Can I claim that you've hurt me? After all, you've never bought any. (I can show you my bank account balance, I really am hurting).
The sticking point, the part that will make it feel to you as if my statement above is non-sensical, is somehow you've managed to attach the idea that they're selling something to the idea that other people have a (very) similar something but haven't paid. So to you that feels like "theft". But it wasn't always this way.
The way you feel has been cultivated, just in the last few decades. And though they've cultivated it for music and movies and video games, I haven't (bothered, been able to, had enough influence) to cultivate the idea that if you haven't bought doodads from me that you've stolen from me.
Let's say I stand in front of your doodad store (imagining you only sell it in a store, for whatever reason) with a megaphone, repeatedly giving an extremely convincing speech about why people shouldn't buy your doodads. Can you claim that I've hurt you then?
Many of the people I talk to would never buy a doodad anyway. Those result in zero harm. Some of them were going to buy a doodad, were non convinced, and bought anyway. Those also result in zero harm. But some were going to buy a doodad and then decided not to. That's harm.
Piracy is the same. Many pirates were never going to buy the thing anyway. Many people purchase anyway. But some non-zero number of people would have purchased but now don't.
Strawman: by not buying doodads from you, I'm not getting the value provided by the doodads either. That is not the case with digital goods.
Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you.
So you: invested time, effort and resources to provide value to others. The pirates: benefited from that value and gave nothing back. Is that not unfair?
What if those pirates further shared your doodads with their friends (or, you know, random people on the Internet) further depriving you of people who should be paying you for the value your doodads provided. Now can you not claim that the pirates are hurting you?
You may focus on the zero marginal cost of copying digital music and movies and video games. However, observe that the value is not in the bits you copy but the experiences they provide to your mind. If they are truly worth zero to you, I don't see why you should be wasting your time experiencing them in the first place.
If I were to guess, you have not "cultivated that idea" because you've never created something that people found useful, something which you'd think you deserved compensation for, but which was taken without giving anything in return.
> Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you.
Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine?
I'm not entitled to compensation for being the first to do something. A society that sets itself up such that people who do something first are entitled to become rent-seekers for all eternity is dysfunctional.
> What if those pirates further shared your doodads with their friends
That'd be awesome. Unless they did a half-assed job of the sharing. I reserve the right to beat them bloody if they release the music as 32k VBR mp3s. I may murder if they're wma format.
No jury in the world could convict me.
Copyright used to encourage the creation of more works that would enter the public domain in less than three decades.
Now it's used to fund bribing Congress to get longer copyrights.
> If I were to guess, you have not "cultivated that idea" because you've never created something that people found useful,
Yeh. You'd like to believe that, because it's easier to see me as some filthy thief than as someone whose ideas might be correct. The former lets you just call me names and move on, the latter would mean changing your mind and thinking about issues like this critically.
Someday I hope that people like myself strip you of all political influence and make this part of the world a better place. You can go live in Singapore with its thousand year copyright durations and felony download laws.
>>Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine?
That's fine. You can make a car that looks like a Mercedes and no one will bat an eyelid, if you really made it with your own hands.
If you look at a game, and make your own that looks similar(or even exactly the same) - again, no one will bat an eyelid. But if you pirate the CAD files used to make said Mercedes and produce it using that then yeah, you stole their work without paying for it. If you pirate the game someone made without paying for it, you are also a scum. Whoever made it is not entitled to compensation, but you are not entitled to use other people's products for free.
Ok, do I really need to spell everything out?
You can make yourself, for yourself, literally anything. You can make a pair of shoes that look like Adidas shoes, and you can stick an Adidas logo on them and absolutely no one will object. The same principle applies to everything else. BUT - if you start selling your product pretending it's original, then you are absolutely breaking a number of laws. How is that not obvious?
>Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine?
Copying bits verbatim is not "making" anything. Also we are now conflating patents and copyright, but...
>A society that sets itself up such that people who do something first are entitled to become rent-seekers for all eternity is dysfunctional.
That may be a valid concern in theory, but current and historical evidence overwhelmingly prove this wrong. The most technical innovation has been happening in countries with stronger IP laws, as opposed to, say BRIC. It's not a coincidence.
>If I were to guess, you have not "cultivated that idea" because you've never created something that people found useful...
Way to quote incompletely. Also, nice dodge. Have you created something valuable only to have it ripped off?
>Yeh. You'd like to believe that, because it's easier to see me as some filthy thief than as someone whose ideas might be correct. The former lets you just call me names and move on, the latter would mean changing your mind and thinking about issues like this critically.
Conversely it's easier for you to rationalize your piracy than to acknowledge that your actions could be harmful. I have no stake in this issue, since my livelihood does not depend on copyright. I have been thinking critically and looking at the evidence. Have you?
If I really want or need to acquire your doodad then I am a potential customer and I have three choices. 1) buy your doodad. 2) acquire it without paying money. 3) go without using your doodad.
As a business owner, which would you prefer I do? Would option 2 not result in a loss of potential revenue? Would it not be super-harmful if everyone who wanted to use your product chose option 2?
> If I really want or need to acquire your doodad then I am a potential customer
But are you a promised customer, one that I own as some sort of cow to be milked when I see fit?
Certainly if I repair cars, you don't claim that I get to do all your car work and be paid for it, nor could I sue if you did it yourself. But this is what you're claiming with entertainment...
Think about it. I might make the claim that if you know about how to fix an engine, it was only because I discovered those ideas first. Therefor, even if you fix the engine (or arrange little magnetic islands on a hard drive in a particular sequence), you're still stealing from me.
If you fix the engine the same way I'd fix it, you're just copying my motions and actions.
These are highly comparable, but most people now balk at the idea (even though such absurd restrictions have existed in various times and places throughout history).
Copyright isn't some fundamental human right (time for the weenies to point out that the UN thinks it is). Its formulation was originally a practical matter, so now that it's become impractical it should be abolished or once more limited to reasonable terms.
You've never bought one from me.
Can I claim that you've hurt me? After all, you've never bought any. (I can show you my bank account balance, I really am hurting).
The sticking point, the part that will make it feel to you as if my statement above is non-sensical, is somehow you've managed to attach the idea that they're selling something to the idea that other people have a (very) similar something but haven't paid. So to you that feels like "theft". But it wasn't always this way.
The way you feel has been cultivated, just in the last few decades. And though they've cultivated it for music and movies and video games, I haven't (bothered, been able to, had enough influence) to cultivate the idea that if you haven't bought doodads from me that you've stolen from me.