nexus hate?

[Fonger]

With a physical book from a bookstore is real property. If I take a book out the back door, the store can no longer sell that book. It is lost money, as if I had taken it out of the register.

If I download the book off some website, no one loses the book. It is not a lost sale, there is no way you can make the case that I would have bought the book if I had not been able to download it.

Option 2 is not theft. It is illegal today, no question about it.

let us presume that this opinion stands in world court

 

as a natural consequence of this ruling

 

all compositions, copyrights and patents worldwide would become public domain

 

as no idea would be safe from theft

 

and therefore could be used in any other product

 

(physical or intellectual)

 

therefore all composers would start raising chickens instead of producing new music

 

all game designers would manufacture Fords for a living

 

and new ideas would vanish off the face of the earth

[myrmaad]

/hands on hips.

 

Logically, if you can read the book without purchasing it, then you have no need to ever purchase it.

 

People don't buy books for the pretty binder, they buy books to glean the information or entertainment from them.

 

Once that has been you've negated 90 percent of the need to purchase. Perhaps a small percentage would like to display the book for some reason or hold it in their hands at will, but that is not the main purpose of publishing the hard copy.

 

Your argument is flawed. You may dress it up as cheese all you like but it's still a cat.

[Zaldir]

With a physical book from a bookstore is real property. If I take a book out the back door, the store can no longer sell that book. It is lost money, as if I had taken it out of the register.

If I download the book off some website, no one loses the book. It is not a lost sale, there is no way you can make the case that I would have bought the book if I had not been able to download it.

Option 2 is not theft. It is illegal today, no question about it.

 

I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong. The environment is the way it is and you gotta do what you gotta do.

I only think that in the misty future, things will go the other way, especially in regard to work for hire.

You are right; per definition, downloading illegally is not theft - but why is it not? Because it is not looked upon as theft, or because the "official" definition have not been updated to modern society?

It is definitely looked upon as theft even if the definition is old and not updated to suit the internet at all - the definition of a word is not always what you should follow, it is the common usage of the word that is important. And in this case, the common usage of theft is "the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent". Now, you are saying that mods and other non-physical property are not property, and yes, while this is partially true, at the same time, it is utterly wrong! No, it is not physical property, it is not personal property, private property, real property or public property... It is however, Intellectual property, meaning inventions and most importantly when talking about mods and art; Artistic Creations. But of course, you wouldn't care about Intellectual Property, since you think of it as okay to download illegally, so I don't even know why I bother writing this.

 

You may also notice that I corrected your post a bit. Of course he can make the case that you would have bought the book if you could not download it! (Not "you" as in you, but a random person...)

If someone who usually downloads games illegally is not able to do so anymore, do you think he would cease to play games? Or that someone who usually downloads E-books illegally would cease to read E-books if they could not download them illegally anymore? If you think so, I can tell for certain that you have never lived in a world without internet - you know, the time when people couldn't download games illegally...

Edited January 25, 2012 by Zaldiir

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

let us presume that this opinion stands in world court

 

as a natural consequence of this ruling

 

all compositions, copyrights and patents worldwide would become public domain

 

as no idea would be safe from theft

 

and therefore could be used in any other product

 

(physical or intellectual)

 

therefore all composers would start raising chickens instead of producing new music

 

all game designers would manufacture Fords for a living

 

and new ideas would vanish off the face of the earth

I seriously doubt that. Like I said, this community is proof that people do creative things in absence of monetary gain.

 

/hands on hips.

 

Logically, if you can read the book without purchasing it, then you have no need to ever purchase it.

 

People don't buy books for the pretty binder, they buy books to glean the information or entertainment from them.

 

Once that has been you've negated 90 percent of the need to purchase. Perhaps a small percentage would like to display the book for some reason or hold it in their hands at will, but that is not the main purpose of publishing the hard copy.

 

Your argument is flawed. You may dress it up as cheese all you like but it's still a cat.

 

You can purchase to support an author and to encourage him to create future works *without* it being that case that you are taking money out of his pocket if you don't. Those are 2 separate concepts. I can give money to Nexus to support it (which I will do some day I promise), but if I don't, I didn't take Dark0ne's lunch money.

I declare your argument flawed, and no matter how much salt you put on it, it's still 80s hair metal.

 

Agree to disagree I guess.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

You may also notice that I corrected your post a bit. Of course he can make the case that you would have bought the book if you could not download it! (Not "you" as in you, but a random person...)

If someone who usually downloads games illegally is not able to do so anymore, do you think he would cease to play games? Or that someone who usually downloads E-books illegally would cease to read E-books if they could not download them illegally anymore? If you think so, I can tell for certain that you have never lived in a world without internet - you know, the time when people couldn't download games illegally...

 

You just don't know what you're talking about, I can't soften it any more than that. Widespread internet service didn't come along until mid high school for me, and I didn't have it until well afterward. So your generalizations are completely without credibility.

[Zaldir]

You may also notice that I corrected your post a bit. Of course he can make the case that you would have bought the book if you could not download it! (Not "you" as in you, but a random person...)

If someone who usually downloads games illegally is not able to do so anymore, do you think he would cease to play games? Or that someone who usually downloads E-books illegally would cease to read E-books if they could not download them illegally anymore? If you think so, I can tell for certain that you have never lived in a world without internet - you know, the time when people couldn't download games illegally...

 

You just don't know what you're talking about, I can't soften it any more than that. Widespread internet service didn't come along until mid high school for me, and I didn't have it until well afterward. So your generalizations are completely without credibility.

You take out one tiny part of my post, which is about you, and not the topic at hand and say I am wrong about that, but you leave everything else out. Why? You realize that you were wrong, and don't have anything more to say about it?

 

I didn't live in the time before internet, but I wonder, what do you mean about "You just don't know what you're talking about"? Are you talking only about that part where I said that you clearly didn't live in the time before internet? Because I am quite certain I got that other part right, about not being able to download games illegally before the internet came around... But anyway, this is not the topic at hand - the topic at hand (which is not really the topic at hand either) is whether or not intellectual property is.. ehm... property. (It kind of gives away the answer in the name of the term.)

Edited January 25, 2012 by Zaldiir

[ginnyfizz]

Yep, I am also in the intellectual property is property camp. If that were not so, and if there weren't constantly smart alecks popping up trying to dispute the fact as an excuse to steal it, then it would not be the most profitable area of the law to go into. You can dress it up all you like, but it boils down to this sense of entitlement that people have, that they should be able to do whatever they want, without consequences.

 

And I would also include mods as intellectual property. Some modders draft their readme's accordingly. Just because they uploaded it and it's available for free, does not mean that it did not cost them in time and effort, and that should be respected.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

You take out one tiny part of my post, which is about you, and not the topic at hand and say I am wrong about that, but you leave everything else out. Why? You realize that you were wrong, and don't have anything more to say about it?

 

I didn't live in the time before internet, but I wonder, what do you mean about "You just don't know what you're talking about"? Are you talking only about that part where I said that you clearly didn't live in the time before internet? Because I am quite certain I got that other part right, about not being able to download games illegally before the internet came around... But anyway, this is not the topic at hand - the topic at hand (which is not really the topic at hand either) is whether or not intellectual property is.. ehm... property. (It kind of gives away the answer in the name.)

 

I was talking about the 2nd part. But you don't know what you're talking about in the first part either ;)

 

Of course "property" is in the name. The term was crafted by people who want you to think that their ideas are akin to physical objects, which is just not true.

 

Let us take a hypothetical person, anywhere on earth.

This person has some kind of internet attached device, but no liquid assets.

He downloads your book.

There is no possible way he could have paid for the book, therefore there is no possible way this can be a lost sale.

If you concede that this circumstance is not a lost sale, it logically follows that you can't equate unauthorized downloads to lost sales.

[Zaldir]

You take out one tiny part of my post, which is about you, and not the topic at hand and say I am wrong about that, but you leave everything else out. Why? You realize that you were wrong, and don't have anything more to say about it?

 

I didn't live in the time before internet, but I wonder, what do you mean about "You just don't know what you're talking about"? Are you talking only about that part where I said that you clearly didn't live in the time before internet? Because I am quite certain I got that other part right, about not being able to download games illegally before the internet came around... But anyway, this is not the topic at hand - the topic at hand (which is not really the topic at hand either) is whether or not intellectual property is.. ehm... property. (It kind of gives away the answer in the name.)

 

I was talking about the 2nd part. But you don't know what you're talking about in the first part either ;)

 

Of course "property" is in the name. The term was crafted by people who want you to think that their ideas are akin to physical objects, which is just not true.

 

Let us take a hypothetical person, anywhere on earth.

This person has some kind of internet attached device, but no liquid assets.

He downloads your book.

There is no possible way he could have paid for the book, therefore there is no possible way this can be a lost sale.

If you concede that this circumstance is not a lost sale, it logically follows that you can't equate unauthorized downloads to lost sales.

"you don't know what you're talking about" - such an easy way to avoid going further into the topic. But fair enough, if you do not want to discuss it, we won't discuss it - we have different opinions, and in my (And most other people who share or sell things on the internet) opinion you are on the wrong side, while in your (and... the pirates') opinion, I am on the wrong side.

 

Now, about your last post:

You are right, if that person was never going to buy it, it won't count as a lost sale that they downloaded it because there are infinite amounts of copies available. But what happens when a friend of that person is about to buy the book, but the first person tells him that he won't have to, because he already have it! The other person won't bother to buy it now, whether they know the first person downloaded it or not - because, well, now they have it. There's your lost sale. Two things that causes lost sales when people download: Word of mouth & "Sharing is caring". (Note: Sharing is only caring when you are allowed to share it and you yourself got what you share in a legal manner. If your sharing causes others to suffer from it, it is no longer caring.)

Edited January 25, 2012 by Zaldiir

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Huh. I didn't realize you were against libraries.