[gozo]

You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright instead your trying to shoehorn in your argument where they don't make sense.

"You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply"

A digital product already has infinite supply. The question isn't if copying affects supply, but if it affects demand. If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim. The same is true in other fields. Even universal human rights doesn't deal with intellectual property in this way. There's simply little basis for this view.

"When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music"

That you "only harm the creator" is objectively false, since even if you prescribe to great harm being done by piracy it's not only the creator, but the rightsholder that gets hurt.

"What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime?"

It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling.

"Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality"

My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse.

[crimsonalucard]

>It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling.

You called me ignorant directly and you started it. "Ignorant" is a highly charged word that will ignite hostility. Do you start debates with that word in real life? Perhaps if you had experience with "copyright debate" you'd know that things won't end well when you start something with that word. Maybe you're just too ignorant to realize that. I never directly called you anything. Besides, there's a difference between fact-calling and name-calling in which case what I'm doing is more closer to the former.

>You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright

I'm not talking about copyright. I started the topic and that topic dictates the terms of this debate. The topic was a sarcastic example about piracy and theft in terms of supply, demand and value. It was not at all about copyright law. When you talk about human law you deal with controversial topics like whether a pattern of sound needs to be copyrighted or whether a recipe needs to be copyrighted. I'm not dealing with any of those ambiguities. I am dealing with what happens in economics when you pirate something. What happens when you pirate money and what happens when you pirate software. I am not talking about written law.

>My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse.

Possibly based on discourse but not based on reality and therefore off topic.

>If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero.

What dream world do you live in where you think this is all that happens with piracy? Many people also copy things that they would have bought in the first place.

>A digital product already has infinite supply.

And as such, the product is usually worthless unless distribution/supply is artificially restricted (Netflix, DRM, etc.)

> Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing.

Who cares? Increasing supply is a part of reality, and that is what I'm talking about.

>If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim

Why are their secret recipes? Why do people hide these things? Because restricting supply increases VALUE. Copyright law is an issue that is separate from this phenomenon.

[gozo]

"You called me ignorant directly and you started it"

I didn't call you ignorant, so much as your argument that involved currency and north korea. But I realize it's a fine line and should have used a different word. Not that you are taking the high road here either.

"The topic was a sarcastic example about piracy and theft in terms of supply, demand and value. It was not at all about copyright law."

How is piracy and "theft" not about copyright law? If you're not breaking copyright law it's not piracy.

"Possibly based on discourse but not based on reality and therefore off topic"

I obviously don't think so. My kind of arguments are the ones being discussed at conferences, in books, documentaries and papers.

"What dream world do you live in where you think this is all that happens with piracy? Many people also copy things that they would have bought in the first place."

There's a reason I used the word "theoretically". Still a 14 year old is seldom going to buy a $4000 program and companies sometimes recognizes these scenarios. Microsoft did in China for instance.

"Who cares? Increasing supply is a part of reality, and that is what I'm talking about."

I don't see how increasing supply in general is relevant. If I seed some flowers I'm increasing the supply of flowers, but few people would see that as a negative thing. If there were no copyright, like in (to some extent) fashion or cooking, copying would be part of reality and there would be little point to compare it to copying currency.

[crimsonalucard]

>Not that you are taking the high road here either.

You punch someone in the face you think there's going to be any high road? Guess what, you start shit, people react, you make enemies.

>How is piracy and "theft" not about copyright law? If you're not breaking copyright law it's not piracy.

It's because humans are born with the ability to moralize and differentiate from right and wrong without the need for written law. Everybody knows what theft is without referencing copyright law. What I am talking about in my argument is how the theft of value occurs according to the intrinsic law of supply and demand; and the theft of value is morally wrong according to common sense, no need to refer to copyright law.

Let's put it this way... If you rip off someone's secret recipe copyright law may say that you're not wrong, but your conscious will tell you that you're an ass.

>I obviously don't think so. My kind of arguments are the ones being discussed at conferences, in books, documentaries and papers.

Good for you, but guess what, those things discussed in conferences? If it's about copyright law, it's off topic.

>There's a reason I used the word "theoretically". Still a 14 year old is seldom going to buy a $4000 program and companies sometimes recognizes these scenarios. Microsoft did in China for instance.

Theories are used to speculate about the unknown or things not directly observed. When evidence and common sense flies in the face of theory, the theory becomes shit and a new theory is needed. Why even present a flawed theory? Either way it doesn't even matter if a 14 y/o pirates a $4000 program he would never buy, the problem is when someone pirates something they would otherwise buy which I assure you happens a lot.

>I don't see how increasing supply in general is relevant. If I seed some flowers I'm increasing the supply of flowers, but few people would see that as a negative thing. If there were no copyright, like in (to some extent) fashion or cooking, copying would be part of reality and there would be little point to compare it to copying currency.

You can't form a business around products with unlimited supply because those products are worthless. Cooking and fashion are supply limited products. Companies use brand names, trade secrecy and manufacturing techniques that require enormous capital to protect and restrict supply. Physical limits like finite materials time, and effort also serve to restrict supply. Such is the nature of physical products, and it is because of this limit in supply that a business can be formed around it. If there was a physical product with virtually unlimited supply it would be fundamentally impossible to form a business around it.

Is there a physical product in this world that has almost unlimited supply? Yes. Air. How many business are formed around selling air? Almost none. Although, I know of one such business in canada that sells bottled clean air to people living in polluted cities in china. The only reason why this business can exist is because china has a "restricted" supply of clean air.

Information unlike physical products is not supply limited. We can copy information at a drop of a dime. Without laws, DRM or artificial supply restrictions programmed into the product itself; music, software and movies would be as worthless as the air you breath. And I said before you can't form a business around something with unlimited supply.

[gozo]

"Guess what, you start shit, people react, you make enemies."

Since you are now essentially making threats I can no longer in good faith continue this discussion.

[crimsonalucard]

I made no threat. I'm just saying when you use hostile language people will react emotionally and hate you for it. This is common human behavior if you're familiar with it.

If you believe I made a threat, quote me on it. I clearly did no such thing.