You lost it pages ago, but you won't let go. Got anything new? Anything at all? Endlessly repeating lost arguments and debating points long demolished is winning nothing at all.
incorrect. i am arguing two things: 1. you cant stop it and 2. it is a net positive for society that information is exchanged freely because this is a new thing, we havent had time as a society to adjust our laws, to understand what is right and wrong. my argument is that we as a society gain from a policy where information is freely exchanged. i explained why stealing tangible goods is not the same, and you have no response. you cant make infinite free copies of tanglible goods. if you could, then we would treat them far differently. if you could replicate food for free, the word would be wildly and completely different, immediately. you cant pretend tangible goods are the same as information. you just cant. its stupid. why do you believe it is a net negative for society to trade information? because it takes income from artists? is this a sufficient argument? really think abou tthis, dont just repeat "duhhh stealing is stealing". should we as a society be protecting revenue models? should we enact laws that make it profitable to, for example, swing on a trapeze? because as it stands, you can be really good at trapeze and still not get many job opportunities. there are tons of careers that are less profitable. should we enact laws to protect film developing studios? we dont need them nearly as much now that photography is digital. so these poor folks are not able to profit with their skills anymore. so be it. so even if all of that is true, the fact remains that free exchange of information doesnt really hurt the profits of creators. it removes the middle man, the distribution that used to be really expensive. record and publishing companies we dont need them. we can pay artists directly, if we want to, and we do, and this is being proven over and over, by artists like radiohead and louie CK. if you want, you can repeat "hey you lik ta steal huhuh" but why cant we move beyond that level of discussion?
casual readers of this thread are siding with me, amigo. you cant justify your argument just based on the lost revenue for artists. if you could, we would outlaw every new technology that renders some jobs obsolete. and again, we would outlaw loaning, like we have repeated 100 times. will you at least concede that if it were in fact true that my loaning you my book meant less sales for the writer then by your logic that would be morally impermissible? because really we are just talking about matters of scale, loaning, or "fair use" vs distribution to millions on the internet. so your argument, to be sound, would be that a certain level of sharing is ok, maybe 5 times or so, some arbitrary line. and that sounds like a stupid argument, but, yunno, i would never argue that lost revenue is the basis of the justification. my argument is about what most benefits society, not one specific special group of punters represented by billion dollar lobbyists
This has been explained about nine times now. Loaning has never been considered lost income to an author. WHY? Because copyright only applies to copies, not to users. No one has ever considered that a book cannot be read by multiple people. No one has ever considered that readers owe any royalties or copyright fees. Resales have never been copyright violations either. That is solely for the original owner of the book. No lost income. Never has been. People who wish to own a book are going to buy a book. People who wish to read a book are going to borrow one. No lost sales. In fact sales go up because libraries buy billions of books to loan people. The argument is of over copyright violations. Your notion that duplicating a copyrighted work and distributing it to others constitutes loaning rather than electronic piracy is fundamentally wrong and absurd. I have explained all of this before. I will just add this post to the list of already answered questions when next you ask it.
Because you have it upside down. When you copy a copyrighted file, you have made a new copy that you have stolen from the author. You haven't loaned your original file, you still have it. Two copies exist, one of which is stolen and illegal. Exactly. You are a self-indulgent and unrepentant thief of intellectual property. Finally you accept it.
thats not addressing this issue of lost revenue! not at all! if i buy one copy of a book, and i make a waiting list, perhaps everyone at my church, and we loan it, one person to the next, 200 of us, each reading and passing it on, this is morally and philosophically identical to making copies. each user now has read the book, they have the story, a copy in their mind. bro, if publishers could restrict loaning books, they would. let me restate that, publishers already restrict loaning, whenever they can. i have like a hundred books i own on kindle, that i cannot loan. and i have a few they allow me to loan, but only once!. ask yourself why they dont let me loan these books LOST REVENUE! incorrect. try to resell a book you own on kindle. sell a copy to your friend, delete your copy. illegal. violates the DCMA. wrong again. owning a book is pointless, unless the book is a reference. its like owning a magazine, its useless. you read it and throw it away. thats why i borrow as much as i can. and this necessarily means income lost for publishers, and i dont care. even my friends that work for publishers like random house and such, they are aware of the way their model is dying do you believe there is value to society in what libraries do? why do they exist? why do they loan books? because it benefits society. if a national library could exist, and loan books to anyone in the country, but not have to buy copies to send to every loacal library, wouldnt this be good for society (and bad for publishers?) think about why libraries exist and tell me your answer. then think about if that what you just described is more valuable to humanity than protecting the revenue streams of these special interests. you have answerwed nothing, you merely repeat what the laws are. we know that already.
And with me, obviously. Moot point. Waste of time. More delaying tactics. False analogy. You wish to selfishly deprive authors of intellectual property any way of earning from their work. If you had ever worked in your life, you might understand this better. This has nothing to do with technological advances, it has to do with intellectual property, which you can't seem to acknowledge or recognize. I have shot this down at least four times. 1. Copyright protects only duplication of protected works not the use of them. Your notion is a logical fallacy we call the straw man. 2. You fail to consider that library sales are one of an author's best income streams. Libraries pay a lot of copyright fees so that their patron have books to read. They buy a lot of books. Repeating the same arguments endlessly is a poor debate technique. I will just demolish them once again. What most benefits society . . . and all societies agree based on the laws they create . . . is that stealing is bad for society and that stealing intellectual property is no different just because it is easier. Your argument is about what best benefits you other selfish consumers of the creative work of others.
i dont recall ever denying it. although i also argue that i read more than anyone, and spend more on books than anyone. i am happy to, its hassle to steal books. i stole some tv shows recently though, didnt feel bad. felt great about it. not sure why you would act as if i denied stealing, i love it, wooohoo its grand
i didnt ask what copyright protects. i didnt ask you to repeat what the law does. aslo clearly you are avoiding my question. just for the sake of argument, pay attention for once. imagine i am over at yyour house, having a chat about the world, enjoying a 6 pack, its great. and i am leaving, i notice you have a book i was about to go purchase. you, being an amigo, say "hey martin, you are alright bro, go ahead and borrow my copy of the book there, and bring it back next time we are kickin it". wouldnt that necessarily mean lost income for the artist? i altered my plans to buy the book, i dont need to anymore. why is that ok? please dont repeat the laws. its not different because it is easier. it is different because the production cost of one item is exactly the same as infinite items. correct. i am discussing what benefits society. not a special interest group
