Nope. I'm arguing that the argument "theft is theft" works because mechanically speaking, something of value is being taken. Where your panties are getting twisted is where you're somehow trying to make me take a side here. Read again: That's a rhetorical elaboration of "theft is theft." "Simply put" "Theft" "Is" "Theft." Listen closely: I am a dues-paying, unionized creative in Hollywood. Prior to that I was an in-the-trenches creative in the music industry. By my rough estimation hundreds of dollars' worth of my dues have been spent directly on lobbying for stricter enforcement against piracy. I am also a member of three private trackers. The situation is complex. Those in favor of preserving the old order at any cost see only simplicity. Those in favor of looser restrictions on intellectual property see nuance. My "argument" is that nuance cannot be turned into simplicity. If "you" want to "win" this "argument" you have to get the other side to see nuance, not attempt to find the simplicity in your argument... ...because it isn't there.But do you see how specific your wording is now?
But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media is not the same thing as depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.
But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that
failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media
is not the same thing as
depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.
I think I see where Falzar is coming from. The way that's worded, I think it's begging the question. The question isn't whether one has the right to property. That's a given. The question is whether information is property. Whether information can be owned at all, practically or morally.there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media is not the same thing as depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.
theft is theft
Kids these days. Royalties are not new. Royalties for music are over 100 years old. Patents are even older. Information can totally be owned, should be owned and in many cases must be owned. Look up Chamberlen forceps if you need a crash course in the value of intellectual property to the common good.
I think you've mistaken me for an ideologue. I believe in Freedom of Information in general, but I do recognize the need for limitations, such as medical records or nuclear weapons. Just like I believe in Freedom of Speech, while recognizing the need for libel laws.Royalties are not new
I am actually somewhat familiar with the history of intellectual property. As I noted elsewhere, it actually dates back to the Statue of Anne in 1710, the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, or even 14th century guilds, depending on your precise definition :Pin many cases must be owned. Look up Chamberlen forceps
I didn't say "In all cases, no exceptions." So, there are no succinct arguments against your position, and anyone who makes one is a fanatic?there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing
Did you, or did you not, say the following:
Telling me I can't read, or watch, or say things is infringing on my human rights. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Holy Hyperbole, batman! I argued that legally speaking, piracy is "theft", where "theft" is "taking something from someone without their permission." I further argued that the issue is much greater than that and people who argue "theft is theft" refuse or fail to see the larger aspects of the issue. I would say that's a pretty dispassionate, bias-free assessment of the crux of the argument. If you wanted to argue with it, you'd have to argue the legal definition of "theft" as well as the typical public interpretation of it. You came out swinging with the argument that nobody has any right to anything lacking a physical form. Sure, you're backtracking in a couple places but the point stands: You argued that intellectual property is a crime against humanity. I'd say you did more than prove yourself an ideologue; I'd say you're acting like a froot loop. So we're clear: there have always been and will always be abuses of intellectual property law. I'm not at all happy with lots of it. But you have no more rights to the labor of a composer than you do to the labor of a bricklayer. Arguing otherwise is... ...well, do your best. I'm honestly curious.
Just because something is a natural right doesn't mean it's on the same level as torture and genocide. I have a friends who believe all speech should be free, including libel and things that get people killed. I think they're wrong, but I don't think they're fruit loops. I kinda did. Heh. Sorry I'm not a better debater. Maybe it's because my position is weak and I'll change my mind in a few years. We'll see. ^_^You argued that intellectual property is a crime against humanity.
Arguing otherwise is......well, do your best.
Well, thanks for elaborating on your motives. I can see what you're getting at now. In my case, I was trying to "get you to see nuance" by pointing out how nuanced "your" line had become compared to the platitudes most people spew. Then you ended up simplifying it afterwards, although I still don't quite see how the simplification holds. It was more inferring that you were taking a side due to your opening thesis statement, "there's no moral argument for piracy". If by that you meant "there is no argument that can posit piracy as a morally virtuous act", then I'd agree with you, in the same way that I believe there's no moral argument in support of capricious abortion. But if you mean "there is no moral argument against anti-piracy", that's where I'd start begging to differ.My "argument" is that nuance cannot be turned into simplicity. If "you" want to "win" this "argument" you have to get the other side to see nuance, not attempt to find the simplicity in your argument...
Where your panties are getting twisted is where you're somehow trying to make me take a side here.