> Non-sequitur. Eh? I'm positing why you might think a system which has worked for centuries should suddenly be obsolete. You're the one who made the claim, so

> Non-sequitur. Eh? I'm positing why you might think a system which has worked for centuries should suddenly be obsolete. You're the one who made the claim, so why don't you enlighten me? > Prove it instead of saying it is. Stop being so lazy and google 'dynamic system equilibrium'. > Is copying stealing? No. Did I say it was? No. > Is depriving someone of potential profits stealing? No, but that doesn't make it ok. > Unethical on what ground? Unethical because: a) the artist hasn't consented to it; b) you are enjoying the fruits of the artist's labour without compensating him/her; c) you contribute to his/her economic deprivation. Of course, since you 'don't even care if artists starve to death on the street' as a direct result of your illegal activities, a discussion of ethics is pointless: you clearly have none. The fact that you have not physically removed the original is irrelevant. If I plagiarize someone's work, the original is still there. Does that mean plagiarism is an ethical activity? > I am not depriving anyone of anything, except their potential profits. Except that 'potential profits' are, in many cases, the only means to livelihood for content creators (in anticipation of the 'go tour' defense: consider Steely Dan, a studio-only band). So the 'anything', is, in fact, everything. > Yes, we must imagine that copyright are really property rights As I mentioned before, 'real' property rights are just as artificial as intellectual property rights. All 'rights' are inventions of man. Do you deny this? Or do you and your 'die-hard anarcho-capitalist' nutter pals at mises.org believe your particular selection of fundamental rights were handed down on a tablet by Moses? > We must also imagine that copyright laws and patents laws are not really a form of economic intervention with abritary rules. Any law of any sort is an 'intervention', insofar as it alters the natural, hobbesian state of affairs. But to claim that copyright law is arbitrary is just silly. Copyright law has developed slowly over centuries, adapting to new technologies in a coherent fashion. It is, moreover, absolutely predictable in its application, and serves a very real economic purpose, namely to bring artistic and scientific output under the umbrella of capitalism -- allowing said activity to be monetized and exchanged for other goods and services. One would have thought that a 'die-hard .. capitalist' would have found this rather useful and elegant. > Do you want my friends over at the mises.org forum and the #mises channel at freenode to come over to show you how many hard-core libertarians despise these kind of laws? If it leads to an improvement in your spelling, grammar, and logic, then why not? And yes, I'd certainly be interested in reading anti-IP articles by libertarians. Seriously. > You know, maybe I really do think copyright and patent are not property right. Now it's my turn not to 'even care' -- I really don't care what you, or any of your nutter pals, think are the 'true' property rights. Your philosophical deliberations on IRC are of no importance to me. What matters is that if you are filesharing, you are breaking the law. And we, the community of musicians and other content creators, are going to ensure you're punished for that. If you think we're wrong about that, then you're free to lobby your politicians. But I rather suspect you're going to have to do better than your lame-ass 'copying is not stealing' and 'copyright law is arbitrary intervention' arguments.