both of your examples are wrong the first one is not thievery is spionage the second i ll grant it as thievery but not for the reason you think they are depriving one seat avalaibility
and thats why by definition is thievery.
well now intangibles cant be stolen lets go on the other side a mother has two children and one acuses the other of stealing his mother love the mother has not a finite quantity of love so the acusation of stealing falls flat and thats what happens to copyright infringement right now you dont have a finite quantity of ideas so the claim of stealing again falls flat
biased bad written and atagonistic so lets disregard it
*'Copyright "reformers" of course rarely like to talk about such unpleasant matters - and will steer the conversation away from economic consequences as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the they generally talk using Orwellian euphemisms - like "liberalising" or "rebalancing" copyright. It's rarely presented as an individual's ability to go to market being removed. This is what "copyright reform" looks like in practice.
this i will grant have a small point but the thing they shy away as any economic consequences of removing copyright are especulative
also one tend to speak of the negative in the hopes it will be fixed and i must say right now copyright law is broken and is in a need of a fix or replacement
we need a process lets say i live in a country where is ilegal to sell pictures of cats in unnatural poses then a company in usa sells lolcats pictures via internet should those usa companies be liable?
i think they shouldnt mix laws and to be able of prosecuting those cases it must be illegal in both countries
first mega, pirate bay, storage services and torrents
second fanfiction sites deviantart and forums
third Kickstarter, Pledgemusic, Bandcamp etc
fourth indie works
and last remove public domain so they have control of everything
ok let me adress this first the law will treat them differently because they have less power (being relative new) than the older copyright lobbyist
second point when are going the copyright trolls learn we dont want everything free in fact i am going to buy an original movie since it is worth it and i have only to wait a bit for a price drop but when one movie is localized and i cant get it legally then piracy sounds an attractive option also why i must pay the same of a digital copy than a physical copy (or even more)
also everybody want a fast buck even copyright maximalists ... ok especially copyright maximalists but when they stomp the public rights thats when we need to made a stand after all the founders of usa were all law breakers too
the problem is that they are complete morons those burned by diablo 3 warned them
also the comments
"this wont affect me"
"get to 2013 all people has internet"
"is not drm is a feature"
of the fanboys god i was interested at first but the always online drm killed any interest in the franchise
well in my opinion i think the violence is not generated by videogames instead is generated by bad parenting i dont know maybe if a parent test a game before giving it to their children maybe if they researched the game before buying it and maybe if they talked with their children and get to know them then violence would go down
hmmm this is something that always bother me piracy is not theft since by definition theft is the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession
piracy doesnt remove the product from the owners
so piracy is not theft
basic economic facts you maximize sales lowering prices (you earn less per sale but you sell more)
price is important but not forget the quality
offer and demand too many of a product lower prices and a hight demand raises them (this is why piracy is so rampant there is an infinite suply but they arent lowering prices so they go to the next best offer)
ok they have to obey the laws but what are the laws in this case the swedish or the US or what? for example lets say the speed limit in usa is 80 km /hr and in swedish is 100 km/hr so if they catch car at 90 km/hr then should they prosecute him?
according to the swedish law they are in the right (although maybe not so much morally but thats is another beast)
but they are afraid that if they got to trial they are going to be in a unfair disadvantage since goverments holliwood and their opponents will aply pressure
also before you acuse me of being a pirate or anticopyright i must say that i think we need copyright but also we need limits to copyright also we need something to limit the powers of copyright holders
exactly my point even the top paying goverment workers would have troubles paying these fines never mind the people under them so we have the 1 % percent(and that is being generous) of poblation that their lives woulnd't be ruined by copyright so my point stands the copyright laws needs to define their fines so people learn, not to ruin their lives
ok this disapoint me researching i saw that the yearly salary of an goverment is $193,400 yearly (this is the oficial salary) taking costs a hight payed individual could end their fines in 4 years that sounds a bit irrational but still tolerable the problem is that most people woek for much less
in example a guy i know made 8 usd per hour that means 80 usd per day or 400 usd per week at most he earns 19200 usd per year so the fines simply are insane if they were for eliminating piracy they would be minimun cost of the song i mean if you find it in itunes for .99 usd and in google pay for 5 usd they would use the .99 usd + 5 usd of fine that would be reasonable and would made people think would i save more paying for content or downloading and risking paying more? also a more resonable thing is they pay both lawyers when they lose a case (this is one of the things that made innocent people fold) so in this case the fine should be 145 usd and that would be reasonable but right now the punishment is not for people to learn it is for the enrichment of copyright holders