Is Piracy Stealing?

One, its not that expensive. Second, it's not hard at all to keep permanent copies of that stuff, especially if you run your cable subscription through a computer. It's no different than renting movies at a DVDPlay or RedBox machine and ripping a copy to keep for yourself.

And yet one of those situations is viewed as being clean and the other as piracy. This is an example of the fundamental problem I have with those who scream about piracy when most of those raving about it the loudest have done so themselves and perhaps without even knowing it.

If that's the case, then anyone with a VCR back in the 80s was a pirate as well. But time-shifting was protected by Supreme Court precedent, so that's seen as OK. But now if I do that stuff over an internet connection, I've committed a criminal offense. Curious and curiouser.

MarcusAntonius

This isn't even clear. I have no idea what you are talking about. You mentioned that if you created 100 albums and threw them in the trash would you lose revenue. What I said was that if you created albums and threw them in the trash not only would you lose revenue but cost as well. Period. If you meant anything else it was not included in your initial post. You then mentioned piracy in relation to this original post some time later.LJS9502_basic

You are confusing the price with allocating cost.LJS9502_basic

Loss of revenue DOES NOT rely on the physical state of an item. Not being paid for a service is a loss of revenue as well. As for your example....which you have FINALLY explained...no it was not clear to anyone reading your post what your intent was.....you lost the actual cost in that scenario. Since you are legally not allowed to sell the copies you cannot lose revenue....and that analogy is flawed for exactly that reason.


However, if someone pirates an album...the person owning the rights does lose revenue on that album since it has been duplicated without the compensation for said album. Nonetheless, this is not equivalent to your original premise.LJS9502_basic

It wasnt clear?
Revenue is the (final) profit out of a process of selling and buying. What else could I be referring to? :|
By all means enlighten me on that one, will you?

And I assume if one posts in a thread about piracy to a person who talks about piracy and continues the point the other person is making about piracy, then that person has to clarify that they are talking about piracy?
..................o.....k...........

I am not talking about what I understood as something I derived arbitrarily but something I derived based on your completely unclarified wording. You left too much room for interpretation for an issue which is not basic knowledge for everyone.

[]I didnt say that it does rely on the physical state of an item now did I? It wasnt even a premise of my point.......

The fact that I am not allowed to means nothing.
It is VERY clear:
If I sold the copies to other people (or simply handed them out for free) possible revenue would be lost to the record company/producers/musicians.
If I dont sell them and just throw them away never to be found, then the company/producers/musicians, dont lose revenue (ie PROFIT) since my illegitimate copies dont "hinder" legitimate copies from being sold (the copies the people would have bought had I not given them/sold to them my illegitimate copies).
The duplication of an album (in its legitimate process; in the company's factory) is done with the ultimate goal to be sold and that money (portion of the whole price; THE REVENUE) to "return" to the company/musicians/producers etc. The profit isnt guaranteed or created at the staget where the legitimate copies are being created. The profit comes when the copies are SOLD.
The same thing applies with illegitimate copies. The revenue loss (FOR THE PRODUCERS etc) occurs if and only IF the copies are distributed to other people.
How does a mere dublication (illegitimately by me) of the album cost money to the producers/musicians etc if I dont give them out to anyone? :|

Teenaged

No I explained in detail how pricing per unit works. The total cost of production is split amongst the units. Thus, there is a break even point with the product where you finally sell enough units to begin to make profit. If you have to sell 150.000 units to break even....you will make no profit on the item if the final tally is 135,000 units. Pretty simple concept actually.

Yes revenue is lost to the person who holds the rights as I explained in the last post. YOU do not lose revenue since it wasn't yours. Piracy loses revenue. If you purchased a legal copy there is not a loss of revenue. But that does not mean piracy doesn't lose revenue. I have never said your throwing away copies would lose revenue to the company....unless you pirated exactly that many copies.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

One, its not that expensive. Second, it's not hard at all to keep permanent copies of that stuff, especially if you run your cable subscription through a computer. It's no different than renting movies at a DVDPlay or RedBox machine and ripping a copy to keep for yourself.

And yet one of those situations is viewed as being clean and the other as piracy. This is an example of the fundamental problem I have with those who scream about piracy when most of those raving about it the loudest have done so themselves and perhaps without even knowing it.

If that's the case, then anyone with a VCR back in the 80s was a pirate as well. But time-shifting was protected by Supreme Court precedent, so that's seen as OK. But now if I do that stuff over an internet connection, I've committed a criminal offense. Curious and curiouser.

LJS9502_basic

Uh, you didn't really answer my point.:?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]However, in the case of stealing bread, it is absolutely relevant to the discussion of whether or not we can assign an assumed loss without ever knowing if it was an actual loss. When you steal even physical objects, it's often impossible to know if that object would have otherwise been purchased. That is NOT something that is exclusive to intangible media. However, does that mean that the theft of a $3 loaf of bread can't STILL be seen as a loss of $3Vandalvideo

In neither case is the sale certain. All we're looking at in either case is the loss of a potential sale.

I don't see how in either case it's possible to determine that any money was ACTUALLY lost.

In neither case is the sale certain. All we're looking at in either case is the loss of a potential sale.I don't see how in either case it's possible to determine that any money was ACTUALLY lost.MrGeezer

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

One, its not that expensive. Second, it's not hard at all to keep permanent copies of that stuff, especially if you run your cable subscription through a computer. It's no different than renting movies at a DVDPlay or RedBox machine and ripping a copy to keep for yourself.

And yet one of those situations is viewed as being clean and the other as piracy. This is an example of the fundamental problem I have with those who scream about piracy when most of those raving about it the loudest have done so themselves and perhaps without even knowing it.

If that's the case, then anyone with a VCR back in the 80s was a pirate as well. But time-shifting was protected by Supreme Court precedent, so that's seen as OK. But now if I do that stuff over an internet connection, I've committed a criminal offense. Curious and curiouser.

MarcusAntonius

Uh, you didn't really answer my point.:?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]In neither case is the sale certain. All we're looking at in either case is the loss of a potential sale.I don't see how in either case it's possible to determine that any money was ACTUALLY lost.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

It wasnt clear?
Revenue is the (final) profit out of a process of selling and buying. What else could I be referring to? :|
By all means enlighten me on that one, will you?

And I assume if one posts in a thread about piracy to a person who talks about piracy and continues the point the other person is making about piracy, then that person has to clarify that they are talking about piracy?
..................o.....k...........

I am not talking about what I understood as something I derived arbitrarily but something I derived based on your completely unclarified wording. You left too much room for interpretation for an issue which is not basic knowledge for everyone.

[]I didnt say that it does rely on the physical state of an item now did I? It wasnt even a premise of my point.......

The fact that I am not allowed to means nothing.
It is VERY clear:
If I sold the copies to other people (or simply handed them out for free) possible revenue would be lost to the record company/producers/musicians.
If I dont sell them and just throw them away never to be found, then the company/producers/musicians, dont lose revenue (ie PROFIT) since my illegitimate copies dont "hinder" legitimate copies from being sold (the copies the people would have bought had I not given them/sold to them my illegitimate copies).
The duplication of an album (in its legitimate process; in the company's factory) is done with the ultimate goal to be sold and that money (portion of the whole price; THE REVENUE) to "return" to the company/musicians/producers etc. The profit isnt guaranteed or created at the staget where the legitimate copies are being created. The profit comes when the copies are SOLD.
The same thing applies with illegitimate copies. The revenue loss (FOR THE PRODUCERS etc) occurs if and only IF the copies are distributed to other people.
How does a mere dublication (illegitimately by me) of the album cost money to the producers/musicians etc if I dont give them out to anyone? :|

LJS9502_basic

No I explained in detail how pricing per unit works. The total cost of production is split amongst the units. Thus, there is a break even point with the product where you finally sell enough units to begin to make profit. If you have to sell 150.000 units to break even....you will make no profit on the item if the final tally is 135,000 units. Pretty simple concept actually.

Yes revenue is lost to the person who holds the rights as I explained in the last post. YOU do not lose revenue since it wasn't yours. Piracy loses revenue. If you purchased a legal copy there is not a loss of revenue. But that does not mean piracy doesn't lose revenue. I have never said your throwing away copies would lose revenue to the company....unless you pirated exactly that many copies.

I said rom the very beginning that the hypothetical is me copying an album 100 times. I used the verb "copy"............ =/

And thats the theory. If that were true then producers/musicians and the record company always would gain the same percentage of money of the production cost. Say 110% of what they spent to create the product. But that is not the case. If the product is successful then more copies are being made, copies which have nothing to do with wanting to distribute the production cost into more copies of the product. The initial purpose is to at least make the products be sold in such a price that the spent money will be compensated for. Other than that there is no fixed production cost allocation into the produced products simply because the number of the produced products is not set or predictable. And that is important especially in the case of products such as music/movies etc whose main cost is NOT the production of the copies but the production of the source material that is copied into every copy. The source material is one, its cost is set, but its copies are NOT set in number. I really dont understand why you keep arguing this.

You didnt explain anything at all. Seriously. I never ever mentioned ME losing revenue. I am not selling something I own. The thread is about piracy and I am (in the hypothetical) a pirate who pirates music (for instance). Why the heck would I ask questions about my profits in regards to whether or not piracy is considered theft?

I clarified (at least on that point) more than 3 times in consecutive posts that the revenue I am talking about is the one lost to the producers/record company/musicians, NOT THE PIRATES. :|

]The taking of code is a loss of potential sale since it was just downloaded without payment.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You are supposed to watch the program at your leasure as part of the cable service. It's not illegal. Making copies however does step over into illegality. The law is fairly explicit as to what is legal an illegal. Thus, you know ahead of time that copying music or a movie you didn't pay for is illegal. I don't see the confusion in that.

LJS9502_basic

Uh, you didn't really answer my point.:?

You're trying to cherry-pick a point that I never made and are trying to base an argument off of that. You're not even addressing my main point.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]In neither case is the sale certain. All we're looking at in either case is the loss of a potential sale.I don't see how in either case it's possible to determine that any money was ACTUALLY lost.Vandalvideo

Which is what I had been asking all along, and which has been conveniently ignored.

If I own a store, I pay money to stock the store. I'll buy grocery items for less than I sell them, because I need to make a profit. Suppose I buy bread for $1 and then sell it for $2. I then make a dollar off of every loaf.

The question I was asking (and which no one has bothered answering) is how to view the theft of a loaf of bread. I've invested $1 into that loaf, while I potentially could have brought in $2 in sales. Is this a loss of $1, since $1 is what I invested in the bread? Or do we view that as a loss of $2, since I'm also losing the potential to have sold the loaf of bread for $2?

Simple question. When quantifying the "loss", did I lose $1 or $2?

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]In neither case is the sale certain. All we're looking at in either case is the loss of a potential sale.I don't see how in either case it's possible to determine that any money was ACTUALLY lost.MrGeezer

Which is what I had been asking all along, and which has been conveniently ignored.

If I own a store, I pay money to stock the store. I'll buy grocery items for less than I sell them, because I need to make a profit. Suppose I buy bread for $1 and then sell it for $2. I then make a dollar off of every loaf.

The question I was asking (and which no one has bothered answering) is how to view the theft of a loaf of bread. I've invested $1 into that loaf, while I potentially could have brought in $2 in sales. Is this a loss of $1, since $1 is what I invested in the bread? Or do we view that as a loss of $2, since I'm also losing the potential to have sold the loaf of bread for $2?

Simple question. When quantifying the "loss", did I lose $1 or $2?

Legal Answer: You're entitled to whatever you want, as long as it is within a denomination of 10 of the original value. Vandalvideo

I don't see how that answers my question.

1) What is the "original value" of that loaf of bread?

2) I have no idea what you mean by "you're entitled to whatever you want". Are you saying that I (as the person who had the bread stolen) can make up whatever value for the loss that I want, so long as the claimed loss is within $10 of "the original value"? If that's what you're saying, I fail to see how that answers my question.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Legal Answer: You're entitled to whatever you want, as long as it is within a denomination of 10 of the original value. MrGeezer

I don't see how that answers my question.

1) What is the "original value" of that loaf of bread?

2) I have no idea what you mean by "you're entitled to whatever you want". Are you saying that I (as the person who had the bread stolen) can make up whatever value for the loss that I want, so long as the claimed loss is within $10 of "the original value"? If that's what you're saying, I fail to see how that answers my question.

Why would I ever be referring to copying MY music? :? That would be completely irrelevant and my point would be nonsensical at best. :?

I said rom the very beginning that the hypothetical is me copying an album 100 times. I used the verb "copy"............ =/

And thats the theory. If that were true then producers/musicians and the record company always would gain the same percentage of money of the production cost. Say 110% of what they spent to create the product. But that is not the case. If the product is successful then more copies are being made, copies which have nothing to do with wanting to distribute the production cost into more copies of the product. The initial purpose is to at least make the products be sold in such a price that the spent money will be compensated for. Other than that there is no fixed production cost allocation into the produced products simply because the number of the produced products is not set or predictable. And that is important especially in the case of products such as music/movies etc whose main cost is NOT the production of the copies but the production of the source material that is copied into every copy. The source material is one, its cost is set, but its copies are NOT set in number. I really dont understand why you keep arguing this.

You didnt explain anything at all. Seriously. I never ever mentioned ME losing revenue. I am not selling something I own. The thread is about piracy and I am (in the hypothetical) a pirate who pirates music (for instance). Why the heck would I ask questions about my profits in regards to whether or not piracy is considered theft?

I clarified (at least on that point) more than 3 times in consecutive posts that the revenue I am talking about is the one lost to the producers/record company/musicians, NOT THE PIRATES. :|

Teenaged

So if I create 100 copies of an album and throw themin the dumbster never to be found, I am creating revenue loss?Teenaged

I'm not arguing that dude. I said the units have to reach a break even point before profit is realized. You are familar with that term? Yes...no? I'm not getting that impression from you as you keep asking the same question. However, if a product is successful....there will be more units manufactured as well so cost will not disappear until such time as the item is past the break even point and not still creating cost. When you purchase a digital medium the cost is less than a physical copy because it doesn't have the cost of the physical item. However, the non physical copy does have some costs assigned to it. A musician cannot create a professional recording without some cost. So even taking a non physical copy is not paying part of the allocation.

That is not true. An initial run will have cost allocation. However, that does not mean the initial run will reach the break even point. If a cd is selling below expectations then the unit may NEVER reach the break even point. In which case, the cd is a loss to the company. Established bands generally have enough cd's produced to reach the break even point if they are consumed. Smaller bands many not. And yes...there are cds that are a disappointment to the company and sell below expectations. Generally, a band can be dropped from a label when the contract is up for that reason.

For music the source material cost is very much a part of the cost allocation. Movies are a little different because box office is there to help out in that regard. But some movies do need a healthy retail DVD market to break even. Costs are very high in entertainment to produce. It's not inexpensive to make games, movies, or even music....which while not as expensive as the other two per unit....is not cheap either.

See the initial post I quoted to see where the confusion came from. Again....create and copy mean two different things with the arts. You create music when you pick up a guitar and record it to cd. You copy music when you download it and burn a disc to play in the car.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Legal Answer: You're entitled to whatever you want, as long as it is within a denomination of 10 of the original value. Vandalvideo

I don't see how that answers my question.

1) What is the "original value" of that loaf of bread?

2) I have no idea what you mean by "you're entitled to whatever you want". Are you saying that I (as the person who had the bread stolen) can make up whatever value for the loss that I want, so long as the claimed loss is within $10 of "the original value"? If that's what you're saying, I fail to see how that answers my question.

Yes, but you were a little vague.

What is "the original value"? Is that what I paid in order to stock the bread on my shelf? Does that include labor costs? Does "original value" mean the price that I was trying to sell the bread? Does "original value" cover ONLY what I personally invested in that bread? Or does it refer to what I stood to make off of that bread by selling it?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]]The taking of code is a loss of potential sale since it was just downloaded without payment.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Uh, you didn't really answer my point.:?

MarcusAntonius

You're trying to cherry-pick a point that I never made and are trying to base an argument off of that. You're not even addressing my main point.

What is "the original value"? Is that what I paid in order to stock the bread on my shelf? Does that include labor costs? Does "original value" mean the price that I was trying to sell the bread? Does "original value" cover ONLY what I personally invested in that bread? Or does it refer to what I stood to make off of that bread by selling it?MrGeezer

No. I only have to show that the person has a copy that was not paid for. Intent is an excuse. Isn't possession 9/10s of the law?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. I only have to show that the person has a copy that was not paid for. Intent is an excuse. Isn't possession 9/10s of the law?Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]What is "the original value"? Is that what I paid in order to stock the bread on my shelf? Does that include labor costs? Does "original value" mean the price that I was trying to sell the bread? Does "original value" cover ONLY what I personally invested in that bread? Or does it refer to what I stood to make off of that bread by selling it?Vandalvideo

Okay.

So...it seems that we have still failed to account for the actual amount of loss that was suffered as a result of that bread being stolen. And it seems that loss of a potential profit may or may not be considered as part of "the original value", depending on the judge.

So...why does this not apply to intellectual property as well? Why is it that in the case of intangible intellectual property that the rules somehow change and now we have to prove that the thief ever had an intent to buy in order to establish any loss?

Because in the case of the bread, a lot of the "loss" that we're talking about seems to be just as dependant on assumptions and people pulling numbers out of their butts.

It's possible that you wanted to sell your music is it not? Otherwise why would anyone make 100 copies. And TBH why would you buy a cd and make 100 copies of that if the intent to sell wasn't in your mind? Anyway, you were talking to me....your point wasn't clear to me...and it took me five or six posts to figure out the context.LJS9502_basic

So if I create 100 copies of an album and throw themin the dumbster never to be found, I am creating revenue loss?Teenaged

Create is not necessarily equal to copy. I can write music and create 100 copies of my music. Your comment was vague in this regard. As the conversation was with me and I've told you that several times....why are you still arguing it? It may have been clear in your head but the wording was ambiguous at best and I took it to mean you were talking of your own music. Otherwise....we have one copy of cd. In that you were not clear as to whether you pirated it or paid for it either. And if you pirated the music....it was a loss of revenue for the company. If not.....you did not. But there is no way for me to know if the original copy which you have just clarified was not your music....was pirated or not from that statement.

I'm not arguing that dude. I said the units have to reach a break even point before profit is realized. You are familar with that term? Yes...no? I'm not getting that impression from you as you keep asking the same question. However, if a product is successful....there will be more units manufactured as well so cost will not disappear until such time as the item is past the break even point and not still creating cost. When you purchase a digital medium the cost is less than a physical copy because it doesn't have the cost of the physical item. However, the non physical copy does have some costs assigned to it. A musician cannot create a professional recording without some cost. So even taking a non physical copy is not paying part of the allocation.

That is not true. An initial run will have cost allocation. However, that does not mean the initial run will reach the break even point. If a cd is selling below expectations then the unit may NEVER reach the break even point. In which case, the cd is a loss to the company. Established bands generally have enough cd's produced to reach the break even point if they are consumed. Smaller bands many not. And yes...there are cds that are a disappointment to the company and sell below expectations. Generally, a band can be dropped from a label when the contract is up for that reason.

For music the source material cost is very much a part of the cost allocation. Movies are a little different because box office is there to help out in that regard. But some movies do need a healthy retail DVD market to break even. Costs are very high in entertainment to produce. It's not inexpensive to make games, movies, or even music....which while not as expensive as the other two per unit....is not cheap either.

See the initial post I quoted to see where the confusion came from. Again....create and copy mean two different things with the arts. You create music when you pick up a guitar and record it to cd. You copy music when you download it and burn a disc to play in the car.

LJS9502_basic

You obviously "missed" these quotes of mine:

"We are not talking about my money here.

But about money lost to the owner of the rights to the music.

So, do I create revenue loss?

Am I striping the musician/producer/record company from their money?"

That ^^^ is my second post.

"If I make 100 copies of an album and throw them in the dumbster never to be found, am I stealing money from the music producer/musician/record company?"

That ^^^ is the consecutive post of mine.

Oh yes you are absolutely right! I was vague......... -_-

And like I said 3 or 4 times, I am talking about your wording about an issue which is not basic knowledge to everyone.

"Each unit is assigned a portion of the total cost"

If you think I am taking this extremely misinterpretable post of yours out of context then by all means correct me.

So since I hope some unnecessary confusion is dissolved by now I ask again:

If I copy an album of a musician 100 times, do I create revenue loss to the musician/record company/producers, if those copies are never distributed/sold by me to anyone?

]Yes and I guess since I didnt clarify I am not talking about monkies, then I could as well be talking about them. >__>

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]So if I create 100 copies of an album and throw themin the dumbster never to be found, I am creating revenue loss?Teenaged

[Yes. "Create copies" = "copy", just as "ride a bicycle" = "cycling" etc. You are really into semantics arent you?

You obviously "missed" these quotes of mine:

"We are not talking about my money here.

But about money lost to the owner of the rights to the music.

So, do I create revenue loss?

Am I striping the musician/producer/record company from their money?"

That ^^^ is my second post.

"If I make 100 copies of an album and throw them in the dumbster never to be found, am I stealing money from the music producer/musician/record company?"

That ^^^ is the consecutive post of mine.

Oh yes you are absolutely right! I was vague......... -_-

And like I said 3 or 4 times, I am talking about your wording about an issue which is not basic knowledge to everyone.

"Each unit is assigned a portion of the total cost"

If you think I am taking this extremely misinterpretable post of yours out of context then by all means correct me.

So since I hope some unnecessary confusion is dissolved by now I ask again:

If I copy an album of a musician 100 times, do I create revenue loss to the musician/record company/producers, if those copies are never distributed/sold by me to anyone?

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]What is "the original value"? Is that what I paid in order to stock the bread on my shelf? Does that include labor costs? Does "original value" mean the price that I was trying to sell the bread? Does "original value" cover ONLY what I personally invested in that bread? Or does it refer to what I stood to make off of that bread by selling it?MrGeezer

Okay.

So...it seems that we have still failed to account for the actual amount of loss that was suffered as a result of that bread being stolen. And it seems that loss of a potential profit may or may not be considered as part of "the original value", depending on the judge.

So...why does this not apply to intellectual property as well? Why is it that in the case of intangible intellectual property that the rules somehow change and now we have to prove that the thief ever had an intent to buy in order to establish any loss?

Because in the case of the bread, a lot of the "loss" that we're talking about seems to be just as dependant on assumptions and people pulling numbers out of their butts.

No you are arguing semantics. I told you what I took your post to mean. Your words could mean that. /discussion.

LJS9502_basic

If you say so....

Do you want to answer my question?

Well now part of the fines includes loss of revenue. That fact that someone pirated the media means they wanted said copy. Which means a loss of revenue for said copy. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well now part of the fines includes loss of revenue. That fact that someone pirated the media means they wanted said copy. Which means a loss of revenue for said copy. Vandalvideo

This is some tour de force. 74 pages and nobody's budged an inch. Are we agreed that "theft" and "stealing" are legal terms? Could we maybe settle on a legal definition of theft to decide whether piracy meets the criteria or not?

Well no I'm not reading that. The only damages in a pirated case is revenue not received. I never mentioned punitive damages.LJS9502_basic

I guess you wont answer my question.

Whatever...

Au revoir.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well no I'm not reading that. The only damages in a pirated case is revenue not received. I never mentioned punitive damages.Vandalvideo

In the U.S., the online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to three years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to six years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.

According to that it could be for any of the above list......and thus they do mention actual damages and lost profits. Both are in there.

I guess you wont answer my question.

Whatever...

Au revoir.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I guess you wont answer my question.

Whatever...

Au revoir.

LJS9502_basic

According to that it could be for any of the above list......and thus they do mention actual damages and lost profits. Both are in there.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]According to that it could be for any of the above list......and thus they do mention actual damages and lost profits. Both are in there.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Sure I did. The cable company allowing you to watch a program at your leisure is not illegal. Downloading music off the internet without payment is illegal. I'm not sure why that is curious to you. LJS9502_basic

You're trying to cherry-pick a point that I never made and are trying to base an argument off of that. You're not even addressing my main point.

Focusing in mostly on the double standard that I alluded to.

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]I dont care if he got paid for it, he doesnt own the ideas, hell, he didnt even own the money. I can get paid for absolutely anything. Effort does not mean you deserve profit. Im pretty good at street fighter4, I put effort towards it. By playing against people, I am providing a service to those who also seek to get better. Einstein didnt do what he did for profit. He was naturally bright. Humans have been doing things since the dawn of our species because they either needed it, or wanted it and they just did it. Capitalism is NEW. You argument is shallow, because it rests entirely on a society that would require this sort of compensation. The variable can be replaced, and the whole argument shatters. Everyone wants to be able to have a decent life with good standards, it does not mean they wouldnt do the work anyway. If you think people need profit to do the things humans do naturally anyway, then you dont understand pre-capitalist history at all.MrGeezer

Humans absolutely need to be able to make a profit in able to do the things that they want. It has nothing to do with what people want. It's able what people are ABLE to do. And in a world in which serious art costs serious time/effort in order to make, many people CANNOT DO THAT unless they are given a chance to make money off of it. In a world in which everyone got what they need for free, and was totally taken care of, I'd be fine with people not being paid money in exchange for their work. But we live in a world in which I have to pay money just in order to eat and have a roof over my head. In such a world, I absolutely require money in exchange for my work.

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

MrGeezer

You're also not entitled to obtain what you're unwilling or unable to buy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

You're trying to cherry-pick a point that I never made and are trying to base an argument off of that. You're not even addressing my main point.

MarcusAntonius

Focusing in mostly on the double standard that I alluded to.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I guess you wont answer my question.

Whatever...

Au revoir.

jimmyjammer69