I quite prefer Jordan to Cervantes and Zeppelin to Monteverdi.

Whatever. Are you saying that Lord of the Rings could have been produced on the 250k that Louis CK used if copyrights didn't exist?

In which case, I'll say I disagree with you, and we'll leave it at that.

Or the reason to be accurate in the use of words is to well BE ACCURATE IN THE USE OF WORDS!

No, "stealing" involves the deprivation of the Ferrari labour. The creator of the labour can still benefit from it.

You (and I, and most people for that matter) are using language in a lazy way, and then think that our lazy language allows us to redefine things and acts. Just because many people call "copying" "stealing" doesn't make it true that copying is actually stealing.

When someone points out that copying is not stealing, simply saying that "everyone else calls it stealing, thus it is stealing" is incorrect.

And what this thread is arguing is "unlicensed copying" not copyright.

unlicensed copying is unethical.

yes, LotR cost so much to produce because of Licensing fees. Those on-location shoots, Talent costs, and Gollum CGI effects were created for pennies.

We all know the Tolkien family is largely the recipient of the 281Million it cost to produce the series.

Yes, because Humble Indie Bundles are at all equivalent to Skyrim or CoD.

Really? Im fucking quitting my job tomorrow then.

Stores still sell CDs? That fucking stupid.

NO DONT TAKE MY BABY!

Bad argument.

Great masterpieces like the ones made by Michaelangelo will be made regardless of copyright. The law (or lack thereof) cannot stifle the truly great geniuses.

I'm not much of a visual arts fellow, so I cant speak about scupture or painting; but if you argue say Music, I posit that Masterpieces such as Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" or Eric Clapton's "Layla" are every bit as worthy of the title of "Masterpiece" as anything Mozart or Chopin has done.

So great Art will be accomplished regardless of the legal system, but what about "Good Art", you know, the stuff that's better than average, but not quite as good as the masters? Example: Wheel of Time series.

Would the Wheel of Time series be written in a world without copyright? It's an absolute certainty that The Lord of the Rings and Narnia would be written, but I am not so sure that without an assurance of compensation that Jordan would have (or could have... he'd have to get a real job if Eye of the World was copied ad nausium) written such an expansive and engaging series.

My point is that copyright isn't set up to protect the truly great Art and achievements, but rather copyright protects the Mediocre to Good art, that we all enjoy on a daily basis.

It can be argued that humanity under copyright laws has been far more creative than without copyright laws.

The creative explosion that has happened in the last 60 years may, or may not, have had something to do with copyright.

It's theft if the "taker" makes it difficult for you to claim that you are who say you are. example: identity theft uses your identity to sign up for an AmEx credit card. Later, you try to sign up for an AmEx card but cannot... that is identity _theft_.

... I dont know, I'll be dead.

No it's ethically wrong. When I make something to share, I have the right to say "if I share this with you, you have to promise not to copy it."

This is basically what a software license is.

If you go about and break your promise not to copy, then you are being unethical.

I'm not saying that the act of copying is wrong, Im saying that the act of copying when I have asked you not to is wrong. If you truly don't understand that breaking your promise is unethical, then you have an inferior ethical code.

Now for another ethical conundrum. If someone ELSE has broken their promise not to copy a thing, and you obtain one of these copies, is it ethically wrong?