"Hopefully you never have a really good idea or make a product that other people can just copy, then perhaps you might have a different opinion."
If you think creating worthwhile content would affect viewpoints on IP you've clearly never checked up on the free software/free culture(anti-ip) movements. Do you honestly believe they could have gotten where they are today without at least reasonably talented people backing them?
"Stealing is stealing whether its electronically or physically"
True, but copying is not stealing. With theft, the owner no longer has the item in question. Copying creates a new item based off the existing one.
That their violations of the right to privacy didn't actually help them hold on to their mini monopolies.
They stole apple's and and defaced it.
Off with their heads!
"This is just so typical of the freetards."
You'd think people would have learned by now that insulting others is not the best way to argue. Have fun being ignored.
You can put me down under "okay with copyright as long as the terms aren't absurdly long" category.
Or the free software movement. There's a whole league of content that would still be created regardless of whether artificial scarcity of digital works can be enforced or not.
You've never heard of collector's items? Official merchandise will always have more value than a unofficial reproduction.
This is especially true in the fashion industry. You'll find plenty of people who prefer the more expensive originals than the off brand knock-offs.(even when the materials are of the same quality)
So congratulations on making your images look just a little bit worse without actually benefiting from it.
"The labels could focus more on PROMOTING music and less on DISTRIBUTING it."
Again, internet/radio/word of mouth/advertising companies take care of that. Actual record labels would be unnecessary.
It's why they attack file sharing with such vitriol.
"Looks like more and more musicians are realizing that fighting file sharing doesn't make sense, but learning to embrace it has tremendous benefits. Maybe, one of these days, the record labels will figure this out as well."
Having a label to distribute your music would be pointless when it's already legal to share music over the internet. So how does a label benefit from this when they're no longer relevant?
When you can't come up with an effective argument, try to brush the opponent off by crying 'socialist'.
Is that good and bad are relative to the individual. Be it in art or morals or food.
For example, I hate twilight, but to someone else it might be the best thing ever. So statements on the ratio of good-to-bad are meaningless.
"So what if we enter a depression? Westerners will start to choose and pay $0. Take the free music, but NOT go to the concert. Not buy loooooots of t-shirts. Not buy the signed book.
How does CwF + RtB hold up in an era of low or no disposable income?"
Same as any other entertainment business model would do in a depression. Very, very poorly.
"That's a poor definition, if the owner loses absolutely nothing then there shouldn't be a problem at all."
I should have phrased this better. I meant that theft should not be defined in terms where the owner loses nothing.
"the always given in theft is a lack of owner's permission."
That's a poor definition, if the owner loses absolutely nothing then there shouldn't be a problem at all.
"Again, are you and Mike really trying to say that theft ONLY involves physical goods?"
No. certain monetary assets aren't physical, but you can still use up those assets. Therefor they can be stolen if someone poses as you.
But 'something is taken and the original owner no longer has it' isn't the standard we're using. In explaining the difference between copying and theft it is always implied that there is a lack of permission.
So it's 'something is taken without consent of the original owner and the owner no longer has it'.
"According to a Justice of the Supreme Court, unlawful infringement is theft."
Quote please? I have posted two quotes that say that copyright is for advancement of the public good, meaning the law is of a regulatory nature as opposed to a property law.(Thus infringement != theft)
"That is sort of what file sharing is like, if enough people do it, everyone thinks it is fine - but it isn't."
Everyone thinks their beliefs are the be all end all of morality - but they aren't. This is a big problem on techdirt as both sides think "my view are right and anyone who disagrees must be evil"
Re: Re: Re: Attacks on File Sharing
"You are wrong and have made my point precisely about morals being warped by 'illegal filesharing'."
Actually, it'd be more correct to say copyright warped morality. It is only in the last few hundred years that we have felt we have the right to restrict coping.