurting the fat profit margins of media companies, and I answered that too. You also said that whether it hurts "producers" is a "larger question". I answered that too. The fact that it pulls at your heartstrings at the same time is a fortunate side-effect, and is simply proof that you're still human.
As for actual facts, I have referenced plenty. It's a fact that people pirate instead of buying. Not in all cases, but sometimes. It's a fact therefore that piracy drains demand. It's a fact that low demand impact negatively on all involved on production end. And typically, low demand isn't regarded a problem because, by definition of low demand, it doesn't affect many consumers negatively. However, in this case, this low demand affects a lot people. That's another fact.
It's also a fact that, since copyright, we've had an unprecedented explosion in the number of artists distributing the population in general. It's a fact that everything to do with our culture has been profoundly affected by copyright. It's a fact that, after years and years of success, it's now up to copyright's opponents to demonstrate that copyright is not only no longer necessary, but is making our situation significantly worse.
It's 100% speculation to say that this is not going to happen, because most people who oppose copyright don't understand how or why copyright really works, and how much impact it has had over the past years.
I disagree. The government using third party communication channels doesn't impact on that third party's rights. You should start getting worried when the government starts asking major distribution channels to implement censorious policies.
Besides, does anyone really think that these photos bother the government? At all?
Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly is blackface racism? I don't see why a white person imitating a black person, or vice versa, is actually racist. Sure, I can imagine that they may (but not necessarily always) contain stereotypes, but even stereotypes don't necessarily indicate opinions of racial superiority; just difference.
Of course, I may be missing something here, so feel free to fill me in.
In this case, I think it's a drop in the fat profit margins of the media companies
Media companies are typically the last to fall; it's the independent artists who really suffer. They don't have fat profit margins to bear that kind of strain.
where they were charging more for a product that cost less to make every year (by which I meant the marginal cost: of physical duplication and distribution)
Wait, if you're talking about a single product, where duplication costs do rapidly drop, then they charge less (generally) each year. If you're talking about the cost of producing new artists, in which case they would be charging more each year, then it doesn't cost less every year. In fact, the risk in making such an investment is growing larger and larger, thanks to piracy.
The prices to conusmers certainly HAS come down in many cases due to "piracy" changing the marketplace. Whether the producers (not simply the distributors) are harmed is a much larger question.
Put it this way: with copyright holders (companies or independent artists) having to compete against free copies of their own work, it's amazing to see that any of them have survived as long as they have.
When forced to compete against their own products, and having no recourse to make the situation any more fair, naturally the prices will drop. However, with that drop in price comes a drop in something else, be it quality, quantity, risky business such as inventive/innovative works and/or security for the company.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. The free access to valuable works comes at a price. Where that price comes from depends on how deeply fucked up your situation is.
I'm a bit amused... GP's post cited several examples refuting your reply. Very prescient of him.
I suppose it would be, but I was referring works created in the time when wealthy commissioners couldn't just download any work they want from the internet.
Being verbose doesn't equate to being wrong either. In order to tell the difference you need to read my comments.
Writing things like *facepalm* is a very concise expression of my reaction to your statements. It is, in fact, the very opposite of verbose.
Simply put, you made an asinine assertion, I put it down swiftly, and you went off on a pointless semantics safari to avoid the fact I just blew you out the fucking water with my first shot.
Wait, I'm dodging your arguments? You? The one who can't seem to get through my arguments enough to respond to a single one of them? The one who's entire argument now is about attacking the same unilaterally defeated point over and over again? The one based entirely upon a strawman that you yourself admitted to (without admitting any sort of blame)?
If you want to recoup some dignity, repost what you want me to respond to, and I will respond to it in concise bullet points. It won't have the absolute precision in language, but you'll be able to read it.
You tried to claim that lack of copyright would kill production dead
Not once. Show me the quote to disprove that.
everything after was an attempt to backtrack and bullshit and try and score some 'win'.
My first statement, after repeating almost word for word my first statement, was to then explain that your predicament was understandable.
After calling you out on the incorrect use of the word 'strawman', I then stayed away from semantics altogether, despite your claims.
You are a perfect example of the low level of discourse on the Internet.
I had a very similar discussion recently. I provided comprehensive arguments against what he provided me, and he insisted on repeating the same argument over and over (despite the stronger counterargument being presented without challenge over and over), responding to only what he wanted to (which shortened his replies considerably), and throwing in ad hominem attacks whenever he could. I eventually dismissed him as a troll and invited him to actually respond with some serious discussion, and predictably, he took that as an admission of defeat.
You're not quite so bad, but you really are getting there.
Basically, tldr because I'm at work and don't want to waste too much time on the likes of you. But I get the jist.
Good, good...
You are backtracking on your original statement
*faceplam*
I said exactly the same thing two statements in a row, just with some things in bold. I then clarified in absolutely no uncertain terms what I meant by said bolded expressions, and why the context provided more than ample information to deduce the rest.
You now admit Linux would exist without copyrights.
It was never in dispute. I went further to say that Linux would probably exist, but it had the definite potential to suffer in terms of quality.
You have gone from outright stating that the alternative to indefinite copyright was not having anything produced at all
Yeah, that I will backtrack on. I wasn't aware that we were talking about infinite copyrights. I had just assumed we were talking about copyrights of any length.
On the other hand, if I were reading my previous comment, it would have been clear enough, by the fact that I never even indirectly referred to infinite copyright, not even when explicitly outlining the context I was using, that I wasn't supporting infinite copyright.
You are just made of fail.
If you want to win an argument against me, you must, must, read my comments. It's an absolute must. I choose my words carefully, and I anticipate many of the arguments made against me (e.g. all but one of the ones thrown at me by you so far). Read them, or otherwise you end up looking like an idiot (whether you are or not).
Furthermore, you have quietly backed away from my comments about movies and music, presumably because you've nothing to say.
I assume you refer to these right?
Also, music came into existence with copyright. Prior to the 18th century music was a concept unknown to the human race. The 10,000 year old wind instrument recently dug up was clearly as fraudulent as all the dinosaur skulls that ruin nice peoples bedtime stories.
Furthermore, there is a perfect correlation between how much revenue a film generates and its artistic merit. Expensive movies are critically acclaimed and popular, movies made on a shoestring budget are critically panned and never attract an audience.
I didn't respond since I thought I had punched a hole in your main argument. Never mind, I'll respond to them now.
Essentially, I never claimed, like I've consistently said, that music would not exist without copyright. It's the same argument as with the Linux thing. I was referring to the commercial works that form a vast majority of our culture, and a cover a vast majority of our preferences. Saying that I was claiming that music couldn't exist beforehand is part of the same strawman that you were using before (which you later half-admitted was a mistake on your part). I assumed that you'd drop the point.
Your second paragraph I skipped over, since I assumed that it was going to be more of the same strawman, but in fact, I was wrong. It actually has relevance to my point, unlike the others.
However, I can say that the fact that cheap movies can be critically acclaimed and popular doesn't at all disprove my point. Show me a time when free movies (that is, movies distributed freely, immediately, without any restrictions whatsoever) are common, popular, and acclaimed. That will disprove my argument. So far, the vast majority of movies with any kind of popularity are made for profit, or at least to recoup costs.
There, I answered both your points.I hope we can get this strawman argument out of the way.
Your initial statement is clearly ridiculous in light of thousands of years of human music pred
It's more than that. "Stealing" IP drives up prices of IP for legitimate customers. And yes, just about everyone I know buys some copyable commercial media at some time. So, yeah, as much as a single thief has the minute, damaging potential (that accumulates) to steal from almost anyone, a copyright infringer has the damaging potential to cause minute unnecessary price rises (that also accumulate).
Look, I absolutely agree with you. It would be a good move to encourage china, one way or another, to clean up their act. And it is in the government's power to do so, or at least make a decent attempt.
However, while the copyright ball is in the corporate sector's court, and while people don't immediately connect IP enforcement with economic benefits, it's difficult to bring such schemes to the public eye.
I think our views are not so far from each other. I support copyright reform, so long as it's well thought out and tested (if possible). Shortening terms clearly fall under both categories, since they worked similarly well previously.
You talk about entitlement. So do I. And I do think the content industry feels entitled to milk forever the customer of work they did once, a long time ago. Disney has been milking the Mickey franchize for over 70 years now. 70 years. Three generations. Or the average lifetime of a human being. The person that originally created Mickey has been dead for a long time now. For almost as long as I live. And it's tempting. Who wouldn't want to collect money for something they did once in their life?
Entitlement is indeed on both sides. Bono supports unlimited copyright, based on the rhetoric that the art is "theirs". Period. There's an incredible sense of entitlement in the idea that death + 75 years is not enough time for art to be theirs. Not only will they be dead, their children will probably be dead by then.
That example is as bad, if not worse, than the argument that because an artwork exists under copyright, that it now is property of the people. Not that you support such a philosophy, but that's what it sounded like. And yes, it sounds incredibly entitled. I am pleased that you cleared that up, but we both know that it's your original comment that will be more popular with the moderators. Slashdot seems to want to hear of how the **AA is entitled, but not how that entitlement is countered by their own entitlement.
Anyway, in short, I agree with what you mean, not what you said.
You first stated that 'the alternative' to works becoming public property is that works wouldn't be created at all. This is what I responded to
It was clear from the context that I was referring to copyrighted works, specifically economically-motivated works. The OP was referring to works being "stolen" from the public domain (although they really weren't in the public domain in the first place), that is works locked down with copyright, and even made reference to them being "economically feasible". I'm pretty sure it's clear.
Not that I'm saying you're a liar, or what you did wasn't understandable, but I think you didn't really read my comment, or its context, properly, and take the due care necessary to truly counter an argument.
I however, as I'm expected to do, assumed that you are fully informed about what we are discussing, and that you've read my post, and given that assumption, calling your argument a strawman is completely justified. All I can do is respond to what you wrote, and you wrote a strawman.
Also, even if I were incorrect in categorising your argument as a strawman, I wasn't actually changing your argument in order to make it easier to counter, thus it wouldn't have been a strawman anyway; it would have been just plain wrong.
Like you are now.
As for Linux using copyright; very technically true, but missing the point and you damn well know it.
No. And in fact, this is another (most probably accidental) strawman. You are changing the meaning of my argument from a valid point to being something deliberately created to be obtuse. But, I'm not reading too much into it, since your reaction is reasonable for someone unaware of the workings behind my argument.
Secondly, you also didn't have a point in the first place, since my post wasn't referring to non-commercial copyrighted material.
Thirdly, Linux benefits in a very real way from copyright. It has accelerated its own growth by roping in corporate supporters, who are willing to share the benefits of paid work for the benefit of everyone. That was my point. It makes a real difference.
While it's possible that Linux, or something similar, would have existed without copyright, it would have less supporters and would take longer to grow and evolve. This effect feeds back into itself, because it results in potentially less users (due to potentially less quality), which would result in less users.
After this display of straw-manning and dissembling, you then astonishingly claim to be more intelligent than me
Hey, I can only work with what you give me.
And remember that is was a very indirect claim, and it was buried behind absurd hypotheses, like you confusing arguments that superficially sound like the cookie-cutter arguments with the cookie-cutter arguments themselves. It's an absurd claim because most people out there can identify that the two arguments are not necessarily equal, and I'm sure you're among them, since you clearly have the intelligence to string some arguments together.
clearly under the impression you've won the argument
It does when the general population has to pay higher prices for merchandise because some of it keeps walking out of the store. Or when they have to pay a higher rate for homeowners/renters coverage because of the number of break-ins in their neighborhood.
Well, yeah, but keep it down! The resident pirates don't like to consider such implied costs; it contradicts their world view (i.e. they are causing no damage).
In the long term I don't understand why the industry is focusing so much of it's lobbying clout on going after teenagers who use Kazaa when there are whole countries out there (China, I'm looking at you) wherein the Governments all but condone copyright infringement on an industrial scale. Interestingly enough these countries are also the ones that we run a massive trade deficit with. It would seem to be in our collective interest to address this problem before we start worrying about the acne covered teenager down the street.
It's more efficient to go after teenagers (or at least, it appears that way). They can try to reverse the situation in China, but they won't see benefits for many, many years, and the potential drain on finances would be enormous. Teenagers are simply the lowest-lying fruit.
You honestly can't expect anything different when for-profit entities are asked to regulate their own copyrights. Perhaps if we hand enforcement over to government, we may get our priorities a little more straight.
You assert that without copyright there is no content.
Did I? I don't recall doing that. I do, however, remember saying that any given commercial, copyrighted work, there's a good chance that that work would not have been created without copyright.
Unfortunately "argument by strawman" is not generally considered a logically valid argument.
Therefore Linux does not exist
Even though your conclusion is based on fallacious premises, you could also have picked a better example, i.e. one that doesn't use copyright, i.e. one that was always in the public domain since creation.
It must be nice to live in a complete fantasy world:)
I hear it's also nice to live in a world where every argument against you can be shoehorned in a nice, easily-refutable mould. It, too, is a fantasy world, but I've never managed to let go and roll with it. Those pesky people with intelligence and moderation in their views keep getting in the way.
The problem then is that your argument is much weaker for this exact reason:
It deprives us from works becoming public property long after they cease to be economically feasible
It's not depriving you a helluva lot more than the alternative, i.e. the works not being created in the first place. For any commercial work created under copyright, there is a very good chance that it would never have been created without copyright.
In fact, that statement is yet another example of the deep sense of entitlement that has permeated our hearts and minds over culture since piracy became popular.
But theft (physical theft) is considered a crime in civilised countries. Theft bears no damage to the general population, yet we still use public servants like policemen to chase down offenders, public servants like judges to prosecute them, and public facilities like prisons to punish them.
I believe the reasoning behind theft being a crime is that it serves as a deterrent, and allows people to receive justice without having to dedicate an infeasible amount of time and resources into finding the prosecutor and serving them with a suit. Kinda like what copyright holders have to do now.
And yes, making copyright infringement will make less cost for them, yes you will be protecting their rights, and yes it will cost the taxpayer to do so in the short term, but in the long term, it will result in much fairer and transparent copyright infringement prosecution system, and it will help keep prices down. So the 95+% of people who actually use copyrighted media will actually see some benefits. As to how much, it's hard to say.
Look, I'd rather the gambling industry be heavily regulated, and rehabilitation to be offered to those who still become deadbeats. My point was that the argument "It's a victimless crime and shouldn't be illegal" relies on other people not being responsible for their bad decisions. If the taxpayers have to bear the brunt of one less productive member of society, on top of either paying for rehabilitation or welfare cheques, then the crime is not victimless. The taxpayers are the victims.
Slashdot Mirror
Making and keeping track of plenty of friends (by the facebook definition) is the point of facebook, according to the many people who patiently explained facebook to me.
Here's a hint: wait until you actually read it, or at least until you see more than one person's opinion.
Absolutely. Everyone's crazy except you.
See ya.
Out of curiosity, is it me stating my opinions that you object to, or just this perception of volume? Or is it that you can't connect my opinions with your concerns?
Problems:
a. Assuming the little brother keeps quiet, it was him, not the media companies, who infringed the copyright.
b. Even assuming that the record companies got blamed, they are only liable for damages, which would be... well... pretty much nothing since you weren't planning to distribute commercially, and the company didn't distribute.
It's not too difficult to cause the legal system to come up with a false negative, but manufacturing false positives takes real skill (unless you're in a position of power).
Financial strain. If you're a commercial artist, and people are less inclined to buy your product, then that will cause strain. It ain't rocket science.
Wait, what? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I didn't miss it. There was just a little confusion, because you also mentioned "charging more" for the product. The "charging more" doesn't actually apply to marginal costs; it applies to new works. Prices for new works have been (largely) going up, but prices for existing prices have been (largely) dropping.
I just wanted to clear the confusion. So you were talking about the decreasing costs and decreasing prices of existing media. If that's the case, then what's the problem?
That's rubbish. You first posted about how prices have dropped in Hong Kong, and I responded with an explanation as to why that is. In your next post, you claimed that this was hurting the fat profit margins of media companies, and I answered that too. You also said that whether it hurts "producers" is a "larger question". I answered that too. The fact that it pulls at your heartstrings at the same time is a fortunate side-effect, and is simply proof that you're still human.
As for actual facts, I have referenced plenty. It's a fact that people pirate instead of buying. Not in all cases, but sometimes. It's a fact therefore that piracy drains demand. It's a fact that low demand impact negatively on all involved on production end. And typically, low demand isn't regarded a problem because, by definition of low demand, it doesn't affect many consumers negatively. However, in this case, this low demand affects a lot people. That's another fact.
It's also a fact that, since copyright, we've had an unprecedented explosion in the number of artists distributing the population in general. It's a fact that everything to do with our culture has been profoundly affected by copyright. It's a fact that, after years and years of success, it's now up to copyright's opponents to demonstrate that copyright is not only no longer necessary, but is making our situation significantly worse.
It's 100% speculation to say that this is not going to happen, because most people who oppose copyright don't understand how or why copyright really works, and how much impact it has had over the past years.
Your turn. Present some facts.
I disagree. The government using third party communication channels doesn't impact on that third party's rights. You should start getting worried when the government starts asking major distribution channels to implement censorious policies.
Besides, does anyone really think that these photos bother the government? At all?
Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly is blackface racism? I don't see why a white person imitating a black person, or vice versa, is actually racist. Sure, I can imagine that they may (but not necessarily always) contain stereotypes, but even stereotypes don't necessarily indicate opinions of racial superiority; just difference.
Of course, I may be missing something here, so feel free to fill me in.
Media companies are typically the last to fall; it's the independent artists who really suffer. They don't have fat profit margins to bear that kind of strain.
Wait, if you're talking about a single product, where duplication costs do rapidly drop, then they charge less (generally) each year. If you're talking about the cost of producing new artists, in which case they would be charging more each year, then it doesn't cost less every year. In fact, the risk in making such an investment is growing larger and larger, thanks to piracy.
Put it this way: with copyright holders (companies or independent artists) having to compete against free copies of their own work, it's amazing to see that any of them have survived as long as they have.
When forced to compete against their own products, and having no recourse to make the situation any more fair, naturally the prices will drop. However, with that drop in price comes a drop in something else, be it quality, quantity, risky business such as inventive/innovative works and/or security for the company.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. The free access to valuable works comes at a price. Where that price comes from depends on how deeply fucked up your situation is.
Exactly.
What we really need is a very public, very evident example of a person fabricating DNA evidence. Even better if it's from someone in law enforcement.
I suppose it would be, but I was referring works created in the time when wealthy commissioners couldn't just download any work they want from the internet.
Being verbose doesn't equate to being wrong either. In order to tell the difference you need to read my comments.
Writing things like *facepalm* is a very concise expression of my reaction to your statements. It is, in fact, the very opposite of verbose.
Wait, I'm dodging your arguments? You? The one who can't seem to get through my arguments enough to respond to a single one of them? The one who's entire argument now is about attacking the same unilaterally defeated point over and over again? The one based entirely upon a strawman that you yourself admitted to (without admitting any sort of blame)?
If you want to recoup some dignity, repost what you want me to respond to, and I will respond to it in concise bullet points. It won't have the absolute precision in language, but you'll be able to read it.
Not once. Show me the quote to disprove that.
My first statement, after repeating almost word for word my first statement, was to then explain that your predicament was understandable.
After calling you out on the incorrect use of the word 'strawman', I then stayed away from semantics altogether, despite your claims.
I had a very similar discussion recently. I provided comprehensive arguments against what he provided me, and he insisted on repeating the same argument over and over (despite the stronger counterargument being presented without challenge over and over), responding to only what he wanted to (which shortened his replies considerably), and throwing in ad hominem attacks whenever he could. I eventually dismissed him as a troll and invited him to actually respond with some serious discussion, and predictably, he took that as an admission of defeat.
You're not quite so bad, but you really are getting there.
Mods, please look up the definition of the word Troll before modding me so.
No matter how uncomfortable my arguments may make you feel, they are not designed to gain a reaction.
Good, good...
*faceplam*
I said exactly the same thing two statements in a row, just with some things in bold. I then clarified in absolutely no uncertain terms what I meant by said bolded expressions, and why the context provided more than ample information to deduce the rest.
It was never in dispute. I went further to say that Linux would probably exist, but it had the definite potential to suffer in terms of quality.
Yeah, that I will backtrack on. I wasn't aware that we were talking about infinite copyrights. I had just assumed we were talking about copyrights of any length.
On the other hand, if I were reading my previous comment, it would have been clear enough, by the fact that I never even indirectly referred to infinite copyright, not even when explicitly outlining the context I was using, that I wasn't supporting infinite copyright.
If you want to win an argument against me, you must, must, read my comments. It's an absolute must. I choose my words carefully, and I anticipate many of the arguments made against me (e.g. all but one of the ones thrown at me by you so far). Read them, or otherwise you end up looking like an idiot (whether you are or not).
I assume you refer to these right?
I didn't respond since I thought I had punched a hole in your main argument. Never mind, I'll respond to them now.
Essentially, I never claimed, like I've consistently said, that music would not exist without copyright. It's the same argument as with the Linux thing. I was referring to the commercial works that form a vast majority of our culture, and a cover a vast majority of our preferences. Saying that I was claiming that music couldn't exist beforehand is part of the same strawman that you were using before (which you later half-admitted was a mistake on your part). I assumed that you'd drop the point.
Your second paragraph I skipped over, since I assumed that it was going to be more of the same strawman, but in fact, I was wrong. It actually has relevance to my point, unlike the others.
However, I can say that the fact that cheap movies can be critically acclaimed and popular doesn't at all disprove my point. Show me a time when free movies (that is, movies distributed freely, immediately, without any restrictions whatsoever) are common, popular, and acclaimed. That will disprove my argument. So far, the vast majority of movies with any kind of popularity are made for profit, or at least to recoup costs.
There, I answered both your points.I hope we can get this strawman argument out of the way.
It's more than that. "Stealing" IP drives up prices of IP for legitimate customers. And yes, just about everyone I know buys some copyable commercial media at some time. So, yeah, as much as a single thief has the minute, damaging potential (that accumulates) to steal from almost anyone, a copyright infringer has the damaging potential to cause minute unnecessary price rises (that also accumulate).
Look, I absolutely agree with you. It would be a good move to encourage china, one way or another, to clean up their act. And it is in the government's power to do so, or at least make a decent attempt.
However, while the copyright ball is in the corporate sector's court, and while people don't immediately connect IP enforcement with economic benefits, it's difficult to bring such schemes to the public eye.
I think our views are not so far from each other. I support copyright reform, so long as it's well thought out and tested (if possible). Shortening terms clearly fall under both categories, since they worked similarly well previously.
Entitlement is indeed on both sides. Bono supports unlimited copyright, based on the rhetoric that the art is "theirs". Period. There's an incredible sense of entitlement in the idea that death + 75 years is not enough time for art to be theirs. Not only will they be dead, their children will probably be dead by then.
That example is as bad, if not worse, than the argument that because an artwork exists under copyright, that it now is property of the people. Not that you support such a philosophy, but that's what it sounded like. And yes, it sounds incredibly entitled. I am pleased that you cleared that up, but we both know that it's your original comment that will be more popular with the moderators. Slashdot seems to want to hear of how the **AA is entitled, but not how that entitlement is countered by their own entitlement.
Anyway, in short, I agree with what you mean, not what you said.
It was clear from the context that I was referring to copyrighted works, specifically economically-motivated works. The OP was referring to works being "stolen" from the public domain (although they really weren't in the public domain in the first place), that is works locked down with copyright, and even made reference to them being "economically feasible". I'm pretty sure it's clear.
Not that I'm saying you're a liar, or what you did wasn't understandable, but I think you didn't really read my comment, or its context, properly, and take the due care necessary to truly counter an argument.
I however, as I'm expected to do, assumed that you are fully informed about what we are discussing, and that you've read my post, and given that assumption, calling your argument a strawman is completely justified. All I can do is respond to what you wrote, and you wrote a strawman.
Also, even if I were incorrect in categorising your argument as a strawman, I wasn't actually changing your argument in order to make it easier to counter, thus it wouldn't have been a strawman anyway; it would have been just plain wrong.
Like you are now.
No. And in fact, this is another (most probably accidental) strawman. You are changing the meaning of my argument from a valid point to being something deliberately created to be obtuse. But, I'm not reading too much into it, since your reaction is reasonable for someone unaware of the workings behind my argument.
Secondly, you also didn't have a point in the first place, since my post wasn't referring to non-commercial copyrighted material.
Thirdly, Linux benefits in a very real way from copyright. It has accelerated its own growth by roping in corporate supporters, who are willing to share the benefits of paid work for the benefit of everyone. That was my point. It makes a real difference.
While it's possible that Linux, or something similar, would have existed without copyright, it would have less supporters and would take longer to grow and evolve. This effect feeds back into itself, because it results in potentially less users (due to potentially less quality), which would result in less users.
Hey, I can only work with what you give me.
And remember that is was a very indirect claim, and it was buried behind absurd hypotheses, like you confusing arguments that superficially sound like the cookie-cutter arguments with the cookie-cutter arguments themselves. It's an absurd claim because most people out there can identify that the two arguments are not necessarily equal, and I'm sure you're among them, since you clearly have the intelligence to string some arguments together.
It's become increasingly evident, yes.
Well, yeah, but keep it down! The resident pirates don't like to consider such implied costs; it contradicts their world view (i.e. they are causing no damage).
It's more efficient to go after teenagers (or at least, it appears that way). They can try to reverse the situation in China, but they won't see benefits for many, many years, and the potential drain on finances would be enormous. Teenagers are simply the lowest-lying fruit.
You honestly can't expect anything different when for-profit entities are asked to regulate their own copyrights. Perhaps if we hand enforcement over to government, we may get our priorities a little more straight.
Did I? I don't recall doing that. I do, however, remember saying that any given commercial, copyrighted work, there's a good chance that that work would not have been created without copyright.
Unfortunately "argument by strawman" is not generally considered a logically valid argument.
Even though your conclusion is based on fallacious premises, you could also have picked a better example, i.e. one that doesn't use copyright, i.e. one that was always in the public domain since creation.
I hear it's also nice to live in a world where every argument against you can be shoehorned in a nice, easily-refutable mould. It, too, is a fantasy world, but I've never managed to let go and roll with it. Those pesky people with intelligence and moderation in their views keep getting in the way.
The problem then is that your argument is much weaker for this exact reason:
It's not depriving you a helluva lot more than the alternative, i.e. the works not being created in the first place. For any commercial work created under copyright, there is a very good chance that it would never have been created without copyright.
In fact, that statement is yet another example of the deep sense of entitlement that has permeated our hearts and minds over culture since piracy became popular.
But theft (physical theft) is considered a crime in civilised countries. Theft bears no damage to the general population, yet we still use public servants like policemen to chase down offenders, public servants like judges to prosecute them, and public facilities like prisons to punish them.
I believe the reasoning behind theft being a crime is that it serves as a deterrent, and allows people to receive justice without having to dedicate an infeasible amount of time and resources into finding the prosecutor and serving them with a suit. Kinda like what copyright holders have to do now.
And yes, making copyright infringement will make less cost for them, yes you will be protecting their rights, and yes it will cost the taxpayer to do so in the short term, but in the long term, it will result in much fairer and transparent copyright infringement prosecution system, and it will help keep prices down. So the 95+% of people who actually use copyrighted media will actually see some benefits. As to how much, it's hard to say.
Look, I'd rather the gambling industry be heavily regulated, and rehabilitation to be offered to those who still become deadbeats. My point was that the argument "It's a victimless crime and shouldn't be illegal" relies on other people not being responsible for their bad decisions. If the taxpayers have to bear the brunt of one less productive member of society, on top of either paying for rehabilitation or welfare cheques, then the crime is not victimless. The taxpayers are the victims.