It's good to remember that this site, if you leave the "name" slot blank, adds "Anonymous Coward". So, two posts by someone named Anonymous Coward may not be the same person.
Confusing, yes, sometimes. I'm not quite sure why it's so hard to just type a name, but that's their prerogative.
It's sad really, because you used so many capital letters, all for nothing. :)
I'm still not convinced. (This may come as no surprise)
It is still a circumvention of payment while acquiring product.
That statement does not define theft. There are entire books written with the specific purpose of explaining how to get things that aren't free for free. Are those books teaching people how to steal, or otherwise encouraging theft? Of course not.
Theft, as is stated above, requires you to take someone's property. Copyrights are not property. That is in bold for a reason. A monopoly is not property anymore than a "free market" is property. It is a term to describe an economic state.
Also, when someone downloads a file, nothing is taken. One computer instructs another computer on how to arrange positive and negative charges on a hard drive disc. It's easy to think "He took the file without permission." but that's because we think of files as actual things that can be dragged and dropped, cut and pasted, sent and received. When you *really* consider what happens during a file transfer, is quickly becomes clear that it is nothing close to "theft". To say otherwise is just an attempt to at emotional weight to the subject.
You guys are doing a great job of sending lots of email to my inbox, so I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents.
I'd like to point out that, if you'd like to get technical, I can copy a file as much as I want. I can copy/paste a song on my hard drive over and over and over again. No one cares. Copying is not the problem. So saying such phrases as "illegal copying" and "copying is theft" is just wrong. I'm not stealing if I hit Ctrl+V on a Kanye song.
The issue is whether it is "stealing" to distribute those copies. Clearly this fails any sort of logic test. Since, as I said above, pressing Ctrl+V on a song doesn't make me a thief, then to call it "stealing" when I give that new file away can't be stealing, because you definition of stealing it "to take" and I did not, at any point, take anything.
I did, however, infringe one Kanye's rights to copy. Hence, copyright infringement.
Also, if you recognize that value and cost are not the same thing, how can you say making more of something will lower its value?
I'm sure there are thousands of stuffed snowmen toys out there exactly like the one you have, does that make the one you have *less* valuable to you? Of course not.
However, if there were 57 Billion snowmen, you would be hard pressed to find someone to buy them for even $2. You probably couldn't give them all away. (They would be everywhere!!)
So, it stands to reason that making copies of something does not reduce its value, but should reduce its cost. So, why doesn't music, movies and ebooks, which can be recreated forever so that everyone in the world has a copy, still sell for $1.29?
But in the general hypothetical, not applying to any one industry or product, the line is not so clear.
The line is very clear, the more general you do. Don't want specifics? Here's a heap of "general" for you.
Company A has purpose. Through technological advances, the purpose Company A has goes from being a complex and expensive endeavor to something that requires almost no skill and is effectively costless, to the point where anyone can serve Company A's purpose with a common household item.
Now, some would have you believe that Company A should fight for laws that severely restrict or ban the household item that is rendering them obsolete. Others would say that the people who make Company A's purpose obsolete are somehow stealing from Company A. Still others would say that Company A needs a new business model that makes them relevant in the face of this new business landscape.
Which do *you* suggest?
So, what am I describing? Company A sells ice, and the household tool that rendered them obsolete is the refrigerator.
If I have one of something, and you take that something, and duplicate it, then yes its value is diminished.
Price != Value.
Air is pretty valuable, to me anyway, but I don't-- and wouldn't-- buy air from you. Something's cost can be low and it's value high.
Just because its easy to replicate does not mean its in abundance. Where did you find the logic for that?
Um.. what? No, I guess not. But being able to cheaply and easily replicate something makes it easy to create an abundance of it, doesn't it? Where was *your* logic on that?
Record Labels sell music at $20/album because the government granted monopoly they have on the music allows them to set whatever price they want. This was fine for decades because it was very costly to ship CDs all over the planet, and it was very costly to record and produce music. Now, with the internet and powerful personal computers, it is not nearly as costly to produce music, and the cost of "shipping" it is so low that 13 year old kids can and will do it for free from their own computers. As the saying goes, "If a kid in his basement with a computer can break your business, you need a new business."
So, the obvious question is: "Why do we need the labels anymore?" The answer is: "In their current form, we don't."
I don't know if you're a troll or just ignorant, but the rest of this thread points out all the mistakes in your (very long and poorly formatted) comment. Go to the top of the page, click the "Threaded" button, and start reading. It will take a while, but I think it will be worth it for you.
After that, look up the difference between "Criminal" and "Civil" offenses.
Then, follow this link to an article on Truthiness which I believe describes why you have your thoughts on copyright infringement, since none of it is actually based on fact.
you have broken the creator's intent and stolen money from them that they would have otherwise obtained.
You have huge cajones, my friend. It's not stealing. See above.
Would it be fair to Schwin to copy your friend's bike instead of purchasing one?
Fair to them? Yes. Did they lose any materials when it was copied? No. Did they lose any electricity? No. Did they have extra labor costs? No.
They lost nothing.
What about your local baker? instead of buying five cookies, you buy one and make 4 copies.
Dammit to hell. You're a troll and I didn't even realize it! Shame on me!! Well, I'm balls deep now anyway, might as well finish: You do know that if I know how to make a cookie that a baker sells, I can make it at home. In fact, if I buy one, I can taste it to figure out what's in it, and then "copy" it all I want. That, thank pete, is legal. Do you feel bad when you make a dinner at home instead of going to a local Red Lobster?
I'd also like to point out that there is a strong case that "identity theft" isn't referring to stealing an identity, but instead using your identity to steal from you.
On the post: Now That Everyone's Seen ACTA, USTR Says 'It's Time To Release It'
Re: Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's
I haven't found a good way to explain it to someone who isn't already concerned, but I'd like to.
On the post: Now That Everyone's Seen ACTA, USTR Says 'It's Time To Release It'
Re: Re: Re: Re: About time...
They will, one day. Something tells me "I told you so" will be very bittersweet.
On the post: Now That Everyone's Seen ACTA, USTR Says 'It's Time To Release It'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward the shill
Confusing, yes, sometimes. I'm not quite sure why it's so hard to just type a name, but that's their prerogative.
It's sad really, because you used so many capital letters, all for nothing. :)
On the post: Irish Judge OKs Three Strikes, Calls Copyright A Human Right
Re: how is this not 'outing' someone ???
Funny, I read through all the drama and I still don't know who TAM is. Do you? No? Then he hasn't been identified, has he?
Where you more interested in discrediting the messenger, and not addressing the message. Classic tactic, but obvious...
When the message is a lie, then addressing the message is, in fact, discrediting the messenger.
On the post: In The Name of Microsoft, We Oppress This Media!
Re: Re:
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Breyer
It is still a circumvention of payment while acquiring product.
That statement does not define theft. There are entire books written with the specific purpose of explaining how to get things that aren't free for free. Are those books teaching people how to steal, or otherwise encouraging theft? Of course not.
Theft, as is stated above, requires you to take someone's property. Copyrights are not property. That is in bold for a reason. A monopoly is not property anymore than a "free market" is property. It is a term to describe an economic state.
Also, when someone downloads a file, nothing is taken. One computer instructs another computer on how to arrange positive and negative charges on a hard drive disc. It's easy to think "He took the file without permission." but that's because we think of files as actual things that can be dragged and dropped, cut and pasted, sent and received. When you *really* consider what happens during a file transfer, is quickly becomes clear that it is nothing close to "theft". To say otherwise is just an attempt to at emotional weight to the subject.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Breyer
I'd like to point out that, if you'd like to get technical, I can copy a file as much as I want. I can copy/paste a song on my hard drive over and over and over again. No one cares. Copying is not the problem. So saying such phrases as "illegal copying" and "copying is theft" is just wrong. I'm not stealing if I hit Ctrl+V on a Kanye song.
The issue is whether it is "stealing" to distribute those copies. Clearly this fails any sort of logic test. Since, as I said above, pressing Ctrl+V on a song doesn't make me a thief, then to call it "stealing" when I give that new file away can't be stealing, because you definition of stealing it "to take" and I did not, at any point, take anything.
I did, however, infringe one Kanye's rights to copy. Hence, copyright infringement.
Scary when things make sense, amiright? :)
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
Also, if you recognize that value and cost are not the same thing, how can you say making more of something will lower its value?
I'm sure there are thousands of stuffed snowmen toys out there exactly like the one you have, does that make the one you have *less* valuable to you? Of course not.
However, if there were 57 Billion snowmen, you would be hard pressed to find someone to buy them for even $2. You probably couldn't give them all away. (They would be everywhere!!)
So, it stands to reason that making copies of something does not reduce its value, but should reduce its cost. So, why doesn't music, movies and ebooks, which can be recreated forever so that everyone in the world has a copy, still sell for $1.29?
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
The line is very clear, the more general you do. Don't want specifics? Here's a heap of "general" for you.
Company A has purpose. Through technological advances, the purpose Company A has goes from being a complex and expensive endeavor to something that requires almost no skill and is effectively costless, to the point where anyone can serve Company A's purpose with a common household item.
Now, some would have you believe that Company A should fight for laws that severely restrict or ban the household item that is rendering them obsolete. Others would say that the people who make Company A's purpose obsolete are somehow stealing from Company A. Still others would say that Company A needs a new business model that makes them relevant in the face of this new business landscape.
Which do *you* suggest?
So, what am I describing? Company A sells ice, and the household tool that rendered them obsolete is the refrigerator.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
Price != Value.
Air is pretty valuable, to me anyway, but I don't-- and wouldn't-- buy air from you. Something's cost can be low and it's value high.
Just because its easy to replicate does not mean its in abundance. Where did you find the logic for that?
Um.. what? No, I guess not. But being able to cheaply and easily replicate something makes it easy to create an abundance of it, doesn't it? Where was *your* logic on that?
Record Labels sell music at $20/album because the government granted monopoly they have on the music allows them to set whatever price they want. This was fine for decades because it was very costly to ship CDs all over the planet, and it was very costly to record and produce music. Now, with the internet and powerful personal computers, it is not nearly as costly to produce music, and the cost of "shipping" it is so low that 13 year old kids can and will do it for free from their own computers. As the saying goes, "If a kid in his basement with a computer can break your business, you need a new business."
So, the obvious question is: "Why do we need the labels anymore?" The answer is: "In their current form, we don't."
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: RE:
After that, look up the difference between "Criminal" and "Civil" offenses.
Then, follow this link to an article on Truthiness which I believe describes why you have your thoughts on copyright infringement, since none of it is actually based on fact.
Think, don't reflex.
Have a great weekend, Darryl. :)
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Whats in word
PS- Do you, perhaps, have another brother named Darryl?
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Nice try, rookie!
you have broken the creator's intent and stolen money from them that they would have otherwise obtained.
You have huge cajones, my friend. It's not stealing. See above.
Would it be fair to Schwin to copy your friend's bike instead of purchasing one?
Fair to them? Yes. Did they lose any materials when it was copied? No. Did they lose any electricity? No. Did they have extra labor costs? No.
They lost nothing.
What about your local baker? instead of buying five cookies, you buy one and make 4 copies.
Dammit to hell. You're a troll and I didn't even realize it! Shame on me!! Well, I'm balls deep now anyway, might as well finish: You do know that if I know how to make a cookie that a baker sells, I can make it at home. In fact, if I buy one, I can taste it to figure out what's in it, and then "copy" it all I want. That, thank pete, is legal. Do you feel bad when you make a dinner at home instead of going to a local Red Lobster?
Thanks for playing.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re:
Did you enter into a legal user agreement when you bought the CD? Yes
If I resell the CD to my friend, did he pay for the Cd? Yes.
Did he enter a legal user agreement when he bought the CD? No.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
It's making the argument that theft != copy, and is doing so solely because some people think that rape is okay.
..and by rape, I mean using the wrong word to create an emotional reaction that doesn't exist when using the correct word.
I'm really astounded that you can sit there and tell me rape is okay. Really!
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
What happens when everyone has an unlimited amount of money? No one will trade anything of value for money?
What happens which everyone has an unlimited amount of digital goods? No one will trade anything of value for digital goods.
So, you agree that there's nothing wrong with not paying for an infinite digital good?
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: @5 @12 @17 @18 @20
The guy that runs the awesome mexican restaurant?
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @42 @darkTHICKHELMET
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re:
Next >>