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.
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.
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|10 years ago
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|10 years ago
"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.