They show others the way. You just have to ease up on the righteous indignation long enough to realize you need to adapt. --Clipped from Jedidiah's post.
Pirates are showing these people who bear the burden of development cost exactly what the market wants and the ways to get things out into the market, they developed these technologies as open markets. (That's that phrase that means that the pirates actually bore the development costs)
This actually reminds me of a poster I saw back in highschool. "When one door closes another opens... But often we look so long so regretfully upon the closed door that we fail to see the one that has opened for us."
The problem with this thinking is both sides of the argument work in terms of black and white. Each case of the issue is an individual case, we can spin hypothetical situations all day and night long.
There may be a case where piracy does indeed harm an individual company, but there are also cases where it helps it. The point is, none of us here can really say yes or no for all cases.
Though I am not a lawyer, it would seem that the intent of the law is that, everyone can have access to anything, with ultimately it being the CREATOR's burden to deal with the repercussions of of other people's actions. It basically comes down to if a creator creates something and distributes it, if others come along see it and share it with others, they injure him in the sense that they have violated his right of control over copying something, but it is HIS responsibility to stop the people who are violating this right not anyone else's (hint this is why its civil not criminal law, the person who holds the copyright has to prove injury, and not even beyond a reasonable doubt).
Also interestingly enough I do think that it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as they claim, I mean, I constantly see the mantra of "Do not consume media that you didn't pay for" and wonder to myself if those people saying that realize what they're saying is: "Pay me, or ignore me." I am not a creator of material that I've attempted to sell but will also add that, I have always got the impression that most people who are actually interested in making art, or generally creating things are the kind of people that obscurity is the worst kind of hell for them. Maybe that's why we only see the inflammatory style AC's spouting that and not cool/kick-ass seeming folks (I'ma name drop Suja here) that make stuff spewing that.
The +1 makes sense over the like/dislike feature (which isn't really relevant to any other current services).
Just because Facebook doesn't encourage people to downrate people's posts... Doen't mean a thumbs up/down button system is irrelevant. Personally I hate only being able to like things because Id like to tell face book I dislike things.. So that things I don't like wont be shoved in my face anymore.
I would imagine that's probably where a large portion of the disdain for this idea comes from.
I sure can, I just suggested it.
"infringement" or "infringement of rights"
Copyright implies that one has quite literally the right to copy something, when someone else creates a copy they are infringing upon the person who has the copyrights for the item in question.
There are no similarities in those things other than joining a wifi network without authorization or joining a cable network without authorization sound very similar to going onto someone's land without authorization. But the only real similarity between infringing on copyright would be that you're doing it without authorization, so I suppose if one wants to stretch really really really hard, we could say anything that one does without authorization is...unauthorized...
But no I do not think that infringing upon a copyright is theft of any kind. Its more akin to counterfeiting, even in its consequences, after all every dollar printed or every song given out, makes every other one of these things slightly less valuable, but that is still not theft no matter how one tries to spin it.
Ill add in, what about other things that are valuable due to an imposed scarcity, like diamonds, what if I suddenly find a new huge source of diamonds that aren't controlled by the diamond cartels and flood the market with these diamonds am I wrong then? Lots of various ways one can make this argument and bend it one way or another I suppose.
So you're of the mindset then that if we duplicate *ANYTHING* it's wrong and should have legal repercussions?
And you're right I did choose gold over money for a simple reason, I am fully aware of the legal status of producing counterfeit money. However my point was more that if one can suddenly produce more of *something* that is valuable and begins to do that, is that action necessarily wrong?
Let's do this the right way, say I discover a way to duplicate bars of gold. Now I go about on my merry way touching people's gold items and duplicating them. Is it amoral for me to make everyone everywhere's gold less valuable by duplicating it more and more? Is it wrong to then duplicate this gold more and more to give out to everyone around me that asks?
Quite an interesting thought experiment for the copying question.
So if everyone who didn't pay for a that you created chose instead to completely ignore your media's existence and went to someone else who gave things away for free, you'd really be fine with that and not be crying about these lost sales?
Would you also be fine with the fact that all the people who could have interacted with your were also now no longer talking about it?
Quite the interesting prospect "copyright infringement is hurting our business, because we cant make money off what we're making. But you should just not acknowledge what we make exists if you wont PAY PAY PAY!" Sounds like a good plan.
Infringement: a breach or infraction, as of a law, right, or obligation; violation; transgression.
Copyright: the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.
I believe when we combine these two words through a magical function of language that is called a phrase.
(a sequence of two or more words arranged in a grammatical construction and acting as a unit in a sentence.)
We find ourselves with "copyright infringement" which certainly sounds like what happens when one duplicates something which is protected by copyright. Doesn't sound like stealing to me!