>>52
As you obviously can't be bothered to answer my questions I'll at least answer yours. (Are you actually reading what I'm writing, or just skimming for easy angles of attack?)
>How many people copy IP because their lives depend on it?[..]
By your logic (and the logic of the pharma execs) nobody would develop these drugs in the first place if it wouldn't be for patents. So clearly the kid with AIDS, the woman hemorraging to death during childbirth, or the man with malaria have to pony up the money.
>The reason is that some protection gives incentive to private interests to invest money into the development of ideas, because they may get a return.
And all the money that was just made is promptley spent in litigation lawsuits and license fees. See als below under "dichotomy".
>Take a look at the repercussions of the constant extensions of copyrights in the US, or the effects of patents in the software world.
Well, "some protection gives incentive".
There is a saying about being just a bit pregnant...
>Why would any commercial venture bother producing IP anymore?
In order to make money? Parotting the false dichotomy "IP = money", "no IP = no money" doesn't make it any true.
>What about the person who spent months making it, just so you could so callously spend 30 seconds copying those months of effort?
I walk into a bookstore. There are thousands of books. What about all the persons who spent months making them, just so I could callously ignore those months of effort?
Same result for the authors: they currently get no money from me.
>Don't put words in my mouth if you're too dense to understand the obvious interpretation.
I understand the obvious interpretation just fine.
Of course everbody is against "piracy". But piracy, that means p2p-filesharing/CD-burning/whatever, you know, what criminals do. Of course piracy is not reading a book or watching a movie you didn't pay for, recording TV-shows, oh, and that copy of WinXP they got from a friend is of course excluded too, because, you know, it's expensive. And fansubs are acceptable too, because, you kow, they like totally don't understand japanese, and they're so gonna buy the DVDs if they are licensed. And that JPop CD? Well they sooooo would buy it, if those thiefs wouldn't charge criminally high prices.
Ad nauseam.
>The time, effort, and money they spent making it.
So a copy will cause them to have that time/effort/money to spend all over again?
>Adobe is clearly investing money in their suite because nobody is paying for it.
You don't say! You mean the suite that is availible all over the internet for free?! Astonishing!
>No, it doesn't.
ex·ist:
1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual
I have a lot of books from dead authors. They are still here.
> The performance produces the information.[...]these performances are both expensive and take months or years to execute.
The "performance" in question is a singular act of discovery.
It does not have to be repeated in order to duplicate the information. If you are grateful to the "discoverer(s)" and/or want them to to do more along that lines by all means give them a donation. But there is no obligation to do so whatsoever.
>You could just form a massive pool of money to buy that first copy.
Or contracting them to write it in the first place. See my other post.
>Oh, wait, maybe the current system works a bit like that, just with greater spread...
Only that they still claim control over what I can do with my copy. I seem to recall something about a worm and a tiger...
>I suppose capitalism is cutting into basic freedoms too.
Where is the money you owe me for breathing the oxygen that was produced by the trees on my property.
>The reasons we have minimum wage and other limitations is to benefit society at large
The reason we have these is that people were fighting for them. Being shot, burned, and beaten to death, while striking for minimum wage and an eight hour day. Until the factory owners privileges were cut back slightly.
>Copyright does that too, which is why it exists.
"Life of the author plus 70 years".
Cui bono?
>[...]just as I think too much is a bad thing, I think too little will hurt us too.
What distinguishes a book that was bought second hand or lent from a library from one downloaded from the internet? No benefit to the author from the the three persons who aquired a copy, yet, I assume, you want the downloader to be punished by law. Only based on your "feel good" ideas about "too much" and "too little".