38 ms·

Not really relevant since bills are protected as a result of laws regarding forgery and fraud, not copyright. It's a lazy rebuttal without foundation in discour

by gozo 11y ago

Not really relevant since bills are protected as a result of laws regarding forgery and fraud, not copyright. It's a lazy rebuttal without foundation in discourse or law.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Gozo, why discuss written laws? Written laws are fabrications made to infuse artificial restrictions on things that exist in reality. Let's talk about intrinsic laws. Like the law of gravity or the Law Of Supply And Demand: When you increase demand you increase the value of a product, when you increase supply you decrease the value of a product. Basic economics. Let's take this concept and apply it to money. If you print money you increase the money supply. When you increase the money supply you decrease the value of money. Thus the action of counterfeiting is actually theft. By printing money you lower the value of other peoples' money and thus you are stealing value from other people. That's why counterfeiting is bad. Written laws on forgery and fraud don't cause this phenomenon they are a consequence of it. The same academic principle works for piracy. Get it? You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply. These are principles of Basic economics and Intrinsic law that permeates the fabric of reality. In essence: When you pirate a product you are stealing it, there is no way around it. Why is it not ok to pirate money but it's totally ok to pirate music? I'll tell you why. The issue touches the roots of humanity's morally ambiguous nature: When you pirate money, you harm everyone who owns money and face the ire of the entire population. When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music and you probably got a lot of friends who do the same thing. Significantly easier to do from an ethical standpoint. But how do you face yourself? What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime? A typical human will create an overly-complicated and sophisticated logical delusion in order to justify the action to himself. Stupid logic like "downloading an mp3 makes me more likely to buy the track" are typical examples. In fact, you can likely witness a version of this overly-complicated logic in your response to this post. Is that enough discourse for you? Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality.
- gozo 11y ago
  You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright instead your trying to shoehorn in your argument where they don't make sense. "You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply" A digital product already has infinite supply. The question isn't if copying affects supply, but if it affects demand. If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim. The same is true in other fields. Even universal human rights doesn't deal with intellectual property in this way. There's simply little basis for this view. "When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music" That you "only harm the creator" is objectively false, since even if you prescribe to great harm being done by piracy it's not only the creator, but the rightsholder that gets hurt. "What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime?" It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling. "Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality" My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling. You called me ignorant directly and you started it. "Ignorant" is a highly charged word that will ignite hostility. Do you start debates with that word in real life? Perhaps if you had experience with "copyright debate" you'd know that things won't end well when you start something with that word. Maybe you're just too ignorant to realize that. I never directly called you anything. Besides, there's a difference between fact-calling and name-calling in which case what I'm doing is more closer to the former. >You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright I'm not talking about copyright. I started the topic and that topic dictates the terms of this debate. The topic was a sarcastic example about piracy and theft in terms of supply, demand and value. It was not at all about copyright law. When you talk about human law you deal with controversial topics like whether a pattern of sound needs to be copyrighted or whether a recipe needs to be copyrighted. I'm not dealing with any of those ambiguities. I am dealing with what happens in economics when you pirate something. What happens when you pirate money and what happens when you pirate software. I am not talking about written law. >My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse. Possibly based on discourse but not based on reality and therefore off topic. >If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. What dream world do you live in where you think this is all that happens with piracy? Many people also copy things that they would have bought in the first place. >A digital product already has infinite supply. And as such, the product is usually worthless unless distribution/supply is artificially restricted (Netflix, DRM, etc.) > Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. Who cares? Increasing supply is a part of reality, and that is what I'm talking about. >If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim Why are their secret recipes? Why do people hide these things? Because restricting supply increases VALUE. Copyright law is an issue that is separate from this phenomenon.

by gozo 11y ago

Not really relevant since bills are protected as a result of laws regarding forgery and fraud, not copyright. It's a lazy rebuttal without foundation in discourse or law.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Gozo, why discuss written laws? Written laws are fabrications made to infuse artificial restrictions on things that exist in reality. Let's talk about intrinsic laws. Like the law of gravity or the Law Of Supply And Demand: When you increase demand you increase the value of a product, when you increase supply you decrease the value of a product. Basic economics. Let's take this concept and apply it to money. If you print money you increase the money supply. When you increase the money supply you decrease the value of money. Thus the action of counterfeiting is actually theft. By printing money you lower the value of other peoples' money and thus you are stealing value from other people. That's why counterfeiting is bad. Written laws on forgery and fraud don't cause this phenomenon they are a consequence of it. The same academic principle works for piracy. Get it? You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply. These are principles of Basic economics and Intrinsic law that permeates the fabric of reality. In essence: When you pirate a product you are stealing it, there is no way around it. Why is it not ok to pirate money but it's totally ok to pirate music? I'll tell you why. The issue touches the roots of humanity's morally ambiguous nature: When you pirate money, you harm everyone who owns money and face the ire of the entire population. When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music and you probably got a lot of friends who do the same thing. Significantly easier to do from an ethical standpoint. But how do you face yourself? What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime? A typical human will create an overly-complicated and sophisticated logical delusion in order to justify the action to himself. Stupid logic like "downloading an mp3 makes me more likely to buy the track" are typical examples. In fact, you can likely witness a version of this overly-complicated logic in your response to this post. Is that enough discourse for you? Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality.

gozo 11y ago
You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright instead your trying to shoehorn in your argument where they don't make sense. "You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply" A digital product already has infinite supply. The question isn't if copying affects supply, but if it affects demand. If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim. The same is true in other fields. Even universal human rights doesn't deal with intellectual property in this way. There's simply little basis for this view. "When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music" That you "only harm the creator" is objectively false, since even if you prescribe to great harm being done by piracy it's not only the creator, but the rightsholder that gets hurt. "What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime?" It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling. "Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality" My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling. You called me ignorant directly and you started it. "Ignorant" is a highly charged word that will ignite hostility. Do you start debates with that word in real life? Perhaps if you had experience with "copyright debate" you'd know that things won't end well when you start something with that word. Maybe you're just too ignorant to realize that. I never directly called you anything. Besides, there's a difference between fact-calling and name-calling in which case what I'm doing is more closer to the former. >You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright I'm not talking about copyright. I started the topic and that topic dictates the terms of this debate. The topic was a sarcastic example about piracy and theft in terms of supply, demand and value. It was not at all about copyright law. When you talk about human law you deal with controversial topics like whether a pattern of sound needs to be copyrighted or whether a recipe needs to be copyrighted. I'm not dealing with any of those ambiguities. I am dealing with what happens in economics when you pirate something. What happens when you pirate money and what happens when you pirate software. I am not talking about written law. >My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse. Possibly based on discourse but not based on reality and therefore off topic. >If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. What dream world do you live in where you think this is all that happens with piracy? Many people also copy things that they would have bought in the first place. >A digital product already has infinite supply. And as such, the product is usually worthless unless distribution/supply is artificially restricted (Netflix, DRM, etc.) > Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. Who cares? Increasing supply is a part of reality, and that is what I'm talking about. >If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim Why are their secret recipes? Why do people hide these things? Because restricting supply increases VALUE. Copyright law is an issue that is separate from this phenomenon.