Reply With QuoteNo, it's not, unless you mean they're both wrong. They aren't indistinguishable acts, and you're just being dishonest now if you maintain that.
It is not the same thing legally, but it is the same thing morally.Originally Posted by Felch
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
No, it's not, unless you mean they're both wrong. They aren't indistinguishable acts, and you're just being dishonest now if you maintain that.
Of course. How dare I question the intentions of the people downloading a piece of media for free. Stop being so ****ing oblivious, you know full well that people download games, music, books, etc., simply because a) they want it, and b) they don't want to pay for it. Most would pay for it if they didn't have the option to be a spoiled, arrogant, demanding little ****.
Stop being an idiot, Guy. You were responding directly to the sentence "ff none of those people were going to buy the work at the price demanded, the author is still no worse off." Moreover, you have no way of knowing that your claim is true. It is not only possible, but extremely likely that the majority of copyright violations do not represent lost sales, simply because of the scale of music piracy compared to the scale of actual CD sales.
And I want to sleep with Alison Brie. It's not wrong to want to do so. To actually do it is another matter entirely.
Wait, it's wrong the read Shakespeare?
It is not wrong to read Shakespeare; it would be wrong (and utterly unnecessary) to steal Shakespeare in order to read it.
I fail to see how it is extremely likely that copyright violators do not represent lost sales.
I enjoy the NHL playoffs. I want to watch it on a big-screen HDTV. So I'm going to go to Best Buy and grab the biggest ****ing one I can find and walk out the door. I'd never actually pay for it, mind you; it's not like anyone is losing a sale here.
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
Yes, they are both WRONG WRONG WRONG, because they are both ****ing theft. See above.
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
But I just went and downloaded a copy without paying for it! I'm a horrible person
I fail to see how it is extremely likely that copyright violators do not represent lost sales.
It's very likely that the majority of copyright violations do not represent lost sales, because of the scale of music piracy vs music sales.
Guy, why do you continue to make this idiotic comparison? Best Buy is, in this case, losing valuable property. They are, in fact, losing something! And they could have sold that to someone else.I enjoy the NHL playoffs. I want to watch it on a big-screen HDTV. So I'm going to go to Best Buy and grab the biggest ****ing one I can find and walk out the door. I'd never actually pay for it, mind you; it's not like anyone is losing a sale here.
But I took something that didn't belong to me that I wouldn't buy in the first place, and someone didn't get paid for it because of that. I really don't see the difference.
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
In one situation, Best Buy could have sold the television to someone else. You have now deprived them of that future sale. Whereas you have deprived the author of nothing.
It is utterly astonishing that I have to explain this to you.
It is utterly astonishing that you can't see this from an author's perspective.
The book exists. It was not immaculately conceived. It was created by a number of people who worked very hard on it, and rightly expect to be compensated for that. The way they are compensated is by people paying for the book. And someone else wants to read it, but they don't want to actually pay for it, so they just ****ing take it.
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
Just wanted to say I agree with Guynemer, because for some reason Kuciwalker was tremendously upset to discover this in person just a few moments ago.
Theft
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
And when that person would not have otherwise bought the book, the author is no worse off. If the law really were "you only have to pay if you would be willing to give up that much money; otherwise you can get it for free" and people actually obeyed that rule, each author would receive precisely as much money as before and many people would be better off.
If the law were the same wrt cars, though, a whole lot of people would be much worse off.
It is utterly astonishing that you can't see this from an author's perspective.
Authors have no intrinsic moral claim on their intellectual "property". Otherwise, why do patents expire after only 20 years? Why does someone who writes a book get this monopoly on reproduction for life (and beyond), but inventors for only a couple decades? Or, why do the rights ever expire? You still haven't explained how "taking" a (digital) copy of Romeo and Juliet without paying for it isn't wrong!
You continue to try to dress up the fact that you are defending people who want a service without paying jack **** for it. I remain amazed that you deny this is theft, by any and every definition of the word.
I want to read Shakespeare without paying for it either. I'm not going to steal a physical book, I'll just download it off the Internet. Is that wrong?
You never addressed this. It seems a really big hole in your "getting stuff without paying for it is evil!" thing.
I was upset because you're at least supposed to know a teensy bit about economics. It's depressing how consistently awful your posts here are, and that just sealed it.Just wanted to say I agree with Guynemer, because for some reason Kuciwalker was tremendously upset to discover this in person just a few moments ago.
Theft
Is Shakespeare still under copyright? You sure as **** aren't robbing him, given that he's a moldering in the ground.
As I said earlier, I'd be all for rights expiring upon the death of the producer.
And when that person would not have otherwise bought the book, the author is no worse off. If the law really were "you only have to pay if you would be willing to give up that much money; otherwise you can get it for free" and people actually obeyed that rule, each author would receive precisely as much money as before and many people would be better off.
If the law were the same wrt cars, though, a whole lot of people would be much worse off.
I don't follow you here. Can you please explain?
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
This isn't about economics. This is about right and wrong. It is wrong to take something--anything--that doesn't belong to you, wasn't given or lent to you, without paying for it. Full stop. The end. Fin. Period. Exclamation point. SEMICOLON!
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
But I want to take the stuff without paying for it! According to you, that alone makes me an awful person. But you're defending me!
Let's say we passed the following law:I don't follow you here. Can you please explain?
"If you would not have otherwise paid for a book, you can download it and that won't count as a copyright violation."
and further, stipulate that people actually follow that law (this is not supposed to be a reasonable assumption). Then the author of any book will receive precisely as much money as before. She will not be hurt at all by this change. But lots of other people will be happier!
Now imagine after the success of this law, we made a new one, but instead it said:
"If you would not have otherwise paid for a car, you can take it and that won't count as theft."
Many, many cars would be stolen, and their owners would all no longer have a car! They would be hurt a lot by this change.
This is the operative difference between piracy and theft. There are strong justifications for making piracy illegal, but are completely different from those for making theft illegal. To call both of them theft, to say they are not just both wrong, but are morally equivalent, conflates two very different moral problems.
The entire notion of property is government economic policy, Guy. The notion of intellectual "property" is doubly so, because it didn't even exist for thousands of years of recorded history, and when created was explicitly justified as a measure of expedience, rather than as a way of recognizing an existing moral claim.This isn't about economics. This is about right and wrong. It is wrong to take something--anything--that doesn't belong to you, wasn't given or lent to you, without paying for it. Full stop. The end. Fin. Period. Exclamation point. SEMICOLON!
You know, I'm starting to wonder if you ever went to kindergarten, because I'm pretty sure I was taught that there is a natural concept of "yours" and "not yours" and government is not the source of this concept. Whether or not men with guns are capable of taking away what is yours is not the definition of this idea.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Yes, embedding property rights in social norms from an early age is an excellent strategy by society for ensuring they are respected
You went to a public school, dufus.and government is not the source of this concept.
Dude, we extend the notion of property all the ****ing time. When we [Europeans] came to America, we introduced the previously unknown idea of land as property. When we invented the radio, we introduced the previously unknown idea of radio spectrum as property. When we were in danger of reducing our fishing stocks below sustainable levels, we introduced the notion of catch quotas as property. When we decided to fix the problem of acid rain, we introduced the notion of sulfur emission permits as property.Whether or not men with guns are capable of taking away what is yours is not the definition of this idea.
What is the common factor? THESE ARE ALL TRAGEDIES OF THE COMMONS. When there are scarce resources, be they cars or land or spectrum or fish or the environment, we have to create property rights to prevent market failure. "Personal possessions", followed by land, need these protections most strongly, and so it is no surprise that they were invented so quickly they may have even predated government as such.
By contrast, the market failure copyright solves is very different: the free rider problem. Some things are public goods: they benefit many other people when produced, but there is no way for the producer to profit from this, so no one makes them and we are all worse off. The traditional example is a lighthouse; you can't prevent a ship from using your lighthouse beam without paying you, but lighthouses are obviously quite valuable to ships. The traditional solution is for the government to use tax revenues to provide these goods.
With original works like books, the reproduction cost is very low, so producing a book many people want to read is quite valuable. But authors have little incentive to do so, since they would receive no extra money. For a long time, this problem either wasn't solved, or was solved through the traditional solution - e.g. the Renaissance patrons of the arts. Eventually, as reproduction costs fell and as governments became more economically sophisticated, they introduced the alternate notion of copyright, which better aligned incentives to produce with the value of the thing produced. But there are large deadweight costs to copyright, and it isn't necessarily the optimal solution. Most importantly, it isn't recognition of existing moral rights of authors - it is a privilege granted for our own expedience.
If I found the plans to build my own replica of an HDTV, and I went and mined all the minerals and cooked up the plastic and glass that went into it, and wired it up, and made the TV myself, would it be the exact same thing as stealing an already made TV from the store?
Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.
Actually a better analogy would be stealing chips from Intel, Felch. Do you think it costs $150 to make a Core 2 Duo? No, it takes a few cents. But it took millions to figure out how to make it. But if you take one from the store it is still theft, even though it's like copying a song--the cost to make an additional processor is almost negligible.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
The store pays a lot more than a few cents to stock a Core 2.
Also, much (most?) of the price of a processor is for the capital investment in fabs (not something that can be pirated) rather than the R&D.
Take this pointless discussion to another thread, this is about Game of Thrones.
Nerds.
ACK!
"Foof." - Sasquatch.
Actually, don't bother. I'm done with this conversation.
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
That's probably for the best, since Kuci clearly won. #198 and #199 were particularly good posts.
This is about right and wrong. It is wrong to take something--anything--that doesn't belong to you, wasn't given or lent to you, without paying for it. Full stop. The end. Fin. Period. Exclamation point. SEMICOLON!
Dude, you've clearly been living with a libertarian for too long...
He didn't win. He's making fancy econonmics arguments to defend a practice that is, on its face, wrong.
It's abundantly clear that I don't know jack about economics or law, but it seems to me that whether or not intellectual property is technically different from theft is irrelevant. The economic system in which we all function assumes that intellectual property will be respected, otherwise, there is no benefit in putting forth the considerable effort required to create, for example, a book.
If one disagrees, one is free to place yourself outside that system and pirate away, but society will eventually remove one to an entirely different economic system in which cigarretes and sodomy rights are the only property with which one need concern oneself.
The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria.
its pretty easy to ask questions and find holes. but i would like mister kuciwalker to actaully say something. he is nowhere near a solution to guys dilemma.
He didn't win. He's making fancy econonmics arguments to defend a practice that is, on its face, wrong.
Objective "fancy econonmics arguments" > subjective moralistic blather
It's abundantly clear that I don't know jack about economics
Agreed.
put up or shut up tupac.
The problem, as has been mentioned, is with how long should it be respected. I'm not going to argue for an instant free-for-all, but life+70 is just ridiculous whether you want to approach it economically, socially, or morally.
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the ******* word processor." -Dan Simmons, Hyperion
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks