David Levine and Michele Boldrin: Economical analysys of MPAA ads

[Spiffor]

I see where the bone of contention is:

For Asher, theft can be defined as deprivating somebody of his property without compensation.

For Ming, theft is defined as using somebody's work without paying.

In the case of tangible goods, both definitions apply: when you steal a pair of shoes at the shop, you're not paying for it, and the shop loses money. However, information isn't a tangible good: it's now nearly free to reproduce, and thus, when you acquire an individual copy of it without paying, you didn't cause any direct loss to the producer of the original. And if you had honestly no intention of ever buying it, you didn't cause a cost of opportunity either.

[KrazyHorse]

when you acquire an individual copy of it without paying, you didn't cause any direct loss to the producer of the original

yup

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And if you had honestly no intention of ever buying it, you didn't cause a cost of opportunity either.

using "honestly" to justify theft...



If you have no intention of buying it... why watch it then... Why should you get something (entertainment) when the owner gets nothing in return. Oh that's right... it's ok, but you weren't going to buy it anyway... you just stole instead...

[Spiffor]

IMO, on an economic POV, the real problem lies with the people who seriously restrict their expenditures now that free stuff is easily available.

These people, while not creating a direct loss to the producers (it's not like they're stealing a pair of shoes), create a cost of opportunity. Should this cost become significant, these freeloaders would seriously cause the industry to shrink.

OTOH, the ones who DL media they'd have never paid for, regardless of whether they could get it for free, are pretty much a dead weight. I suppose they have a slight positive impact on the market (as they could eventually buy stuff as they feel they "owe" it to the creators), but I imagine the effect is pretty negligible.

[Ming]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Intellectual property is a relatively recent idea, Ming.

Not all of us "buy" it.

Yeah... and there are some bigots out there who don't buy into freedom for all races... a releatively recent idea in many countries as well...

[KrazyHorse]

Are you honestly comparing the two?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming


using "honestly" to justify theft...



If you have no intention of buying it... why watch it then... Why should you get something (entertainment) when the owner gets nothing in return. Oh that's right... it's ok, but you weren't going to buy it anyway... you just stole instead...

I'm not talking about morals here, I'm talking about definitions.


The yord "honestly" is not about theft, it's about the reality of never intending to make an effort into acquiring something. Here's an example for clarification.
Say, you are completely uninterested in French food, and you'd never bother look up a French recipe book, or go to a French restaurant. Yet, during a dinner at a friend's, you are served French dishes. They are acceptably enjoyable, but they don't change your mind, and you'll continue making no effort whatsoever in order to eating French food in the future.
I think it is typically a case where you had honestly no intent of ever buying (or bothering to get) French food, but yet you got it as the opportunity showed. You didn't hate it, and you didn't like it enough to change your mind.
Do you think such a situation is humanly impossible?


Please do not reply: "This has nothing to do with the thread, because I got the French food through legit means". Again, the word "honest" was not about the theft, it was about the intention of never spending a dime on something, whether available for free (through opportunity) or not.

[Ming]

New has nothing to do with legal... Yet you are using it as a defense... Bigots could use the same argument

[KrazyHorse]

No, I'm using it to point out that ideas were not part of any previous concept of property because it's difficult to possess an idea in the same way that you possess a physical object. There is no obvious unfairness in my mind associated with copying an idea. The person whose idea is being copied is left with everything he had before.

[Ming]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, I'm using it to point out that ideas were not part of any previous concept of property because it's difficult to possess an idea in the same way that you possess a physical object. There is no obvious unfairness in my mind associated with copying an idea. The person whose idea is being copied is left with everything he had before.

It may be more difficult to possess an idea... but it still belongs to the creator to distribute how he wants. If he wants to make it free... fine. But like most people, he wants something in return for his labors. The person whose idea was stolen, may have everything he had before, but he was denied earning fair value for his work. This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument is simply crap... if you don't want it... than why steal it? People steal it to watch it... they get something, and the creator gets nothing in return... He has been deprived of income... a loss.

It's just theft... And again, if you want to do so because you feel it's ok... fine by me... but it's still theft, and all these lame justifications don't change the simple fact

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I see where the bone of contention is:

For Asher, theft can be defined as deprivating somebody of his property without compensation.

That's exactly what it is. If it not deprive something from someone else, how is it theft?

Ming is just a greedy bastard.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ming


It may be more difficult to possess an idea

It's not simply more difficult to possess it; it's more difficult to define what possession is.

If you take a car from somebody they are minus one car. if you copy somebody's idea they can still use it.

[KrazyHorse]

The idea of a government-enforced monopoly on an idea for a set period of time is not as natural as the primitive idea of possession of objects. I don't accept that copyright infringement is theft in the same way that GTA is...

[Ming]

It costs money to make and distribute a film... While I might agree with you on just an "idea"... a movie isn't just an idea.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ming
I love how common thieves defend their actions...

You must have some interest to take even the few minutes to start downloading them, and then start watching them... Your "they need to pay me" argument is as lame as your other rationals... you are a thief... which is fine... just admit it... instead of hiding behind rational worthy of young children

You mean unworthy, don't ya? My 3 year-old can come up with better excuses!