Ragdrazi said:
And as we have clearly established nothing has been ~taken~ by a torrent, unless the "property rights" have to be so broadly defined as to include ideas as property. That's a ridiculous proposition.
It is not a ridiculous proposition. You are simply a dishonest person who loves to avoid the core issues and obscure the actual *principles* behind the situation so that you can get away with anything.
The product has been taken. If you cannot understand this you are either a fool or a looter who willingly ignores the actual implications so that he can have his cake and eat it too.
If nothing is taken, then what are you downloading?
What you are *taking away* is the opportunity for the creators to benefit from the fruits of their own minds. When something is copied and distributed illegally you may not be *taking* an *object* from them, but just as much as you are transferring an abstract to yourself, you are *stealing* an abstract-if you will- from the source. You are stealing the opportunity for one to benefit from the fruits of one's mind. At the core of this philosophy that "digitally copying is not taking anything" is the idea that people should not reap any rewards, should not make any career or profession, out of anything that is the product of the mind: art, music, literature, business software, patents, new innovations and yes, games, among many others. If we were all to concede to the ideas implied by the acceptance of your behavior , we would all be destined to manual labor and industry, agriculture and distribution devoid of all innovation.
This ideal, your ideal, is that the products of your mind are not *yours*, they are everyone else's- whatever thoughts you utter, whatever words you say, whatever you write down is not yours, it is everyone's. The idea that is advocated is the enslavement of everyone's productive thoughts. Is this truly the democratic ideal that you would want, or that you want? Because it's games today- thoughts tomorrow.
Any element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property?by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.
All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man?s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who?re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won?t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner?s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Otherwise you are a thief--- and by your arguments, you definitely sound like one.
I don't pay for my library membership. Where you living?
You have a library card, don't you?
Are you able to take books out of the library without the card?
That's a failure, Merry, failed argument.
Erroneous. My argument is quite solid. You're just a subjectivist, and probably a dishonest man. Dishonest men dislike definition, preferring to work with the amorphous field of moral relativism.
Go take a look at the credits in Little Big Planet, Sam and Max's episodes, whatever. Read those names carefully and count them. Those are the hundreds of people to whom you are saying that their work, their ingenuity, their minds and their creations are worthless, that *you are entitled to their money somehow*. The fact that you're not running out of a store with a box means diddly squat. You're taking away those people's money, hopes, ambitions, the joy of achievement and rights to ask for money for the skills they have painfully honed for years.
So yes, you are still a thief.
