3 ms·

I regret joining this topic because I think it invites arguments that are only philosophical and people are generally unlikely to change their minds from what t

I regret joining this topic because I think it invites arguments that are only philosophical and people are generally unlikely to change their minds from what they already believe. For example, when I read your comment I already know I disagree with you, and have but to set my fingertips to the keyboard to let the disagreement flow. In the same way, I know you'll disagree with me, and it's hard for me to see how there is anything productive here. Violating copyright takes potential sales. Those have value. For example, if you had a product worth X dollars, and people had a Y chance of buying it, you could sell the rights to your product based on that value. Our society respects the concept of potential sales or potential value in many ways. If I lie and say that your restaurant is filled with rats, what am I costing you, if not potential sales? I could sell options contracts that have potential value. If I break the fingers of a master pianist or a surgeon I may be sued for a greater amount of damages than if I broke the fingers of any professional who doesn't need manual dexterity. Potential value is the basis for lots of business and productive endeavors. It's why society respects intellectual property rights, to give creators a chance to earn something from their work, which, without the supporting legal framework, would be hard to monetize. I went to Amazon and looked at a top 10 list. The first five books available in paperback and Kindle format are: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Literature-Fiction/zgbs/books/17 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Literature-Fiction... https://www.amazon.com/Opium-Absinthe-Novel-Lydia-Kang-ebook/dp/B07Y1Y82HX/ref=zg_bs_17_2 https://www.amazon.com/Opium-Absinthe-Novel-Lydia-Kang-ebook..., 4.99, 10.99 https://www.amazon.com/Bone-Jar-Detective-Kirby-Book-ebook/dp/B07WWV3DDJ/ref=zg_bs_17_3,4.99,11.99 https://www.amazon.com/Bone-Jar-Detective-Kirby-Book-ebook/d... https://www.amazon.com/Book-Woman-Troublesome-Creek-Novel-ebook/dp/B07LGD67ZZ/ref=zg_bs_17_4,7.59,7.99 https://www.amazon.com/Book-Woman-Troublesome-Creek-Novel-eb... https://www.amazon.com/Someone-Elses-Secret-Julia-Spiro-ebook/dp/B07Y3145PQ/ref=zg_bs_17_5,4.99,10.99 https://www.amazon.com/Someone-Elses-Secret-Julia-Spiro-eboo... https://www.amazon.com/Where-Crawdads-Sing-Delia-Owens/dp/0735219095/ref=zg_bs_17_6,14.99,16.92 https://www.amazon.com/Where-Crawdads-Sing-Delia-Owens/dp/07... Average Kindle price: 7.51 Average paperback price: 11.7 Kindle is, on average, 64% the cost of a paperback. Combine that with greater functionality and ease of use, and I think the Kindle format is a winner.

basch 6y ago
What everyone is saying is exactly the opposite of philosophical. This is an argument of semantics. The existing supreme court rulings are crystal clear that they treat infringement as a different type of crime than theft, as they have different properties. No one is arguing with you about IF loss of sales can occur. They are telling you the legal definition of theft does not cover loss of potential. Hence the use of the word infringement. You are trying to redefine the word theft from its existing legal usage. Use a different word than theft. Dowling v. United States (1985) >interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985... This isnt about what we believe. It's what the law says and how the courts have told us they choose to interpret it. It's (interpreting their interpretation) is not really a debate or an argument open to interpretation, as they were so clear there really arent multiple ways to read it. This isnt about any of us changing our minds with regard to what theft means, as its not an opinion.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Do you genuinely interpret what I wrote as a claim that internet piracy met the legal definition of theft?
  - basch 6y ago
    I am telling you, that everyone else arguing against you is having an argument of semantics, that you are using the wrong words to make your point. Steal and theft are the wrong words to describe a loss of potential sale.

basch 6y ago

What everyone is saying is exactly the opposite of philosophical. This is an argument of semantics. The existing supreme court rulings are crystal clear that they treat infringement as a different type of crime than theft, as they have different properties. No one is arguing with you about IF loss of sales can occur. They are telling you the legal definition of theft does not cover loss of potential. Hence the use of the word infringement. You are trying to redefine the word theft from its existing legal usage. Use a different word than theft. Dowling v. United States (1985) >interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985... This isnt about what we believe. It's what the law says and how the courts have told us they choose to interpret it. It's (interpreting their interpretation) is not really a debate or an argument open to interpretation, as they were so clear there really arent multiple ways to read it. This isnt about any of us changing our minds with regard to what theft means, as its not an opinion.

ALittleLight 6y ago
Do you genuinely interpret what I wrote as a claim that internet piracy met the legal definition of theft?
- basch 6y ago
  I am telling you, that everyone else arguing against you is having an argument of semantics, that you are using the wrong words to make your point. Steal and theft are the wrong words to describe a loss of potential sale.