A Game of Thrones - TV Show Discussion Thread

[Guynemer]

The difference between theft and infringement is that theft deprives the victim of a possession while infringement deprives them of an economic benefit. That's why your restaurant analogy breaks down. If I copy Galnemer's novel, she doesn't lose a copy of the book that she paid to publish, she simply isn't compensated for her efforts. It's wrong, but it's not the same thing. That's also why it's different from you breaking into my house and stealing my TV.

It is not the same thing legally, but it is the same thing morally.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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?

[Guynemer]

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.

[Guynemer]

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.

Yes, they are both WRONG WRONG WRONG, because they are both ****ing theft. See above.

[Kuciwalker]

It is not wrong to read Shakespeare; it would be wrong (and utterly unnecessary) to steal Shakespeare in order to read it.

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.

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.

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.

[Guynemer]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

[Guynemer]

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.

[Hauldren Collider]

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

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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

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.

[Guynemer]

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?

[Guynemer]

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.

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!

[Kuciwalker]

Is Shakespeare still under copyright? You sure as **** aren't robbing him, given that he's a moldering in the ground.

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!

I don't follow you here. Can you please explain?

Let's say we passed the following law:

"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.