[gozo]

"You called me ignorant directly and you started it"

I didn't call you ignorant, so much as your argument that involved currency and north korea. But I realize it's a fine line and should have used a different word. Not that you are taking the high road here either.

"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."

How is piracy and "theft" not about copyright law? If you're not breaking copyright law it's not piracy.

"Possibly based on discourse but not based on reality and therefore off topic"

I obviously don't think so. My kind of arguments are the ones being discussed at conferences, in books, documentaries and papers.

"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."

There's a reason I used the word "theoretically". Still a 14 year old is seldom going to buy a $4000 program and companies sometimes recognizes these scenarios. Microsoft did in China for instance.

"Who cares? Increasing supply is a part of reality, and that is what I'm talking about."

I don't see how increasing supply in general is relevant. If I seed some flowers I'm increasing the supply of flowers, but few people would see that as a negative thing. If there were no copyright, like in (to some extent) fashion or cooking, copying would be part of reality and there would be little point to compare it to copying currency.

[crimsonalucard]

>Not that you are taking the high road here either.

You punch someone in the face you think there's going to be any high road? Guess what, you start shit, people react, you make enemies.

>How is piracy and "theft" not about copyright law? If you're not breaking copyright law it's not piracy.

It's because humans are born with the ability to moralize and differentiate from right and wrong without the need for written law. Everybody knows what theft is without referencing copyright law. What I am talking about in my argument is how the theft of value occurs according to the intrinsic law of supply and demand; and the theft of value is morally wrong according to common sense, no need to refer to copyright law.

Let's put it this way... If you rip off someone's secret recipe copyright law may say that you're not wrong, but your conscious will tell you that you're an ass.

>I obviously don't think so. My kind of arguments are the ones being discussed at conferences, in books, documentaries and papers.

Good for you, but guess what, those things discussed in conferences? If it's about copyright law, it's off topic.

>There's a reason I used the word "theoretically". Still a 14 year old is seldom going to buy a $4000 program and companies sometimes recognizes these scenarios. Microsoft did in China for instance.

Theories are used to speculate about the unknown or things not directly observed. When evidence and common sense flies in the face of theory, the theory becomes shit and a new theory is needed. Why even present a flawed theory? Either way it doesn't even matter if a 14 y/o pirates a $4000 program he would never buy, the problem is when someone pirates something they would otherwise buy which I assure you happens a lot.

>I don't see how increasing supply in general is relevant. If I seed some flowers I'm increasing the supply of flowers, but few people would see that as a negative thing. If there were no copyright, like in (to some extent) fashion or cooking, copying would be part of reality and there would be little point to compare it to copying currency.

You can't form a business around products with unlimited supply because those products are worthless. Cooking and fashion are supply limited products. Companies use brand names, trade secrecy and manufacturing techniques that require enormous capital to protect and restrict supply. Physical limits like finite materials time, and effort also serve to restrict supply. Such is the nature of physical products, and it is because of this limit in supply that a business can be formed around it. If there was a physical product with virtually unlimited supply it would be fundamentally impossible to form a business around it.

Is there a physical product in this world that has almost unlimited supply? Yes. Air. How many business are formed around selling air? Almost none. Although, I know of one such business in canada that sells bottled clean air to people living in polluted cities in china. The only reason why this business can exist is because china has a "restricted" supply of clean air.

Information unlike physical products is not supply limited. We can copy information at a drop of a dime. Without laws, DRM or artificial supply restrictions programmed into the product itself; music, software and movies would be as worthless as the air you breath. And I said before you can't form a business around something with unlimited supply.

[gozo]

"Guess what, you start shit, people react, you make enemies."

Since you are now essentially making threats I can no longer in good faith continue this discussion.