As a musician I gotta say that these guys are just plain stupid. If I want to give my music away for free, that should be my choice and not theirs. Fuck the music pirates, they've already hurt the bands enough and they don't seem to care that they make it harder for bands to record music on a pro level - all that matters for them is "I want it all and I want it for free". I don't see why such behavior should be encouraged by legalizing it.

The curse of digital copy and transfer, Michael. Somehow, people have gotten it into their heads that intellectual property should be free.

A fun story from Norway. The leader of one of the political parties called for no restrictions on digital downloads. He owns a flock of sheep, and a Norwegian band took a van and drove up to "sample" some of his sheep - just to prove a point.
The politician is called Lars Sponheim. In this video, the group Enslaved comments on the fact that the politician's farm is nice, and that's probably because he's well paid for his products.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY3baFA-S4

After "downloading" a sheep in the first video, the group took the politician's sheep to Parliament to demonstrate that property was now free to be taken.

They took the sheep to a record store, and called for a press conference showing how CD and DVD sales have dropped as a result of illegal downloading.
The VO in this YouTube video is in Norwegian, but quite humorous just with the images.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ8rZM9LkSE&feature=related

Hilzoy, I'm afraid the results of the recent elections to the European parliament were altogether rather more depressing.

That's because I take the vote in Sweden for the Pirate Party as a protest vote rather than a sign of sincere support for the copyright and patent rights position of that party.

Unfortunately, in quite a number of countries the protest vote went to the extreme right and was so large that racist parties significantly expanded their representation. For example, a racist party came in second in The Netherlands, in the UK the BNP, which prohibits membership for people of colored and Asian background, won its first two seats, etc, etc.

I agree that there are issues with copyright and patent rights, such as the recent extension by the US congress of protection for stuff from Disney that is already more than 70 years old, not to speak of the role of patents that are used purely to block the competition. However, the proposals by the Swedish Pirate Party do not strike any semblance of balance and in in addition I have yet to see the benefit of single issue parties being elected to a parliament.

Banning the international parrot trade could have a very significant impact on preserving a number of endangered parrot species.

That is let alone the evident distress that parrots exhibit (down to actual suicide) from being kidnapped from their natural environment and held in small cages, and then shipped to be pets.

You can't make an equivalence, in policy terms, with parties that suggest that copyright law should be abolished.

A good discussion of intellectual property and patents from the viewpoint of developing economies can be found in the book "Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang, a Korean economist who teaches at Cambridge.
As one might expect, neither outright piracy nor 70-year copyright guarantees for Disney are what he recommends.

"Banning the international parrot trade could have a very significant impact on preserving a number of endangered parrot species."

I'm all for it. Can't say I'm actually concerned about the parrots, but seeing them away from me is good. I'm okay with most pets. Pythons and rats are cool with me. Although I tend to look at rats as Python food, but whatever. But birds drive me fucking nuts. I only refrain from killing them because they're a friend's pet. Or someone's fighting cock. Either way, you don't kill them, as annoying as they may be. But anything you can do to remove them from my life is a good thing. Sadly, any law that keeps out exotic birds still won't keep out the rest of them. But it's start. It's too bad I can't fire a shotgun in city limits. Those birds that just woke up might taste nice. But shutting them up would certainly be worth a shot or two.

As for pirates in government, that's nothing new. Sir Francis Drake was England's greatest pirate, and he was knighted for it. Turns out, stealing is cool as long as you pay the Crown. But every mafia works that way. Too bad the Swedish found that out too late. The British monopolized that economy until it just ran dry. Well, until the Somalis and Malays figured it out.

"which campaigned on reformation of copyright and patent law "

Political speak for the elimination of intellectual property rights.

However, the proposals by the Swedish Pirate Party do not strike any semblance of balance ...

I think it defines a boundary -- they are asking for 5 years, not 4. Consider (from Wikipedia):

• Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
  
• Copyright Act of 1909 - extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
  
• Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years; extended copyright to unpublished works; preempted state copyright laws; codified much copyright doctrine that had originated in case law
  
• Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 - established copyrights of U.S. works in Berne Convention countries
  
• Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 - restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works
  
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
  
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - criminalized some cases of copyright infringement
  
• Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 - criminalized more cases of copyright infringement, permitted technology to "sanitize" works
  

Looks balanced to me, just in a different direction. 25 years (roughly), give or take a factor of 5.

I too would like to see reform and reduction of the excessive grip iprop holders have on us, but bending over backwards isn't right either. Without patents, few are going to want to go to lots of trouble to make inventions etc., and don't they deserve a nice cut for their trouble? Also, as I stated at pirate-party-wins:

A commenter said, true "piracy" means taking i-prop etc. for commercial gain. I suppose that means to sell to others, which is certainly piracy. But it can also mean to take something you'd otherwise have to pay for, so you can get Photoshop etc. for free. That is considered piracy since the creators expect protection of their i-prop to justify the effort put into it, as explained in e.g. the US Constitution. It is "gain" in the sense of saving money you'd otherwise owe someone else, to the extent intellectual property is real at all.

Any good scoop on this, either?:

BTW, I really enjoy going to YouTube to watch all kinds of stuff, including music videos both recent (the breaking on "Shake It" really rocks) and older (GJWTHF!) I still don't get, how all that can be just put up there with apparently no strings attached. All those providers really don't mind the free dissemination of all those music vids, etc? [Well, I know they don't all, but that was for Socraticism and convenience.]

SteinL:

That's sort of a silly argument (about "downloading" sheep). If you take somebody's sheep, then that person has one fewer sheep. That's very much unlike digital copying.

Comparing intellectual property to physical property is dubious, in my opinion. For physical property, the price reflects scarcity. If there were infinitely many sheep, then the price per sheep would drop to zero.

In the case of intellectual property, the price doesn't reflect scarcity of the thing being sold (copies of that property). It's the other way around, the scarcity is artificially created in order to maintain the price.

The problem with intellectual property is that the thing that is scarce is not the thing that is being sold. Original works are scarce, not copies, but it is copies that are being sold.

I'm not saying that this means all intellectual property should be free, but I'm saying that the arguments comparing creating copies of a work with stealing physical objects doesn't make sense to me. Making a copy doesn't deprive anyone else of a copy. The argument for copyright, royalty, and patent protection should not be by analogy with protection against physical theft, but should be argued in terms of the benefits to society as a whole: How do we best encourage creativity and spread the benefits of that creativity?

Daryl McCullough, you fail to appreciate the fundamental idea of intellectual property (but do appreciate the pragmatic need for acting like it's real in any case.) Of course information can be copied with little cost and it doesn't remove the information from the original holder. Yeah, it works differently - that doesn't invalidate the idea. The key idea is, that one can *own* that pattern or data. If you can own an idea, then you get to control its appearance elsewhere regardless of the distinction about making more. When the same "pattern" appears somewhere else, you own that pattern and therefore what can be done with it. It's a matter of accepting a higher order of thought than thinking in terms of only material bodies per se.

So yes, people who compare IP to stuff are missing the distinction that makes it a logically different affair. But scoffers at IP falsely think that something should have to be like stuff in order to deserve protection.

BTW, free speech is not an absolute right (is anything?) Speech is also rightly inhibited in other ways, such as damages from it being actionable etc.

PS: There are interesting physical examples of the difference between a "real thing" and a conceptually demarcated entity. The latter might even be physically real, just not an "object." For example, the spot where light or electrons hit can move faster than light across a screen, even though neither light nor electrons can exceed the SOL, c.

There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property." What we have is Government-Enforced Protected Monopolies for correctly registered writing, music and ideas.

I have to agree with Daryl here. The stunt actually took a sheep, it didn't just make a copy of the animal in question. If anything, making unauthorised copies is more akin to trespassing than it is theft. Nothing is stolen, but a right granted by government has been infringed (the right to a monopoly on copies, the right to private property). Unauthorised copying of media is not a zero-sum equation like theft is.

Right now copyright terms have expanded so much that it's akin to a boom of property claim stakes, making it impossible to travel without stepping on someone's grounds. Thousands of acres, and each owner demanding a toll from anyone flying over their land without permission.

I feel the horse is already out of the barn, and copyright laws across the world need to be changed to reflect this. Noncommercial copying needs different terms than commercial copying, and more attention needs to be paid to abandoned works (works which are no longer commercially offered).

The proper form of the "sheep stunt" would be cloning of a particular hybrid. This is an issue for plants; you may buy a particular lily at the garden store, and nobody is going to ding you for giving away some of the multiple bulbs that result to your friends, but if you tried to go into business like that, you might owe royalties on the hybrid.

In the case of GMOs, there is the possibility that even pollen (which, by design, spreads freely) can carry that intellectual property hither and yon. Hybrids tend to get the special sauce from combinations of genes; for GMOs, it is typically a single added gene, and that will appear in pollen at at least the 50% level.

And thus the analogy gets a little more interesting. Do we support prosecuting farmers, who happen to live downwind from GMO corn, for keeping some of their crop to reseed next year? What if they had been doing it before the GMO corn was planted?

As far as copying music goes, I've supported a local musician and producer who developed a patronage model. Like what he's doing? You can paypal him however much you like to support his ongoing endeavors. Then you get unlimited access to everything he has posted by various groups and himself, and regular email updates.
I give him credit for trying to establish a new model in this crazy new world.

But as for the Pirate Party, I'm more concerned on where they stand vis-a-vis buried treasure and GOLD, GOLD, GOLD!

Neil B, with respect, Daryl McCullough is on the money, both legally and actually.

As someone who makes money off of intellectual property, I can tell you that you can't own an idea or a pattern, or data, in perpetuity. What you are talking about is "the rights to other people's use of an" idea, pattern, or data. Which is more like a lease, not a freehold.

In the case of intellectual property, the freeholder is essentially everyone (i.e. the people), who grant the exculusive rights to a particular piece of intellectual property for "limited times" (c.f, US Constitution) - the rights return to the people at the end of the "lease". It has to be granted by the people, because they all have to agree to honor the lease and not rampantly copy your works for free.

It's a two way street. As the holder of a (copy)right, you are agreeing you make your work available to the people, in exchange for some monetary compensation. The argument over correct compensation for copyright will never likely be agreed to everyone's satisfaction.

My personal feel is that if you can't make your money out of copyright in 28 years (see US copyright act, 1790), you're not providing enough of a benefit to society to justify your monopoly "lease". Life plus 70 (or 95) years is ridiculous.

royalblue, Neil wasn't arguing that IP can be owned forever. He might believe that, but he wasn't arguing that. He was arguing that IP can belong to someone, and that an analogy to owning *actual stuff* is valid. Personally, I agree with that, and I also agree with Neil's take that a lot of people scoff at the notion that IP can exist at all. I've certainly met a lot of those people. ("Information *wants* to be free!" "Not if it's mine, it doesn't.")

With that said, I also agree with you that the current extent of IP copyright is ridiculous and needs to be scaled back. It is a particularly important issue in this day and age of easy digital reproduction. The problem is how to strike a fair balance that takes into account all the different people who have a stake.

I'll bet the posters here who are argueing to limit intellectual property rights download music for free.

Gandalf: Really? On what basis?

Shade Tail, thanks for the hand up. Why are so many people tempted to presume the most extreme possible version of a person's argument? You are right, I do not believe iprop "is" or should be treated as, owned in perpetuity. We could then ask, "well, how long does it "really" last then, if there is an objective quality to the right to own it" and rattle about having to draw "arbitrary boundaries." Well heh, that's the problem with *property, period*! As I like to challenge and aggravate libertarians: why should my "property line" be just here and not there? Sure, it gets passed down in a chain of ownership but that doesn't justify it's being that to start with. And we could argue, even if boundaries on the surface are accepted, what proves you should own minerals many miles below the surface based on the interactions our predecessors had about cattle and crops millennia ago? The whole notion of property is just plain problematic, period!
(Search the infamous NG thread I started in 2001, "The foundational problem of libertarian theory." BTW that thread is curiously hard to find in it's full splendor. Note in particular the good lefty arguing of "Brian Rush.")

Yes I do think the current IP posture went too far in many lands and needs scaling back. Moderation is a virtue. We can't prove just what IP is or how long rights to it "actually exist", but it is respectful and useful to act like it does exist and hence "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts [let's presume creative arts in the penumbra], by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

But birds drive me fucking nuts. I only refrain from killing them because they're a friend's pet. Or someone's fighting cock. Either way, you don't kill them, as annoying as they may be. But anything you can do to remove them from my life is a good thing.

Wow. Ornithophobic much? Scared by a bird as a kid? Lotta anger there. Stay outta my house, and we'll be cool. I've got two birds. Wouldn't have any other pet. They're cheap to feed, they don't require a litter box or potty training, and they're not at all loud or annoying. They're not members of an endangered species, either.

More precisely, about property lines I would rather say: "Sure, [landed property boundaries] gets passed down in a chain of ownership but that doesn't justify it's being there to start with.

I'm always amazed to read the illogical, twisted arguments that pirates use to justify stealing what they erroneously believe themselves to be entitled to. It's nothing more than juvenile selfishness backed up with a thesaurus.

I only hope that one day someone they care deeply about depends on book, music, art, video game, or movie sales to survive and finds that in a world rife with piracy they cannot.

Perhaps the Colonial English and Barack Obama had the right idea about how to deal with pirates: a noose or a bullet between the eyes.

Oh, but we're not killing anyone, since pirates are just a copy of their parents DNA, so it's okay.

Oh, I'll bite: yes, I download music for free, but I do so from legal sources. Artists who offered samples, and from those samples I decide whether to support the artist or not, tell my friends or not, buy their merchandise or not, and so on. Salon used to offer a wonderful list of free MP3 songs, and that's how I some new bands I now like.

I even use BitTorrent to download things like amateur movies and software, another legal use of a demonised service. I'll even download science fiction novels that Tor Books offers for free, and if I like it I'll order it from Amazon.

I also am a web designer and author, so I also produce copyrighted works. What I write, though, I release under a Creative Commons license.

As has been stated, attempting to charge people for each digital copy of an artistic work makes no sense when that digital copy is infinitely available. Where is the scarcity here, what has real economic value? As far as I can tell, the only scarcity is in the skill and effort put into making the art. In other words, it makes economic sense to pay someone to produce a piece of art, but the piece of art itself has near-zero value if it can be digitally copied. Most professions are like this; architects and programmers get paid to produce something, but rarely are able to retain "control" over the produce of their work.

On the other hand, members of certain industries have grown to think they should be able to control how their ideas are expressed by others for some arbitrary length of time (forever, for all intents and purposes, being well past their lifetime). This is not a right, however, it is an agreement of the community to honor their wishes. What does the community get in return? Poised as we are with the dawn of the Internet to have nearly-infinite and nearly-free resources (of a digital nature) for all, the question is whether the good of honoring the artist's desires is greater than the good of sharing such resources with everyone. Does the public good of Wikipedia compensate for the fact that it encroaches on the private business of newspapers and encyclopedias? Does the public's need to see election debates override the desires of news networks to "own" the video of these debates?

Estimates suggest that as high as 2/3rds of all copyrighted material is out of circulation and unavailable to the public. A modest proposal: The holders of copyrights have the OBLIGATION to keep their works in circulation in return for the privilege of receiving the copyright. Copyrights could be renewed every 10 years indefinitely -- but mandate that the copyrighted product be re-released for sale on permanent media in some minimum quantity (that would force the copyright holder to spend some money to keep their copyright). In other words, a publisher -- to keep a copyright on book -- would have release say a print run of 10K volumes of that book. I movie studio? -- Print up 10K DVDs of that movie, or lose the copyright after 10 years. Musicians: you're a small band. You want to keep your copyright? Tough, you got spend a few grand and print up your CDs again and put them up for sale. These actions would be registered with the copyright office.

I only hope that one day someone they care deeply about depends on book, music, art, video game, or movie sales to survive and finds that in a world rife with piracy they cannot.

What, exactly, makes you think we aren't artists ourselves or know other artists? I've spent years writing and released the works for free to those interested. I never had the possibility of making money due to copyright restrictions, yet I did have the legal permission to write and release the material, and I did so without monetary incentive.

I have a friend who is a photographer. He and I don't completely agree on copyright, but guess what, he downloads stuff all the time, and is smart enough not to make a business off of the sale of photographs that can just be copied and distributed.

Society is not charged with the task of caring if a particular business model fails. We don't need milkmen, horse and carriage, or pay phones anymore. If people want to make a profit from their art they need to find a business model that works or come up with a damn good reason why society should hold itself back for them.

Neil B,

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Rather, I was addressing the fact that you made a statement that Daryl didn't understand the property aspect of intellectual property. And in that, I (and I suspect Daryl) don't think you are correct that it is property. I's a right. If it helps you think of it as property to understand it, that's up to you. But that doesn't make it property. It's a right. Unlike property, if I sell it, I retain rights over it.

Much of the falacious argument in the "IP wants to be free" crowd is built directly off the "It is *so* property, you're stealing from me" premise. Which is obviously not true, because if I copy it, you've still got yours. This of course is logically true, but bears no relation to the copy rights.

Copyright depends on everyone buying into the agreement, since it's extemely hard to police. Like any deal, if one side feels that they are getting cheated, they will push back. They may call it petty civil disobedience, but it's still copyright infringement. And if you think music "piracy" is rampant, come live in my professional software world.

And I think we're all on the same page here in terms of wanting to find the best balance to reward creators while promoting those useful things for the people.

And no Gandalf, I don't download music for free. I buy CDs, and music off iTunes. I used to tape songs off the radio as a kid, if it makes you feel smug and superior.

Where is the scarcity here, what has real economic value? -Sojourner

Value is not imparted by supply alone. Economics is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, but that's what I expect from pirate sympathizers.

Most professions are like this; architects and programmers get paid to produce something, but rarely are able to retain "control" over the produce of their work. - Sojourner

An architect on commission to design a building is not analogous to a musician creating an album or a writer penning a book, etc.

An architect enters a contract to provide a design to a client. The client ultimately owns the work upon completion, per the terms of the contract.

And, yes, if you copied the design, you would be sued, and rightfully so.

This is not a right, however, it is an agreement of the community to honor their wishes. What does the community get in return? -Sojourner

Funny to hear someone justify piracy by saying IP producers don't have a right to profit from their work. I don't remember reading where we had the right to all the free music we wanted.

To answer your question, every member of the community gets the same guarantee that if they produce a product that people want that they will be compensated for it and have a path to legal retribution against those who choose to steal it.

All this flowery talk of free media is overlooking the glaring fact that if people can't make money on their IP, they won't make it, so there won't be anything to be free.

Does the public good of Wikipedia compensate for the fact that it encroaches on the private business of newspapers and encyclopedias? -Sojourner

Wikipedia is not a digital copy of Encyclopedia Britanica. If it were, you'd potential have a valid point and Wikipedia would be on the losing end of a lawsuit. It makes no difference if Wikipedia hurts or helps encyclopedia sales. The authors of Wikipedia have chosen to forgo compensation for their work.

It's one thing if the owner chooses to make it free; by all means copy it until your hard drive is bursting at the seams. It's quite another if the owner expects compensation and you do not provide it. No amount of your pirate mumbo jumbo puts food on their plate, and last I checked, you can't copy a sandwich.

OK royalblue_tom, I'd still rather parse it my way, but I appreciate your views better now. Nevertheless, I still don't think you adequately appreciate the right to control a "pattern" or etc., still thinking in IMHO crusty, obsolute requirements about scarcity etc. that apply to "things". Well IP isn't a thing, maybe not even "property" (semantic requirements are not what matters most anyway). So what, IP is still arguably something people have rights to act like they own (if you prefer that phrasing) and not just an arrangement for the greatest good. BTW I'm curious what you think of Kelo, if you don't mind.

Beowulf888, we already have rules requiring making use of a patent, but there are likely loopholes etc. We need to at least make IP work for our benefit and demand quid pro quo from those wanting to excercise I"P" rights etc.

What, exactly, makes you think we aren't artists ourselves or know other artists? -Sojourner

I didn't say you weren't an artist. In fact, I can plainly see you're a bullshit artist.

Society is not charged with the task of caring if a particular business model fails. -Sojourner

Individuals are not charged with deciding when a business model has failed to justify their juvenille desire to steal what they aren't entitled to.

If people want to make a profit from their art they need to find a business model that works or come up with a damn good reason why society should hold itself back for them. -Sojourner

The business model isn't what's failed; it's the ethics of scum like you that have failed.

You want something, pay for it.

If you choose to release something for free because you don't want or can't profit from it (more likely), that's your personal choice, but you don't have the right to force that personal choice on everyone else. People who choose to sell their IP are entitled to that sale should you chose to consume said IP. Period.

Fucking pirate.

Back in the late 1800s, the Wagner family was incensed when US opera houses stole Wagner operas without paying for the right to perform them.

The US just said that it wasn't a signatory to copyright agreements, so there.

:-)

royalblue_tom writes: Much of the falacious argument in the "IP wants to be free" crowd is built directly off the "It is *so* property, you're stealing from me" premise. Which is obviously not true, because if I copy it, you've still got yours. This of course is logically true, but bears no relation to the copy rights.

I think that's right. The public service messages at the beginning of many DVDs equating illegal copying with stealing a car are counterproductive: They are bullshit, and everyone can see that they are bullshit. Perhaps an honest argument would persuade people more? The honest argument is that without intellectual property protections, the movies and music that you enjoy would no longer be produced (only shitty amateur stuff like the bad acts on American Idol).

Maybe that's the pitch: Show a few seconds of a really bad American Idol audition, and then have a voice-over saying: Unless you want all your musical to sound like this, don't copy music without paying for it.

Sojourner: A lot of that is pretty subjective and somewhat contradictory.

You say a piece of art has no value if it can be reproduced digitally. That depends on how you define value. If someone wants to go to the trouble of obtaining a reproduction of some artwork, then it clearly has some kind of value for that person. And if they value it enough to obtain it, why not give compensation to the artist who produced it in the first place? That serve as an incentive to produce art, not just for that one artist but for everybody.

And yes, architects and programmers employed by someone else don't "retain control" over their own work, but that someone who employs them does. The person/company who actually builds the building or sells the software has control, so the copyright is still owned by someone. Which means that digital copies should arguably be paid for, just as in the above case of the artist.

As for Wikipedia and news networks, you'd have to start talking about plagiarizing and citing sources before you'd be getting into real copyright issues. Merely having another source of information available (Wikipedia vs. encyclopedias; competing news networks; etc.) isn't the same thing and doesn't encroach on the private business of other companies.

But if someone else were to (let's say) publicize on YouTube ABC's broadcast of their 2008 presidential debate, or plagiarize large tracts of Encyclopedia Britannica in a Wikipedia article, then I would agree that those companies would have a reason to object. It costs them money to produce those things, after all, so why shouldn't they retain copyright control over it?

I think we agree that this is not a black-and-white issue. You do raise very important points about community agreement, and about how long a copyright can exist. But to argue that work has no inherent value if it can be reproduced digitally seems to depend on a rather unrealistic idea of what "value" means.

An architect enters a contract to provide a design to a client. The client ultimately owns the work upon completion, per the terms of the contract-doubtful

That was my point: they are paid to create something, but maintain no control over it after and probably will not make further money on that design. That is the business model they have developed, where they make a profit from the act of creation, not the creation itself.

Funny to hear someone justify piracy by saying IP producers don't have a right to profit from their work. I don't remember reading where we had the right to all the free music we wanted.-doubtful

No one has a "right" to profit from their work. Would you like a list of all the professions that have gone by the wayside as people no longer found use for them? Or how about all the artists who never make it big enough to support themselves? Or the businesses that might offer a great product, but simply don't have a good model for making a profit? The market determines whether you can profit from your work, and the market has shifted away from pay-per-copy.

To answer your question, every member of the community gets the same guarantee that if they produce a product that people want that they will be compensated for it and have a path to legal retribution against those who choose to steal it.-doubtful

I think you'll find most people aren't interested in these terms, as most people are not artists. Furthermore, those are not the terms put forth in the Constitution. The goal is to promote the arts and sciences, not promote an artist's control or an artist's profits.

All this flowery talk of free media is overlooking the glaring fact that if people can't make money on their IP, they won't make it, so there won't be anything to be free.-doubtful

And there is the 100 point question. Is that true? Clearly not absolutely, as many, many people produce things for free already that competes with the private sector (such as the open-source software community). So your statement is clearly false, but the real issue is whether the produce of the society with strict IP is worse than the produce of a society with loose IP. That is an complicated question.

It's one thing if the owner chooses to make it free; by all means copy it until your hard drive is bursting at the seams. It's quite another if the owner expects compensation and you do not provide it. No amount of your pirate mumbo jumbo puts food on their plate, and last I checked, you can't copy a sandwich.

You are absolutely right. But you have to explain why I should care about the artist's ability to get compensation. There are many, many people who receive no compensation for their work, and who take up different jobs to support themselves. How can you justify a complex legal system to support one very small subset of people arbitrarily?

As a human being, I want everyone to be able to eat. That's why we have welfare and food stamps. Beyond that, it doesn't concern me one bit whether an artist gets compensation. The only thing that concerns me is if society is benefiting from the production and distribution of art. So you have to convince me that the total quality and quantity of work is better for society under the old system than in the new system.

doubtful writes: The business model isn't what's failed; it's the ethics of scum like you that have failed.

If your business model depends on people behaving in a way that is very different from how they actually behave, then your business model has failed. That's the root problem of almost all failed business models.

Doubtful is correct it's a fallacy to conflate competing offerings (like Wikipedia) which themselves follow a free model, with whether you have a right to take from something that doesn't follow that model. That Wi'pe provides free competition is a separate issue. And BTW, Wikipedia has rules about respecting ©, ®, and TM issues as they should. IAC, Wikipedia sure is an amazing resource, to think all that stuff came from people (including me) that just do it for the love of informing (or slanting, heh. Say - where can I find a critique site that says where Wikipedia articles made mistakes? tx.)

Heh, it's weird for me to get a kick out of someone vigourously defending property rights, but I do this time - and the intellectual content of doubtful's arguments is correct IMHO. Putting aside motives etc, I think the iprop deniers see the world in overly "concrete" terms. A more sophisticated view thinks of the world in terms of "information" and that "patterns" are as real, or more so, than stodgy conventional objects. They are also properly "real" to be treated as property. Just look at quantum computing, holographic universe, Wolfram's projects, information science, etc. If I get some flack for semi-digressing here, so be it.

You say a piece of art has no value if it can be reproduced digitally. That depends on how you define value. If someone wants to go to the trouble of obtaining a reproduction of some artwork, then it clearly has some kind of value for that person. And if they value it enough to obtain it, why not give compensation to the artist who produced it in the first place? That serve as an incentive to produce art, not just for that one artist but for everybody.-Shade Tail

I agree, there is value of some sort. However, there are many things in life we place value that we do not give monetary value. Downloading and enjoying something is not automatically giving it monetary value (though I agree the two often are related) because it is freely available. I don't think anyone argues that the number of people who place enough value in something to download is significantly smaller than the number of people who would place enough value to pay for something if that was the only way to get it.

As for why not pay for something, there are many possible reasons for that. The viewer may not have money. The viewer may not believe the artist will receive the money (instead going to some publisher). The viewer may not be legally entitled to view something because of region codes, marketing delays, and other corporate stunts. The viewer may already own the work in another medium or have an original copy that they purchased. Finally, the viewer wanted to try the art, but didn't find it worth supporting.

Ideally there should be many incentives to produce art and research and goods for society. The most effective means of doing that is a more important question than whether the current system should remain.

But if someone else were to (let's say) publicize on YouTube ABC's broadcast of their 2008 presidential debate, or plagiarize large tracts of Encyclopedia Britannica in a Wikipedia article, then I would agree that those companies would have a reason to object. It costs them money to produce those things, after all, so why shouldn't they retain copyright control over it?-Shade Tail

I do not argue that they have reason to complain. This situation has already played out; in the last election the news outlets tried to reserve their rights, there was a public backlash, and they eventually started providing it for free use. Now this happened all within the law and the IP owner's choice, but only as a matter of public relations; the news outlets would've loved to maintain absolute control over the debates. But the public decided there was far greater good in those debates being released to them for free, and what produces the greater good is what matters.

Sojourner writes, misleadingly IMHO:
So your [doubtful's] statement is clearly false, but the real issue is whether the produce of the society with strict IP is worse than the produce of a society with loose IP. That is an complicated question., similar to So you have to convince me that the total quality and quantity of work is better for society under the old system than in the new system.

Excuse me! First, saying "the real issue" is a fallacious framing that only one thing can matter (or matter enough to matter ...) Aside from the principle, it's suspect anyway as a sheer pragmatist indulgence in how much people get. What about the sense of creation that an artist has, their sense of a right to that "conceptual entity" however debatable that *and almost any other claimed right* may be? You don't think that rights matter? Yeah it's debatable, so is your right not to have your "real stuff" taken away.

I suspect you think the wretched Kelo decision was OK too, since the taking of homes for building businesses that pay higher taxes, brings in more revenue. No respect there for human rights and dignity.

And, you and cohorts keep dodging the issue of why constructs can't have weight in rights ethics and law like "things" do. You thing-heads think concretely, like small children.

BTW, a lot of piracists don't appreciate that "value" is best ultimately defined as, what would you pay for something if you did have to pay for it, not whether you do given X circumstances.

That was my point: they are paid to create something, but maintain no control over it after and probably will not make further money on that design. -Sojourner

You have got to be making a willful effort at being this absolutely obtuse.

Not only did I say it in the comment you're quoting from, but Shade Tail also mentioned it: THE CONTRACTING PARTY OWNS THE IP.

If you copied an architect's work they wouldn't sue you, but you can bet your ass the owner of the building who commissioned the architect would. Just because the artist doesn't own the IP doesn't mean that someone doesn't own it and have a legitimate claim.

No one has a "right" to profit from their work. Would you like a list of all the professions that have gone by the wayside as people no longer found use for them? -Sojourner

That's completely nonsequitor. Everyone has a right to profit from their work as long as there is a demand for it. The lack of demand for defunct jobs is inconsequential. It may be that no one delvers milk anymore (an example you mentioned earlier, that is actually demonstrably false [see Oberweis for an example]), but if someone does deliver milk, then they can expect fair compensation for it.

Being a musician or game designer or whatever is not analogous to a defunct, undemanded job. Just the opposite, since the demand for their product is what drives people to steal it.

How in the hell did you get it in your mind that people don't have the right to profit from their work? Stupid pirate logic.

I think you'll find most people aren't interested in these terms, as most people are not artists. -Sojourner

What most people would accept is irrelevant. Just look at California where mob rule ballot box democracy has turned the state into a free for all entitlement landslide where desires have outstripped willingness to pay for things. Sure, I'll bet your right. People would be happy to legally copy any music, movies, books, and video games they wanted without being legally bound to pay for it. But that doesn't make it ethical, moral, or legal, and more importantly right.

But kudos for you for discovering that people are greedy.

If your business model depends on people behaving in a way that is very different from how they actually behave, then your business model has failed. That's the root problem of almost all failed business models. -Daryl McCullough

So because people are greedy and will steal things they aren't entitled to the business model has failed? Or has the legal system allowed greed to flourish by lagging behind technologically and not prosecuting pirates to the fullest extent of the law?

Again, it's the ethics of thieves that have failed us, and I'll be damned if I'm willing to let a group of criminals determine what is or isn't the proper way to run this country.

I certainly think there is room for reforming copyright and patent laws as they are often abused, but there cannot be any compromise when one party starts from the absolutely disingenuous position that digitally copyable work has no value and that people do not have the right to sell their IP for profit.

If you're not willing to admit those basic facts and understand that, if an originator chooses to sell IP and you take it without paying for it, that is stealing, then we'll never get anywhere because essentially all your doing is justifying your juvenile desires to possess things without the real world impact of paying for them.

Excuse me! First, saying "the real issue" is a fallacious framing that only one thing can matter (or matter enough to matter ...)-Neil B

You're right, I was trying to frame what I think the real issue of debate should be. Of course, people are free to disagree with that framing.

What about the sense of creation that an artist has, their sense of a right to that "conceptual entity" however debatable that *and almost any other claimed right* may be? You don't think that rights matter? Yeah it's debatable, so is your right not to have your "real stuff" taken away.-Neil B

I'm not sure I'm reading you clearly, but I did not mean to imply that rights are irrelevant, or that there is not value in an artist's satisfaction in their work on in being able to control its distribution.

I suspect you think the wretched Kelo decision was OK too, since the taking of homes for building businesses that pay higher taxes, brings in more revenue. No respect there for human rights and dignity.-Neil B

Actually, I did not approve of that decision, though I'm hardly well-versed on the case. You're deriving my opinions to the extreme case, but I think you would agree that there are situations where the community has the justification to take private property for its own good? My position is honoring certain human rights and dignity is the best means for society to achieve the greater good for itself.

And, you and cohorts keep dodging the issue of why constructs can't have weight in rights ethics and law like "things" do. You thing-heads think concretely, like small children.-Neil B

Many IP-opponents do get into fights about whether ideas can be owned, and that is important in its own right. However, in terms of IP I tried to take the economic perspective that if something were for all intents and purposes without scarcity and costless to distribute (like air), it should not cost money.

If you copied an architect's work they wouldn't sue you, but you can bet your ass the owner of the building who commissioned the architect would. Just because the artist doesn't own the IP doesn't mean that someone doesn't own it and have a legitimate claim.-doubtful

I'm not arguing that the IP isn't owned by someone, my only point was the creator of the works makes a living off of the creation, not the existence, of the work. Since we are discussing providing incentives for the creator, that, IMO, is what matters. Now, if you were to argue no one would pay the creator to produce something without IP laws in place, that's an argument to be made.

Being a musician or game designer or whatever is not analogous to a defunct, undemanded job. Just the opposite, since the demand for their product is what drives people to steal it.-doubtful

And I am saying that the demand is for the CREATION of the works, not the COPYING of the works.

How in the hell did you get it in your mind that people don't have the right to profit from their work? Stupid pirate logic.-doubtful

So then what of the billions upon billions of human rights violations for all the people who do not manage to make money from their work? Just because you try hard and produce something does not mean you have a right to get paid. Otherwise the government would be paying artists for every production.

But that doesn't make it ethical, moral, or legal, and more importantly right.-doubtful

Well I think we put a great deal of emphasis on democracy, so what the people want does matter. But I hardly have absolute faith in the masses. And for that matter, I agree with your point, it doesn't make it "ethical, moral, or legal". What does, though? What is the basis for your philosophy? The basis for mine is creating the greater good, which I believe is achieved more through looser IP.

I certainly think there is room for reforming copyright and patent laws as they are often abused, but there cannot be any compromise when one party starts from the absolutely disingenuous position that digitally copyable work has no value and that people do not have the right to sell their IP for profit.

If you're not willing to admit those basic facts and understand that, if an originator chooses to sell IP and you take it without paying for it, that is stealing, then we'll never get anywhere because essentially all your doing is justifying your juvenile desires to possess things without the real world impact of paying for them.-doubtful

Picture, if you will, a utopia where all food, devices, art, and knowledge once created could be distributed to everyone for free. All of humanity would enjoy the fruit of one person's labor, and everyone would be richer for it. Would we invent some system to handicap this distribution, or would we charge the government with protecting it and ensuring everyone had the chance to benefit?

Its a pipe dream, but to some extent the Internet has made this possible for digital works. I believe the good accomplished by sharing this wonderful bounty with the world outweighs whatever claim an individual has to it. Perhaps you hold the individual above society, you view ethics as how to best protect a single person. A valid position, but not mine.

Now, if your argument is then that people will stop producing works of art in this utopia I've described, then I think we should return to the question of the best means to promote the arts and sciences, and not about artist's rights to make a profit.

Sojourner, you can pick what you want to be the most important issue but it's still risky to presume it's all that matters. Clearly individual rights don't matter much to you as a matter of empathy, since you narcissistically write: "...it doesn't concern me one bit [beyond sheer survival] whether an artist gets compensation." You likely aren't an artist, since you'd likely say "we artists" - hence I suspect (and that isn't presumptuous assuming) that you couldn't produce art worth crap yourself. Hence you likely disdain the skill and work that goes into it, from those who can create, and dismiss their concerns with a wave of a thieving paw. (Heh, I don't literally despise you for disagreeing - I do indulge floridness.)

Your logical arguments aren't very good either. It is absurd to say that something doesn't have value if you can "get it" for free. If so, I can steal "things" from you at no financial cost to m, and then they don't have "value" (nor are rightfully yours.)

And even if I can get more information without destroying the original, the value is - as I said - best defined as what you would pay to get it if you had to. You wouldn't be complaining about having to pay for something like IP, if you didn't want it bad enough in the first place! It doesn't matter whether something is costless to distribute, what matters is that if someone owns it they decide (with broad latitude) what to charge for it. Air should be free primarily because:
1. How can anyone show they were responsible for creating it or even the idea of it?
2. It is so vital, it counts as a "strategic" or vital resource justifying collective access even if (1.) did apply - in like vein to the "takings" clause.

One thing I wonder, if rights are so debatable then can you be sure I don't have a right to capture sensitive personal information from your computer? Publish it? Why not, it isn't "stuff" and you still have it, right? You can argue against that, rightly IMHO, but then you're getting into our briarpatch too.

In any case, the real issue is rights and not business models, anyone's narcissistic sense of entitlement and disdain for the circumstances of others, etc. It is human rights. And yeah people can argue about IP rights, they can and do argue about other rights too like abortion, real property, contracts, etc. - is all that just a big mush then, to toss into a drawer for an accounting exercise?

BTW are you a libertarian who would OTOH energetically defend "real" property rights? If so that's a pitiful irony.

doubtful writes: So because people are greedy and will steal things they aren't entitled to the business model has failed?

If your business model depends on people not being greedy, and not stealing, then yes.

Kelo is a classic example of where eminent domain goes wrong. Like any situation of this sort, it comes back to a conversation of whether someone is entitled to exploit their "got there first" position to either extract the absolute maximum or outright block something for other reasons (such as "artistic control" in copyright cases).

And even if society agrees that the public good is best served by a particular eminent domain action, what is fair compensation for those affected? The third amendment covers this sort of issue.

Eminent domain is based on the foundation that even property ownership is not an absolute right, but part of the social compact with everyone else. That's why we have other agreements such as rights of public/private access. Otherwise, I could buy all the land (above below etc) around yours, refuse all leave to cross my property, and starve you to death (socially unacceptable).

We owe the primacy of the US throughout the 20th century to patents and inventors like Thomas Edison. Patents are the only bulwark against the hordes of cheap labor worldwide. Globalization, with massive offshoring and immigration into the US to bring US wages to a competitive range of about $5000/year, is just getting underway.

You can have innovation and arts without IP incentives just as you can have production and markets without the profit motive, as the Soviet Union demonstrated, but...

One very successful blogger was all anti-Riaa, then squealed like a pig when someone figured out how to make money by pirating his blog on twitter. Look around this site and you'll find the hypocrite's mark of the devil:

"This site and all contents within are Copyright � 1969-2009 Washington Monthly
Editorial offices: 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20036"

Hey, how about that!

If your business model depends on people not being greedy, and not stealing, then yes. -Daryl McCullough

All business models depend on people not stealing. Nothing but willful ignorance form the piracy cheerleaders.

I would say that the security industry's business model relies on the fact that people steal. More honest debate, and less ad hominems and hyperbole please.

So then what of the billions upon billions of human rights violations for all the people who do not manage to make money from their work? Just because you try hard and produce something does not mean you have a right to get paid. -Sojourner

Clearly, anyone being intellectually honest in this debate can see the difference between basic human rights and the right to be compensated for your work. And just because you have the right to be compensated for your work doesn't mean you are guaranteed compensation. For that, there has to be demand.

I still don't understand where the root of this entitlement comes from. You don't feel that people have the right to profit from their work, but you feel you have the right to consume what they produce without paying for it? Your parents failed.

Earlier, you questioned the assumption that making IP free would result in diminishing quality and quantity. I'd like to see you try to explain how movies will be made and recordings will be mastered without trained professionals getting paid to do so. How will an average person get a patent to protect their idea so they can make a living from it if huge corporations can copy their ideas without retribution?

What is the basis for your philosophy? The basis for mine is creating the greater good, which I believe is achieved more through looser IP. -Sojourner

How is it good for society when talented individuals don't have the time to perfect their art or craft because they won't be compensated for it and have to do other jobs? My philosophy is based on the simple nothing that people should be compensated for their work; that gives them the ability in turn to compensate someone else for their work. If a product is for sale and not made available freely to me, I must either buy it or not consume it.

Well I think we put a great deal of emphasis on democracy, so what the people want does matter. -Sojourner

Please tell me you know the difference between representation and mob rule? No? I guess I'm not surprised.

Picture, if you will, a utopia where all food, devices, art, and knowledge once created could be distributed to everyone for free. -Sojourner

Oh please. For those of us who actually live in the real world and don't need to justify our criminal activities in order to sleep at night, it's plain to see that 'free information' is a silly notion.

Royalblue_tom, I presume your distaste of Kelo is to defend the moderate position that some degree of IP control is appropriate, versus either say owning it forever or no protections. Good. Note that ED going wrong was the government paying *insufficient* respect for property rights.

Neil - very much so. For an interesting view of ED, have a look at the works of Robert Moses (roads and projects in NYC).

Clearly, anyone being intellectually honest in this debate can see the difference between basic human rights and the right to be compensated for your work. And just because you have the right to be compensated for your work doesn't mean you are guaranteed compensation. For that, there has to be demand.-doubtful

You are the one using the term "right" to discuss compensation. Obviously, I do not believe one has a right to be paid as one has a right to free speech, hence my argument against it. I believe you are now making the distinction between "right" and how things "should be".

How should things be? What is the bloody goal? Is it to ensure artists can support themselves by creating art? Is it to spur and spread the arts and sciences? These are not the same thing.

I still don't understand where the root of this entitlement comes from. You don't feel that people have the right to profit from their work, but you feel you have the right to consume what they produce without paying for it?-doubtful

This question strikes to the heart of our differences. Why am I entitled to it? Because I, each person, and society is made better by having access to it. The world is made richer by making available all knowledge and art and tools. I am a better programmer and writer because of the software I use, a better citizen because of what I can learn and discuss for free. If I did not have these available to me, if they cost more than I could pay, there would be nothing virtuous about this. There is no morality in whether we are rich or poor; why then should we be at a disadvantage to those with more money? The only reasons one would not be entitled to it is if there was something that made our having it infeasible, such as the scarcity which exists in the physical world, or there were compensating negative consequences, such as all science and art truly ceasing to be produced.

Earlier, you questioned the assumption that making IP free would result in diminishing quality and quantity. I'd like to see you try to explain how movies will be made and recordings will be mastered without trained professionals getting paid to do so. How will an average person get a patent to protect their idea so they can make a living from it if huge corporations can copy their ideas without retribution?-doubtful

Before I answer your question, I just want to say that if we agree that promoting the arts and sciences is the objective, then that's the big hurdle. I am not opposed to all IP, though my arguments may have made it seem otherwise. I think the purpose of IP has been perverted to be about businesses making money and having control, not actually promoting the arts and sciences for the community. Hence my attempts to argue against looking at it that way.

Anyways, to your point. First, I do not believe that the best free works will rival the best paid works. I believe it would be best for a professional industry to exist if a means can be found to support them without killing the Internet. Services such as Hulu, collector's edition DVDs, live performances, etc. may make this possible, but I'm not sure. (And here I will make note that I am opposed to most commercial piracy, so no selling merchandise for other people's stuff).

However, I also believe that technology has made it possible for free enterprises to rival a lot of the art from previous decades and the mediocre stuff of today. Musicians can create and record a lot of music themselves, and we're getting to the point where decent movies can be made with consumer equipment. It may not match the visual standards that big media has set for itself, but the quantity and occasional quality will fill the void and grow bigger and better over time.

I think once we accept that the goal is not to make artists profitable but to promote art, we can have create a more reasonable compromise between the creator and society. Shorter terms for copyright and patents, an end to DRM, more emphasis on fair use, less attacks on noncommercial distribution and derivative works, and perhaps less power in a few big corporations.

Please tell me you know the difference between representation and mob rule? No? I guess I'm not surprised.-doubtful

Touche. In any case, I made clear I don't have much faith in the masses.

Oh please. For those of us who actually live in the real world and don't need to justify our criminal activities in order to sleep at night, it's plain to see that 'free information' is a silly notion.-doubtful

And yet, the Internet makes free digital resources not only possible, but simple and commonplace. Scarcity as we are use to thinking of it does not exist (of course there are still some things which are scarce). The Internet is more communist now than reality will ever be.

I would say that the security industry's business model relies on the fact that people steal. More honest debate, and less ad hominems and hyperbole please. -royalblue_tom

Pardon my lack of clarity. All business models depend on people not stealing their particular product or service, or by theft impeding their ability to provide such product or service.

To continue your absurd analogy, if all the police cars were stolen from a local station, it would impede the police from preforming their duties. Does that mean their business model is flawed?

Additionally, what a flippant remark to make preceding a call for more honest debate.

I believe you are now making the distinction between "right" and how things "should be". -Sojourner

Tell a descendant of a slave that you don't feel we have a right to be compensated for our work. Everyone has a right to be compensated for their work, if they wish. It's not the same as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but neither is the right to privacy, which I believe we also have.

There is no morality in whether we are rich or poor; why then should we be at a disadvantage to those with more money? -Sojourner

What, pray tell, do you think will happen when there are no protections in place for the little guy with an idea? The rich will always have an advantage; copyright laws and patent laws exist expressly to protect the little guy from abuse by those with more power and money. (Again, I'm not arguing that they are successful in that endeavor and have never been misused, but they must exist.)

Musicians can create and record a lot of music themselves...

That's hooey. The average home musician has no concept of mastering an album, nor should they reasonably expect to. They're likely focused on writing music. Studio engineers learn their craft through years of schooling and practice. It's as much an art as the musician playing an instrument. I care too much about my ears to let them be ravaged by digital four track garage recordings that are offensive to the soul, but I play most of my music from an analog source, so maybe I'm just old fashioned.

...and we're getting to the point where decent movies can be made with consumer equipment.

Oh brother.

You do realize that many people making amateur music and movies are doing so with the expectation that if they are good enough, they could one day earn a living through their craft?

And, perhaps the most damning point you're overlooking, is that nothing is stopping Garage Band and Home Movie from using said equipment and releasing their product for free right now. The question at hand is, "Should you be allowed to consume media without paying for it when the originator expects you to pay for it?" And the answer is and always will be, "No."

There's gobs of free media out there for you to consume, but there is no valid reason why all media should be free, especially is the argument is based on the fact that it's replicable and therefore holds no value.

...such as the scarcity which exists in the physical world... -Sojourner

I'm belaboring the point, but you're still missing it: supply is not the only variable that imparts value, and continuing to believe it so belies a simplistic misunderstanding of basic economics.

And yet, the Internet makes free digital resources not only possible, but simple and commonplace. -Sojourner

Simple and commonplace are not good stand-ins for ethical and legal. Just because something is easy doesn't make it right. Like taking candy from a baby.

My point about the security industry was facetious, doubtful. If you gave Sojourner a little bit more benefit of the doubt when reading his responses, this conversation might be more beneficial. He's certainly not advocating that IP should be given away for free, rather that the artist is being compensated for the work of the creation work (not the copying), and that the current model has issues because it uses the copying part to get hold of the payment.

The fact that you took my remark as a serious debate point shows that you (and Sojourner too in response to you) should take a deep breath, and scale it back a little. Otherwise, this (relatively reasonable IP) discussion will only end up being a chorus of F-you all around.

My point about the security industry was facetious, doubtful. -royalblue_tom

Meh, in my defense the internet is not an adequate vessel for facetiousness.

If you gave Sojourner a little bit more benefit of the doubt...He's certainly not advocating that IP should be given away for free -royalblue_tom

Sojourner has actually espoused multiple positions, as pirates often do when backed into a corner.

...rather that the artist is being compensated for the work of the creation work (not the copying)... -royalblue_tom

Let's explore how resoundingly stupid that is. A movie studio makes a movie and puts it on a DVD. Hundreds of people are involved in the project. To recoup the costs and pay wages, they decide to sell copies of that DVD. According to your interpretation of one of Sojourner's many positions, that would be wrong, and everyone with internet access should be legally allowed to plunder said movie.

Well, who in the hell paid the studio to create the movie? Not all IP is commissioned, so it can't be paid for at the time of production.

If the copies are free, the studio goes bankrupt.

Christ, I can't believe I just had to explain that to adults. This whole thread is like a giant facepalm for logic.

As for the conversation being useful, well, that's up to the unethical, illegal, logic impaired pirates who are hellbent on justifying their desire to partake in that to which they are not entitled.

Besides an interest in politics, I'm an avid gamer, and I've seen too many game studios close their doors because of piracy to listen to tomfoolery and back asswards nonlogic about how digital copying has changed the media industry all because greedy motherfuckers say so.

You may call it ad hominem and unproductive, I don't honestly care, but I've had enough arguments with game pirates to learn your never going to change their ways. They've internally justified their criminal behavior and turned it into a bullshit ideology to make themselves feel better about being leeches sucking dry the teat of society and on top of it all they have the laughable temerity to claim that not paying for things will actually be good for society.

I guess we're all done then. No one here is actually espousing the "music *should* be given away for free position" but you'd hardly know that from your posts.

F-you all round it is, then.

Could have been an interesting conversation, but apparently only without you doubtful. Can't believe I had to explain *this* to an adult.

"We've been trolled, we've all lost, have a nice day."