[bmelton]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I never thought that there was anybody "reappropriating copyright" on digital artwork that didn't honestly believe they were doing something wrong.

If nobody gets paid for producing art, then our artists can't afford to make it their jobs, which means they won't have enough time to make better art.

What is simply amazing to me is that anybody would rather steal the work than just not have it. If it doesn't have any value, then why do you need it?

Yes, I'm implying that there is tangibility to a digital good. Perhaps the car analogy wasn't great, but if you're the guy selling your mother's famous chocolate chip cookie recipe, and I steal... errr, COPY the recipe down and put you out of business, I'd imagine you wouldn't think too fondly of me.

Please excuse me if I can put myself in the shoes of those being stolen... pirated... copied... victimlessnessed upon, and that I feel more for their needs to get compensated more than the arrogant needs of those who feel justified in stealing something they didn't create while trivializing the efforts of those who created it in the same breath.

[burgerbrain]

One of the (many) problems here is that you seem to believe for some unexplained reason that if something is "wrong", then it must therefore be stealing.

I simply don't know how to correct this sort of willful ignorance.

[bmelton]

I don't believe that. I believe that lying is wrong, but I don't believe it's stealing.

It costs money to make music. It costs money to make films. It costs money to make art.

The way one is able to make those as a living is to sell the finished products and/or distribute them. If you consume the good and do not recompense, then you are depriving the artist of their means of making a living, which takes away their ability to make more art.

[burgerbrain]

You deprive them of nothing. You make the classic mistake of assuming that somebody who is willing to consume media for free would also be willing to consume it for a price, and that therefore anybody who gets it for free is a lost sale. This simply is not the case.

This whole conversation is amazing actually. It really does feel like I've been teleported back into the late 90s when normal people still actually believe this kind of crap. It's like HNs has somehow turned into early slashdot.

[bmelton]

You deprive them of the sale, which I've said.

If you aren't willing to pay for it, then simply don't consume it. If they aren't willing to give it to you for free, then it isn't yours to take, any more than it is okay for me to steal... I mean 'copy' naked pictures of your girlfriend off your phone and distribute them to the world.

After all, it deprives you of nothing, right?

[burgerbrain]

"You deprive them of the sale"

read:

"You make the classic mistake of assuming that somebody who is willing to consume media for free would also be willing to consume it for a price, and that therefore anybody who gets it for free is a lost sale. This simply is not the case."

The entertainment factor here is wearing off. I'm out.

[bmelton]

At least you exited on a high note, which was to completely ignore my argument.

I'm not willing to pay for an iPhone, so I don't buy one. Just because I'd be willing to have one for free doesn't justify me the right to steal it. If you aren't willing to pay for something that costs money, your alternative is to not have it.

The arrogance of the people who aren't willing to pay for the music come out of their speakers is appalling to me. That said, you justify it to yourself all you like.

Should you ever find yourself on the wrong end of the law because of it, I hope the parties arresting you feel the same way, for your sake.