Which should only serve to further the economy under this neutralising impact.Acrisius said:When you steal something, whoever used to own it LOSE IT. It's LOST. GONE. They've effectively LOST money, which is why you call it "robbery". They've been robbed. That's NEGATIVE money. Are you with me this far?
Which is great, unless you're the content creator.In this case, people GAIN something, because someone spends their honestly earned money to purchase someone else's product. Using his FINITE pool of money. There is a limit to how much he can spend, so regardless of what he spends it on, the economy GAINS something and nobody has LOST anything. Nobody has been robbed. Sure, the copyright holder of the thing he pirated doesn't gain anything, but they also don't LOSE anything. But someone else gains and the economy as a whole gets that money still.
You still missed his point, however. But then, I saw this because you quoted me and as such....
People are talking about programming and coding in this thread. If you accept them as creative (maybe you don't), then you should probably respect people writing, creating and reporting on original content as a creative venture. Especially since most actual journalists do put a lot of creative effort. I will separate that from the people who just copy AP feeds, but still.Since when is journalism about creativity? I thought it was about reporting and investigating. Then again, the media is full of fiction...
Which is nice, but it's still conflicting with someone else's rights. A purchase is someone saying "you can use my work personally for a fee."I think people who create content have a the exclusive right to monetize on it, meaning you can't make money on someone else's work unless they want you to. I don't think this conflicts with little Timmy around the block downloading your book for private use.
That's your right. Your right to choose. You are, however, inflicting it upon others evidently.Personally, I'd rather see as many people as possible enjoy my work if the alternative was that they never see or pay for it anyway.
That's a nice, specious statement. It's nice to pretend that people want all the benefits and none of the downsides, but that's horribly simplistic and narrow.Not to mention that the internet and the global market has opened up entirely new business opportunities. But everyone wants the benefits without the downsides.
Nor does your right to privacy, or even your right to not be owned by someone. So if someone were to kidnap you and put you to work, would you be like "oh, okay, well there's no historical tendency, natural law, or order from God so I guess I'd better get to work before the master whips me again?"And historically, authors have never been guaranteed compensation for their work at all so it's not like it's some kind of natural law.
...Or would you have a problem with your own argument when the scenario was less convenient.
*cough*bullshit*cough*Same goes for many artists, etc. They've always been the most poor in society and what do you know, this has changed today.
Yes, because Stephen King died alone and penniless because the internet wasn't in widespread use yet.In the age of piracy, this is when best-sellers make authors into millionaires.
Damn, that shit is cold.
Wait, what? Stephen King is still alive? Best-selling authors, like famous musicians and painters are the exception and not the rule, just like before piracy? Oh, wow. Maybe that sort of thing isn't the issue you made it out to be.
Honestly, for someone treating DoPo like a four year old, you sure have a simplistic view of things that in no way reflects history.
That's a nice fantasy, but it's far from guaranteed.In the future, everything is gonna exist on the internet and it's gonna be accessible to everyone across the globe.
And that sounds great! No more creativity that you cherish so much! The stunting of humanity! Your utopian future suddenly becomes dystopian!I think I'd find a way to get on with my life. Maybe get a job where people can't replace me with copy-paste.