> does show that their exist people that do not want to pay. Of course not? This entire thread is talking about how IP is a sham. Its totally out of touch with

> does show that their exist people that do not want to pay. Of course not? This entire thread is talking about how IP is a sham. Its totally out of touch with physical reality. The original design of IP to begin with was more to protect the printers than the artists themselves - the problem that needed addressing in the 17th-18th century during the dawn of IP protection wasn't that creativity was this new thing people were trying out - it was that industrial printing of media was suddenly a thing at a scale whereby the manufacturers of books wanted their infrastructure protected from scalpers undercutting their expensive runs of literature. IP was conceived as a romantic way to protect the middle men of creativity from the start, and while those middle men still exist, their function has been totally technologically obsoleted to the point where random strangers I have never and will never meet are offering to send me copies of things I want for free. That is damn magic that could not have happened even thirty years ago. There was always a marginal cost to information transfer that is now gone, and with its departure the hollow justifications for information monopolies at gunpoint are plain to see as immoral and unreasonable. They always were, it was always a protection racket for middle men, but at least last century the economic indicators aligned marginally with the concept. Now they are in total opposition to physical reality and those that realize it are less guilt tripped by pirating some corporation larger than several nations works.