As soon as you refer to copying as "theft" you lose me. Society can function just fine with unlimited PirateBay activity. It already does! Society cannot function with unlimited real-life thievery. QED
> * Society can function just fine with unlimited PirateBay activity. It already does! Society cannot function with unlimited real-life thievery.*
What does "unlimited" mean here? Does it mean "if everybody torrented" and "if everybody stole"?
If so, you're basically stating that there should be no IP. How would a writer or filmaker make money then? After they wrote a book, would they just publish it online and hope to stay ramen profitable by running ads in the background? But wait! That wouldn't even work... because if everybody torrented, nobody would even see the advertisements on the creator's website!
If LouisCK released his video "Live at the Beacon Theater" and nobody bought it, and everybody torrented it, would Louis be likely to release another one without DRM?
Would society truly "function just fine" if the creation of intellectual property netted the creator nothing? (I'm assuming that torrenting doesn't net the creator anything -- a valid assumption given the torrents I've seen)
Ah, of course, I'm misunderstanding your usage of the word "unlimited". Perhaps you meant that currently ThePirateBay is relatively "unrestricted"?
In that case, you're stating that at least some people will be willing to pay for intellectual property (and these people manage to keep the creators afloat), while there will not be enough people who will pay for physical property if stealing of physical objects were condoned. Why's that?
The convenience argument states that people are willing to pay for music if it's A) at a reasonable price and B) easy to obtain. If that applies to IP, why doesn't that apply to physical objects as well? It seems like you believe in the convenience argument, so I'll attack that right now. The convenience argument doesn't work with your proof at all. You're stating that the fundamental difference between IP and physical objects that causes a society that condones a stealing of the latter to "not function" is because stealing a bottle of Coke from CVS is easier than paying for it. Bullshit. Do you really think it's easier to steal?
Ah, maybe you don't believe in the convenience argument anymore. Tell me why people nowadays are still willing to pay for IP (even though they can get it off of ThePirateBay) but wouldn't be willing to pay for a physical item.
That question is mute. If you really need to hear a answer, they want. In this extream case there want be any people who make money with creating "art". This is probebly not how its going to turn out if there is no IP.
People will have to innovate. You have to get paid for the creation of your work not for the distribution. Kickstarter is an idea. People are already starting to blog or podcast for free and then make more and more money with it. You can earn money with selling t-shirts and stuff (this is what many bands allready do).
Its all about innovation, I think we would live in a better but diffrent world overall. That said we cant not just talk away patents and copyright in one instance. We have to start with reducing the copyright and reworking the patent system, plus we have to treat copyright infringement justly (ie not with 5 years of prison).
> That question is mute. If you really need to hear a answer, they want. In this extream case there want be any people who make money with creating "art". This is probebly not how its going to turn out if there is no IP.
I don't have a problem with the OP's position. I have a problem with his argument: it's fallacious. Enticing at first, but upon scrutiny, it doesn't hold water.
I think his point was that only bike shops would collapse. Society would be just fine. That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect bike retailers from theft.
