DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Guynemer]

Self-published books and music and just as easily pirated, Nikolai. That is simply avoiding the problem.

[Elok]

It costs less than 25 cents to make an intel processor. So by stealing an individual Intel processor, did they really lose that much money?

Answer: Yes, they lost a few hundred bucks.

It cost millions of dollars to design the processor.

I believe the same argument works for prescription drugs. I don't like this "I got somebody else's property--which they were legitimately selling--for free, but it's not stealing because of negligibly low production costs per copy."

[Hauldren Collider]

I believe the same argument works for prescription drugs. I don't like this "I got somebody else's property--which they were legitimately selling--for free, but it's not stealing because of negligibly low production costs per copy."

QFT

[onodera]

I'm tired of the posts rationalizing theft and blaming the producers of wealth for the flexible ethics of middle class consumers.

Is buying second-hand clothing theft? Is buying generics instead of brand-name drugs theft? Is buying only items with instant rebates theft? In all these cases the producer doesn't receive the full revenue.

[giblets]

Is it theft to wait for an item to go on sale?

[onodera]

Self-published books and music and just as easily pirated, Nikolai. That is simply avoiding the problem.

You cannot solve this problem, Guy. Information divorced from its physical representation is fundamentally different from information bound to its physical representation, even if the law says you should treat them the same.

[KrazyHorse]

Someone else loses money. That is theft.

No.

If I offer "special" massages at 10$ while the place next door has been offering them for 20$ then it's not "theft" when I take their customers.

You need to do a better job of thinking this through.

[KrazyHorse]

It costs less than 25 cents to make an intel processor. So by stealing an individual Intel processor, did they really lose that much money?

Answer: Yes, they lost a few hundred bucks.

It cost millions of dollars to design the processor.

Only if your counterfactual is that the person would have bought the Intel processor otherwise.

The current system of offering limited monopolies in registered ideas involves its own set of problems, and seems no more "natural" to me than allowing unlimited copying. The claims of intellectual property violation as being morally equivalent to theft are overblown. At the same time, it is obvious that a system of free copying will lead directly to underinvestment in new ideas.

The posturing between guy, yourself and gribbler is ridiculous

[KrazyHorse]

Self-published books and music and just as easily pirated, Nikolai. That is simply avoiding the problem.

I have no idea why you think it's any more wrong to pirate the work of an "independent" publisher than it is to pirate a work published by Doubleday

[Guynemer]

I have no idea why you think it's any more wrong to pirate the work of an "independent" publisher than it is to pirate a work published by Doubleday

I don't. Really not getting what you're driving at here. Maybe I misspoke before?

[Guynemer]

No.

If I offer "special" massages at 10$ while the place next door has been offering them for 20$ then it's not "theft" when I take their customers.

You need to do a better job of thinking this through.

You know what I meant. It's not theft if someone else writes a book that takes her readership. It is theft if someone downloads her book without paying for it without her permission.

[KrazyHorse]

Why do you think it's natural that it be "her" book? How come the special massage place doesn't own the idea of offering special massages in my neighborhood?

The idea that it is wrong or immoral to copy somebody else's idea is not obvious to me. It is applied selectively across classes of ideas, and historically has not been considered to be true...

[Guynemer]

I'm really not following your point here.

We're not talking about market competition. And I'm awfully wary of going any deeper into this, knowing how much you know (and how little I know) about economics in general.

[KrazyHorse]

My point is quite straightforward: that ideas being viewed as property whose copying is equated to theft is true only for a limited class of ideas (copyrighted works, patentable ideas) and only in a limited set of countries in a limited set of times in history.

Copyright and the patent system exist for good and desirable ends; without some kind of socialized means of rewarding those who innovate, innovation suffers underinvestment. However, these systems bring with them other losses (the monopolist price is higher than the marginal cost of production, so we cede the surplus available to all those who would consume the ideas at some point in between the two). Some degree of piracy may well be welfare-enhancing, if it reduces the deadweight loss without cannibalizing too much of the monopolist's rents (i.e. the incentive to innovate). The ideal system would provide innovators with exactly 100% of their marginal contribution, but this is difficult to accomplish (to say the least)...

[Nikolai]

Self-published books and music and just as easily pirated, Nikolai. That is simply avoiding the problem.

Everything will and can be be pirated. Providing good alternatives to pirating is the only solution. Then it will be marginalized.