I don't think you were being picked on intentionally, it just you are the only one left with the fortitude and guts to defend a tough position. Where all the other people on the "Okay side" went is anyone's guess. I don't agree with you on a lot of points concerning this subject, but I appreciate you putting forward your perspective.

Cheers.

Next time I'll try all caps and extra large font as well. I'm tired of beating the dead horse so I thought I'd highlight the main part of my assertion in case someone someone was too lazy to read the whole thing. (not referring to you in particular)

No. I'm not willing to pay more than $5 for a Lamborghini doesn't mean I should have it for $5. Your argument entirely relative on the individual. Besides Apple fanboys, who would gladly pay more for software without having to?

Irrelevant. Why because I see "poor" people waste money on snacks, lottery tickets and eating at fast food restaurants. Sure a product is a percentage of their income but they save to pay for entertainment just like the do for everything else. A DVD isn't a human right nor is it essential for living.

I don't know how a DVD is more expensive than the player. Are there $10 DVD players? If that does exist then maybe they're using the razor / razor blade model to be profitable.

I didn't demonize you, merely disagree with your points, just like you disagree with mine. I do try to make it personal. Most people view the argument differently if they were the person on the other side being stolen from.

I remember when you mentioned that a few pages back. I think it is important to separate the person from the argument. If I made it too personal I apologize, it was certainly not my intent. I will make no apologies for being on the other side of the argument however.

Yeah, I think the interesting arguments faded a few pages back. ;-)

Do you guys think this would be similar to what may happen when material replicator (item copier) gets perfected?

Imagine if there is a machine that can copy any item, perfectly, with the minimal cost of just a gunk of junk/trash about the same volume as the item to be copied. Books, foods, jewelry, toys, gadgets, widgets... cars... they're all copied with the same simplicity and flat cost. Similar to data copying, right?

It takes away the complexity and costs associated to creating the original product.

Now... the masses who are the beneficiary of this replication technology may well be ignorant on how elaborate the original creation process may be and all the costs associated to it. To them a replicated diamond ring costs as much to create as, say a, spoon.

On the other hand, the creator can also benefit from this technology. In the old world, they may spend $1000 on a single item that can be sold for $1500. With the replicator, they can sell 10,000 copies at $1 each.

Then again, this technology actually already exists... we already have China as the world's replicator. (jk).

No. It isn't, Infringement of intellectual property is not defined as a "form of theft" according to the law of any country I know of. It is a form of theft just like slander is a form of rape. The only place copywriter infringement is defined as theft is in the propaganda material of entities such as RIAA, MPAA and such.

Indeed. In fact, back here it's not illegal to download a song and play it for yourself or your family (as defined). Only distributing is illegal. And, true, everything else is, such as publishing, making hard copies, selling, and it grows worse from there. Assuming copyright is among the worst.

Additionally, archiving entities, such as archives and libraries are allowed to copy the original as needed to keep it from being lost.

Playing in my own home for myself is not considered a crime. Since, you know, it's not really enforceable.

And it's not like they can't be bothered. In fact, I got a visit from the Police yesterday, inquiring about the use of an IP address (they ripped off a site). I was unable to help, it was the gateway for an open wifi AP.

Not identical, though, as actual innovations, inventions, techniques, chemical compounds, etc have patent protection. You can copy all you want, they're public, but you can't use them.

IMO, quite a different story, since the stuff a patent protects is money making, not personal use.

I don't think anyone here think it's right, legal or even "OK" to use someone else's invention to make money, immediately after it was invented and before the owner had priority.

Plus, patents expire. And, there are movement efforts to bring the expiry dates down. Also, there are efforts being directed at bypassing some of them. And I agree. If a cure for cancer is ever invented, I don't believe it's right to not give it to a dieing human because another human wants another chocolate fountain.

I don't think the concepts are very similar. Among other things, it would render branding useless, as all copies are just as good as the original (assuming a perfect copier).

I'm guessing all copiers will be intentionally crippled to keep anyone for replicating what they shouldn't. Like, you know, money, other replicators, bio-weapons and stuff. So that's why Picard kept saying replicated food never tasted like the original.

OTOH, end of world hunger. Solar powered sand to tasteless rice converter. OTOOH, nobody works any more.

Although I don't think it is OK to pirate anything, I have done it in the past (and very likely I'll end doing it again).
I certainly try to go for the freeware or pay for the software, but I find it hard with movies and music... I go to movies very often, but buying/renting is harder than just downloading. Same happens to music, sometimes it is easier to find the cd online, than getting it in a store (even online strores...)
I do think that piracy is some kind of theft, and therefore I'm trying hard to not do it. But sometimes I just can't...

It seems my memory misled me. I checked up and you are correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

However, from the standpoint of the content creator/owner, the difference is one of mere semantics. Infringement is still illegal.

From the standpoint of a pirate, it doesn't matter whether it is legal or not, so why do content publishers so often use obnoxious DRM to frustrate the paying customer. Why bother?

Actually, there is a huge difference. It is much more than mere semantics. If someone stole something from you, it is a criminal offense. You can go to the police and file a complaint, and he will be prosecuted by the state/country. If the thief is convicted, he might face jail, and he will have a criminal record.

In case of copyright infringement, even though there are criminal liabilities in some very specific cases, such as selling pirated copies commercially, simple copyright infringement is not a criminal offense. If someone copied your program or song, you cannot go to the police and file a complaint. You can sue him in court (just like you can sue someone for contract violations), and he can be fined, and in some countries such as the US the fines can be pretty hefty, but this is still a civil law court.

And all this is just from a legal point of view, without getting into a discussion concerning the moral and ethical differences between piracy and theft.

sela, I said it's semantics from the standpoint of the content creator or owner.