I can censor what I say, I choose not to, the library is in the same position. I see no problem with a library providing pornographic material, as what is considered pornographic is subjective. Whether it is written or visual should not be a deciding factor.

It is not the library's job to shelter children from reality, it is their parents responsibility, if they wish to raise such sheltered individuals. A library is a repository of human knowledge and experience, or at least it strives to be. Censoring any part of that experience for all, just for the twisted logic of those too irresponsible to raise their children, in the way they demand, is shameful.

You could make the argument that pornography is harmful to all, but the category itself and the amount of harm are both subjective. Should we censor any and all art featuring genitals, because some people believe that is the only requirement for pornography? Shall we censor works about communism, socialism, and other forms of discourse, because to could be argued to lead to such things?

I do have no problem if a library wishes to create family friendly areas, or reorganize their layouts to avoid such clashes. I only ask that all things legal be available and uncensored. I may question the illegality of certain information, but that is a different argument for a different time.

Your statement is not completely correct. It is possible for a single mutation to effect multiple genes and sections of DNA. These mutations need only occurs in the dark DNA, or junk DNA whichever you prefer. Remember only about 1.5% of the human genome is protein coding exons. How many are silent genes? How many are broken? All questions needing answers.

A programming analogy might be to say a program is DNA. Running the binutils program “stings” over that program displays all it's possible proteins. These proteins can be easily identify yet they are not the main decider of the program's functioning. On second thought, this analogy might not be that good, but it should cover the general idea.

It is possible for a single mutation to switch on Vitamin C production, it is just highly unlikely. DNA is very good at copying, and breaking changes are "usually" filtered out. Considering current understanding any claims that such things are impossible is foolish. Claiming they are unlikely because we have not seen them before is a better way of covering your ass.

I do believe that this child most likely just has very good low light vision. I also have that misfortune, and blue eyes, somehow those two seem connected, at least from anecdotal evidence. I have been testing and apparently have somewhere between two to three times better than normal low light vision. Sun light, direct or overcast, is unbearable, even after prolonged exposure. This child's vision is probably similar and even better, if such a thing can be considered better.

I believe the chances of all paying customers becoming infringers an impossibility, as least within a couple of generations, past that, who knows. Revenues maybe decline they may not, things may become chaotic and then reach equilibrium similar to what we have now, it's impossible to say. Humble Bundle is a good example of money made without copyright, were the individual pays the subjective value she deems fit. To get back on track, this argument seems to have evolved into one of economic justification, which is hollow, because such justification can be provided for any activity, whether moral or not. I was attempting to frame the discussion as one of curtailment.

While both professions you describe require support structures and expertise. On provides entertainment the other provides a health service, except in that case of whitening and other cosmetic procedures. One could make an argument over which professions provide to the culture usefulness or have higher demand, but this is irrelevant. Each one provides a service, both of which are not required for life and society to continue, also irrelevant. People are willing to pay for these services, I would not make such a demand that either must work for free for my own befit, yet if they choose to I will not deny them that. I would demand that they not seek control over my actions as a way to increase their own profits.

Following the logic applied to creators of “intellectual property” to that of a dentist:
Local dentist board, or whatever you wish to call it, in you area has license to all dental care for said area. Anyone who receives care from someone out side this group is denying that local dentist their rightful pay. In fact brushing you own teeth could be seen as an attempt to deny them of their pay. They have been charged by the state to maintain the health of the populations' teeth. Their schooling was expensive, and they provide a useful service to the community, so it is only just that we pay them for their work, work which belongs to them by law.

My analog may be missing some finer points, but I hope the general tone could be elucidated. I disagree with the need to have controlling rights to my actions so that anyone may enrich themselves. Your other points I find sound and have no disagreement with. Lack of an artificial flow of excess money into the creative arts would cause some economic upheaval, large or small it is hard to judge. Quality of certain works would fall for a time until technology made such things reachable. The pace of such technology might not advance at the same pace as well. In the lifetime of those accustomed to such things it may be unbearable, I claim no right to demand such things of others. I claim only the right to be free in my actions when they cause no harm to others, actual harm, not perceived harm.

I do find your idea of a tax to continue to provide support for creative work quite agreeable, as a substitute for curtailment of rights. Many things society finds useful as a whole are provided for by all, and this would be a good case of such things. It may even be justified in the current mindset, since the public payed for it, the public owns the rights to it, paid works for hire and such. In fact if such things were in place, I think we might find more funds than were available before. Nothing would need to be spent on litigation, DRM schemes, and other such distractions. Much work would need to be done to prevent government censorship of certain works, but I think it could be done.

The use of the word “idea” was intentional to include things like inventions, business theories, and other such forms of intellectual pursuit. Forgive me for not being clearer, you may be right that “works” might have been a better choice, also pirating is the act of monetizing infringement. I tried hard not to conflate pirating and general infringing, I may have failed.

Need and desired are not the same. No one needs to make a living writing music, inventing, etc. It is only a desire to be self sustained by such activities, not a demand. I do in fact, create software and fiction write, solely for my enjoyment and that of others. I used to even be payed for such things, before my job moved to china, literally, I had to create training materials. Lovely kick in the balls that last part was.

Now I understand that if direct monetary reward was missing from such activities, there would be a decrease in the total number who pursue such things, but life went on before copyright existed. It most likely will continue on if it was abolished, how ever unlikely.

Your analogy fails to account for the reality of copying. Had you looked at the pattern of the pants, and proceeded to make your own pair out of materials you rightfully own, then your analogy would be accurate.

You, like the original poster, assume that all infringers that are unwilling to pay, must be all converted to fully paying customers or you will be unable to stay in business.

Impossibly false assumptions:
  - all infringers are not unwilling to pay
  - all infringers could ever be converted to non-infringers
  - all infringers act for the same reason

Therefore, we should break down different sets of infringers:
+U – Those who do want to use the product
-U – Those who do not want the product and only wish to collect it, weird pack-rats
+P – Those will to pay at a lower than existing price point
-P – Those who would never pay, regardless of price point
+M – Those who will use the product repeatedly
-M – Those who will use the product only once
+C – Those who will use all features of the product
-C – Those who will use only some features of the product
+D – Those who will buy products with DRM
-D – Those who will not buy products with DRM, reasons withstanding
And on, and on...

There is much overlap between these sets, and it can be argued that under certain conditions members of +U, +P, +M, -M, +C, -C, or -D can be converted to paying customers, but the conditions for each is not the same. There is no silver bullet to the solution, any attempts at such will only create more divergent sets of infringers.

Now the original poster asked how infringers could ever be considered not harmful to his business. The answer to this is obvious, they are not harmful, in fact they are incapable of causing direct harm because they are secondary effects of law and the business decisions that have already been made. The only harm caused is by the decisions that lead to such effect: high prices increase group +P, DRM increases group -D, etc. The law may also cause direct harm, but this outside the direct control of business, or should be. Wither such actions are moral is irrelevant, they will occur in every system: create draconian laws, increases law breakers, and so on. Decisions must be made that maximize the chances that a particular individual will fall outside the reasons that may drive them to infringe, at least from a business perspective.

Attempts to change law or public perception, may also be a valid if not dubious way of creating a solution, but they require the spending of large sums. Bribery to alter laws to gain yourself monetary advantage over your current situation, is generally frowned upon, also known as lobbying.

So I think this explains the situation: bribe your way to greater entitlements, make better business decisions to maximize your paying user base, or cry about how in a perfect world designed for you, you could make so much more money.

Hope that helps.

Scratching a car increases that rate of entropy effecting it, which will eventually render it useless. "Borrowing" a car for a joy ride produces the same effect as the previous, even if you were kind enough to refill the gas tank. Entropy is a physical trait, which is why ownership has been an important view for most cultures. Owning an object, or in the past another person, conferred responsibility, and exclusivity in order to maintain said responsibility.

Ideas do not share this property, in so much that entropy can only effect the artifacts that are used to contain such ideas: books, CDs, human memory, etc. We do attach ownership to ideas, also as a form of conferring responsibility. A call for, or the enticement to murder, carries with it a form of responsibility as a form of causality. Yet the ability to cause direct damage to an idea is impossible, because it does not exist in such a form. Therefore it's value, as far as it's condition is concerned, cannot be diminished.

Perceived value of an idea is indeed mutable, and subjective. In fact many of the arguments for and against copyright seem to fall into this category. Creation of useful ideas, also subjective, is beneficial to the reputation of the creator. Reputations have also been an important part of civilization, in so much as measure of trustworthiness. This is the main reason plagiarism is looked down upon, as it is the acquiring of undue trust though duplicitous means.

I don't believe anyone its arguing for the legalization of plagiarism, hopefully. The argument comes done to one of belief in undue rewards. Copyright and patents are a monetary reward for the creation of usefully ideas, beyond the original reward of reputation. To maintain such a reward system, the curtailment of actions is placed upon the entire civilization. These actions may or may not effect the actual monetary reward, very little actual research is done, or ever used if it is done.

So this breaks down to two arguments:
1 – Now reward beyond that of reputation should be conferred to the creator
2 – The creator deserves monetary rewards, and a system must be in place to enforce this

Most arguments are of the second type usually ignore the first type. In fact many proponents of the second type will denigrate those who believe the in first. Man, that was a long way to get here. I fit in the first category by the way, and you seem to be in the second. I believe most arguments of the second type fit this quote.

“We've already agreed that you're a whore, now we're just negotiating price.”

Price, being the freedoms you wish to curtail so someone can make more money, whore.

Just like guns were designed to only kill innocent people. Therefore we should get rid of all guns. I love flawed logic, let's me say crazy stupid shit.

Excuse me for butchering the quote, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner, in a republic the sheep gets a shotgun." Since we live in a republic, it seem to be spot on. Not that I agree with it, but sometimes the majority is wrong. Guns probably won't really help solve it in the long run though, lots of guns might.

Or, unless you're the biggest bully in the UN. I'm pretty sure we have the death penalty, and wars of preemption. In the eyes of the government and most people (maybe not most but a lot), right to life ends when it's an inconvenience. We have government sanctioned assassins, they work for the CIA and a few other world agencies I'm sure. If we had a "free market" without government regulation they would be able to work freelance, and wouldn't that be better, because the free market solves all problems, just like anarchy. Stupid rules, always preventing people from making “honest” money.

As such I'm only really pointing out that all “rights” and “entitlements” are just grandiose lip service to what a population is willing to accept. They have no inherit merit, and in no way can be construed as moral just because of there status as such. Morality, or that which does the least harm, cannot really be applied haphazardly to “making a profit”. All justifications for and against must be considered, which neither I, nor anyone has really done fully.

So I guess I disagree with your first statement and agree with the second. Yeah for common ground!

If they did leave LEO, I want a good explanation why we aren't using all that super radition shielding in things like Fukashima. If they did land on the moon and those space suits block the radiation there, then start selling that radiation shielding now.

Straw that broke the camel's back, I guess.

I find business men the best at running a business into the ground. On the up side, after all the backlash, this game will hit the bargain bin fast. I wonder how much they make off a games that's hit $20?

Slaves? I don't remember anyone asking them to work for free or to own their persons out right...

The only perceived entitlement is that of the publisher and maker believing that they have a right to a percentage of all sales: used, new or otherwise.

I also like how being a business makes you inherently not evil. Just replace “business” with “assassin” and you've described the “free market”. Just because I kill people for money doesn't make me evil. I'm just trying make a profit. Now, if I could just get rid of all those government regulations about not killing people. It's really killing my business model. Stupid people and their perceived entitlement to life.

Except that copyright is an entitlement too. At this point a poorly justified one at that, considering all positives and negatives in it's current form.