The supply of information is not infinite though and simply sharing the knowledge can devalue it. If all people treated information as you do and stole it, you would see the information supplies you love and depend on dry up in an instant. It takes resources to produce the information in the first place. If I had the knowledge of all the lottery ticket numbers for all time and no one else did it would be very valuable, law has nothing to do with this. If those same lottery numbers get released to the public they become worthless as everybody will win the lottery. The same thing goes for casinos, stocks, commodities, sport games, almost everything.

Who would pay you for an ad at the beginning of your movie, if they can just download your movie, remove your ads, and send it through their own distribution chanels perhaps more successfully than you. If you think you can get your youtube movie into theatres better than a large corporation would, I believe you are mistaken. What if they specialize in this and have better merchandising capabilities and essentially can just out compete you on everything except for your innovation. Does this make your innovation worth nothing? The very mediums such as movie theaters where you may expect income from could steal the work from you, charge people to see it, and remove your ads. You wouldn't get paid, you wouldn't be able to recover your expenses, you would not have a business capable of producing films.

If the only way to justify the production of a million dollar movie is to charge people to see it, you are simply using an exploitative method of depriving the creator of their ability to recover their expenses. You are gaining value from the creators effort without compensation to them. You may think that their policies are flawed, but you are still depriving them of control over their work.

If scientific researchers are unable to profit off of their work, there is no incentive to invest in scientific research. If it takes 100 million to develop a cancer curing drug, but the second you invent it a specialized drug counterfeiting company with zero investment in the technology brings it to market before you.. it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to invest in high valued information and research, it would always be cheaper to steal someone else's work. The cost to produce a single pill for the inventor would be 100 million, but to the counterfeiter, it might only be 10 cents worth of chemicals. Does this mean that inventors and content producers simple are not competing well enough because one is cheaper than the other?

Without any form of copywrite protections, large media organizations that specialized in stealing works, advertising, and distribution could simply use their leverage to keep your version of movies out of theatres entirely, and modify/edit change your works without crediting you at all. Underdogs essentially would not be able to compete against highly specialized counterfeiting operations that have no need to recoup development costs.

If you assume that all information is free, and development costs are zero then your claim that piracy helps science would be valid. This is false however, and if one is not able to recoup development costs then there is no incentive financially to push science forward.

If anything, your argument is based on the fact that since piracy exists media, is worthless. If piracy did not exist and the risk of stealing the data from the source was too high, the information would therefore natural retain its value. If it were limited to official distribution channels then the concept that it is easily recreated would not be applicable.

You may disagree with Windows DRM, but no one is forcing you to use windows or a computer at all. The fact that you rely on the operating system means that information that microsoft spends millions of dollars producing has value to you. If you could not steal it, you would likely buy it or go to a cheaper competitor. By simply pirating microsoft windows, you are not only depriving microsoft of their ability to recoup costs/profits, but you are also depriving would be competitors from bringing better products to the market as you make their potential market smaller also.

A world in which piracy is legally acceptable would make it difficult for many different types of new technology to be worth the risk for investors to develop.

I'm all for big media being replaced by piracy friendly alternatives, but my opinion about their work does not inherently give me the right to do anything I want with it. If you didn't build it, it's not yours. The ease of your ability to take the information does not indicate that is has no value, it indicates that it's easy to steal.

It's just like US currency. It's information. It costs virtually nothing to produce, and is only valuable based on the information that it represents. Its ability to be traded is what gives it value, if usd was able to be easily counterfeited like movies are, it too would have no trade value. While I do not view USD as a very sound form of currency, I am by no means about to claim that it has no value. If people want it, and you have it, and people will give you something to get it, it has value. Tell me, would it be ethical for the US MINT to print 100 trillion dollars and share it with their friends? No, it is unethical because it undermines the entire basis of economic trade based on that commodity.


Do you think real pirates would have tried to ethically defend robbing ships? No, they wanted what other people had and so they took it. That's all. That's what real pirates fucking are.

If I were to try to ethically defend media piracy though, I would have to base it more on the concept that if public resources are allocated to its distribution or production, I should be compensated in some way. If a television network makes profit airing their work over public airwaves, I feel that the work should at least be partially entered into public domain by default. They are depriving the public of clean radio waves, therefore compensation should be necessary in my opinion. For cable only networks, well they lay waste to a large portion of nature to deliver their content, so I feel that those works should enter public domain also.

As for movies, fuck em. I literally would watch no movies unless they were free if I didn't pirate them and I pay to take my girl to movies I would never generally watch anyways. I figure that makes me even. Generally if I have genuine excitement about a movie I will pay to see it opening night.

Software, I feel really bad about. I don't see any general justification for it. I use linux. I think long term Microsoft has made more money through my familiarization of their software to the extent that I don't force others to use linux. Everything else, well I'm just a bad person.

If corporations treat the general public poorly, I suppose you could justify piracy of their products as a form of protest against such practices.

You can have an economy of information that has free and unlimited distribution of information, but the incentive to produce the information is only there if ownership can be retained.

tl;dr  Information won't just disappear if it were freely given. Freely giving information is a fundamental property of the net and always has been. The ability to send an email, post to a board like this, or surf any website for answers is an inherit part of the web. There's nothing wrong with trying to make money on it, but there is something wrong (at least to me) with trying to stop any of this on a mass scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright
http://www.infoanarchy.org/en/upload/2/ ... l_Info.png

[naive]

In a world where piracy is 100% protected, pirates would crush content producers. If you deny this, you don't understand business or economics. If I can steal your work and profit off of it and push you out of the market, you have nothing left. You simply don't understand information theory, does not make it invalid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Freely giving information is not fundamental to the net, there has been for profit information before the net, during, and there will be afterwards. You can argue that all things should be free to you, but it's not an argument you will ever win with those who produce content.

Copywrite isn't what gives the MPAA and the RIAA control over the market, it's that fact that people dissatisfied just steal the shit instead of voting with their dollars to replace the industry leaders. You don't support their competition so it fails, they retain control.

Free information exists, it does not mean all information is free. Supporting free information does not mean stealing from those who don't give it to you. That only hurts your cause, and makes you a criminal who the rest of the world won't take seriously.

In a world where piracy is 100% protected, pirates would crush content producers. If you deny this, you don't understand business or economics. If I can steal your work and profit off of it and push you out of the market, you have nothing left. You simply don't understand information theory, does not make it invalid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Freely giving information is not fundamental to the net, there has been for profit information before the net, during, and there will be afterwards. You can argue that all things should be free to you, but it's not an argument you will ever win with those who produce content.

Copywrite isn't what gives the MPAA and the RIAA control over the market, it's that fact that people dissatisfied just steal the shit instead of voting with their dollars to replace the industry leaders. You don't support their competition so it fails, they retain control.

Free information exists, it does not mean all information is free. Supporting free information does not mean stealing from those who don't give it to you. That only hurts your cause, and makes you a criminal who the rest of the world won't take seriously.

Like I said, we're not going to agree on this so arguing it is a moot point. It is not as black and white as you say.

[naive]

You can agree to disagree all you want, you can simply stop responding. If you are done talking does not mean the thread is necessarily over. Of course, according to your logic essentially ownership of anything is meaningless, and I could come just steal your computer and make sure of it The world you propose also would make bitcoin have no value.

Heres the thing Leo, I really want to agree with you wholeheartedly. I used to hold your views untill I started thinking about how many current types of innovation would simply be impossible under a purist free information no copywrite world. All I am saying is there has to be balance.

You can agree to disagree all you want, you can simply stop responding. If you are done talking does not mean the thread is necessarily over. Of course, according to your logic essentially ownership of anything is meaningless, and I could come just steal your computer and make sure of it The world you propose also would make bitcoin have no value.

Physical goods still have value. Though matter replicators would put an end to that. Then everyone would be after energy.

Heres the thing Leo, I really want to agree with you wholeheartedly. I used to hold your views untill I started thinking about how many current types of innovation would simply be impossible under a purist free information no copywrite world. All I am saying is there has to be balance.

Such as?

[naive]

The only thing that ties you to your physical goods is the information of your ownership of them in the first place. If I have a device capable of cloning that information and taking that which you claim to own simpl because it is possible, you would would have little recourse in taking it back. Information is essentially everything. Your title to your car is a piece of information that prevents me from just taking it from you and saying its mine, or that it is better for the public if I use your car.

If you read my long post instead of tl;dr'ing you would see.

Physical goods still have value. Though matter replicators would put an end to that. Then everyone would be after energy.

Happiness doesn't have value? Peace of mind doesn't have value? These things aren't physical in the sense that you're talking about, but it'd be ridiculous to say that they are worthless.

Naive's long post was well thought out, give it a try.

The only thing that ties you to your physical goods is the information of your ownership of them in the first place. If I have a device capable of cloning that information and taking that which you claim to own simpl because it is possible, you would would have little recourse in taking it back.

Except you aren't taking it. You are copying it. And that magic machine? It's your computer. If you could copy physical property, I can't think of a single thing I own that I'd seriously mind someone copying.

Information is essentially everything. Your title to your car is a piece of information that prevents me from just taking it from you and saying its mine, or that it is better for the public if I use your car.

Stealing information is different than copying. Like I said, if someone copied my car (if I had a car), I'd have no beef with them what so ever.

If you read my long post instead of tl;dr'ing you would see.

I've done my fair share of research on the topic, so I doubt you're going to add much that I don't already know. At some point I'm sure I won't be that lazy to read it. We've already had plenty of walls of text on this thread, so I'm a bit weary of it. ;P

Happiness doesn't have value?

Happiness is not quantitative.

Peace of mind doesn't have value?

Also not quantitative.

These things aren't physical in the sense that you're talking about, but it'd be ridiculous to say that they are worthless.

Positive emotions are priceless. Anyway, this is getting more into the spectrum of philosophy than the topic at hand warrants.

Naive's long post was well thought out, give it a try.

I will eventually.

[naive]

Actually, emotional conditions can be tracked, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Google, facebook, twitter all keep national emotion indices.

If I copy your deed and start living in your house, all I have done is copy information in order to justify my access to your property without needing your consent. When you copy a movie, you are simply copying information that allows you view a group of people performing without their consent. Sure only a few electrons may be inconvenienced in delivering the media to you, but it is at the direct expense of those who you are watching and deriving value from. Just because you can't physically hold it in your hand does not make it less real or less valuable.

Would you claim that you should be let in for free to all Broadway shows because information should be free?

Actually, emotional conditions can be tracked, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Google, facebook, twitter all keep national emotion indices.

It has selection bias. That aside, there is no quantitative data for the emotions themselves, though there can quant. data for related things around emotions like blood alcohol level. ;P

If I copy your deed and start living in your house, all I have done is copy information in order to justify my access to your property without needing your consent.

This isn't a matter of copyright law, it's a matter of fraud.

When you copy a movie, you are simply copying information that allows you view a group of people performing without their consent. Sure only a few electrons may be inconvenienced in delivering the media to you, but it is at the direct expense of those who you are watching and deriving value from. Just because you can't physically hold it in your hand does not make it less real or less valuable.

What I'm saying is is that if the media has already been distributed and can be copied, it's not ethical to keep that from the artistic or scientific community for the sake of preserving a monopoly. There are other ways to make money on this stuff.

Would you claim that you should be let in for free to all Broadway shows because information should be free?

That's labor, which is different. You can't copy labor without some sort of consideration. I claim that if anyone who went to one of those shows was kind enough to record a digital copy and post it online, that I should not be inhibited from viewing it. This would be the same for someone who bootlegs off of a movie.

The fact is though, I still go pay to see a movie or go to see a band in concert because the purpose of it is to experience a production that my computer can't capture on it's own.