I've already answered your first concern in my other post. However, blaming people who logically aren't harming anyone is both irresponsible and illogical. Introducing artificial scarcity (I provided a link to a blog post explaining that in my other reply) in order to keep in place a fundamentally broken system is not the answer, nor is blaming people who again, don't deprive anyone of anything (and again, them not being able to control something does not alone hurt them).

In a society that doesn't utilize artificial currency, their incentive would come from the love of their profession, not from paper that is ultimately worthless. Gone would be the people who only work for money (perhaps they could do something that actually interests them). The people who work because they make money but still love their profession, however, would not be gone.

Uh, their ego has significant value? If I said that I should be able to control all of the money in the world and I was unable to, then I've lost something of significant value? Just because the law provides it, that doesn't be it has significant value, so that can't be it.

Artificial scarcity.

I don't need to have a viable alternative in order for my criticisms of the current system to be valid.

But, one side getting a free benefit doesn't deprive the author of anything that they previously had. The author was not harmed in the least.

If you've truly read my other comments, you'd see that I didn't avoid the question about what is broken. Here's one thing that's broken.

Supposedly, in order for artists of digital media (perhaps other media, too) to make a profit in the current system, they must introduce artificial scarcity and try to limit the amount of their work that exists only to those who paid (even though merely copying their work didn't deprive them of anything that they already owned, and therefore didn't hurt them). Sometimes, them or others, even though pirates aren't actually interacting with them at all, try to force the pirate to pay money even though no damages were inflicted upon them. How is that not broken? I don't blame the artists for trying to make money, I blame the system which forces them to earn money if they would like to produce more content.

If you had actually read my comments, you'd see that I'm "bitching" because, currently, people who are doing no harm to anyone else are being treated as criminals.

You neglected to mention the almost infinite amount of other ideas that haven't even been thought of yet. Reducing that amount to a choice between two different systems is illogical.

In a system that doesn't utilize artificial currency, people would be motivated by the love of their profession, not by their desire to get more money at all costs. Gone would be the people who only work for money. The people that work for money now only because they have to, however, would not be gone.

The broken system is capitalism. Again, my inability to think of a viable alternative does not make my criticism of the current system moot. I only know that it is broken.

Remember: merely not giving someone money does not harm them. You only harm them by wasting their time (which pirates don't do because the pirate wasn't the one that specifically requested they make the media), stealing money that they already had (they never had potential profit), wasting their resources, or depriving them of property (copying doesn't deprive them of their property, if that's what you can even call data).

Saying that it is possible to steal potential profit (and that it harms people) would be either indirectly or directly blaming almost everyone in existence. Everyone who decided not to buy a product or not to give someone else money. Everyone who told others not to buy a product.

Yes, we still live in a system which requires that you have money, but blaming pirates (who don't deprive anyone of anything that they already had, and therefore don't harm them) for the inability of artists to turn a profit instead of the broken capitalistic society itself is both irresponsible and illogical. Ignoring the real problem isn't going to help anything.

Yes, but the thing is, pirates aren't actually depriving the artists of anything.

In order to deprive someone of something, they must have had it in the first place. The artists never had the potential profit (hence its name).

The pirates have not directly wasted the artists time, their resources, or taken anything from them. Blaming them is as foolish as blaming someone for merely not buying a product.

You're right, they haven't been deprived of anything. Not just according to my logic, but logic itself. They must have had the money in the first place in order to be deprived of it.

I suggest that we blame the illogical capitalistic society which is what is really at fault for this supposed suffering. The first step is to admit the problem, and then work towards fixing it.

Yes, but how does merely copying something hurt them? They've been deprived of nothing. Not time (the pirates didn't specifically request they do a job and then not pay them, they chose it on their own), money (they never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive them of property). Merely not giving someone money if you haven't even interacted with them at all (and therefore not wasted their time or resources) doesn't hurt them (or else you'd be blaming everyone in existence).

Taking the above into consideration, pirates really aren't doing harm to them. It is a flaw in this illogical capitalistic society. Think about it. If artists have to extort/sue people who do no harm to them and create artificial scarcity so that they may make a profit so that they can continue producing media, then that system is inherently flawed. Blaming the pirates instead of fixing the system is both irresponsible and illogical.

I did not claim otherwise. Please note that I have nothing against charging for your work. Just that I'm against the illogical notion that not granting someone your money somehow harms them. I don't blame the artists, but the system itself.

It doesn't hurt you. The pirates have deprived you of nothing that you already had. Not time (you're the one who decided to make the game, the pirates didn't request that you do and then not pay you), money (you never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive you of property).

It ultimately boils down to the fact that the pirates are only hurting themselves if they fail to pay the artist and the artist is unable to produce more media.

But, again, the need for artificial scarcity is clearly a flaw in this broken system. I do understand why artists want money, however (but even so, pirates aren't harming them).

Please note that I'm not saying it's a bad thing to give artists money for their efforts, just that merely copying a product does not harm the author and that not granting someone your money does not harm them either. It's a good thing if they give them money for their efforts, but if they don't and the author is unable to continue producing media, then that have only hurt themselves.

"Stealing"? I'm sorry, but could you explain what is being stolen? Even the law which you're defending clearly differentiates between copyright infringement and theft. In order for it to be considered stealing, the pirate must steal money that they previously had. In order to harm them at all, the pirate must do one of the following things: waste their time directly (specifically request that they complete a job promising payment and then not pay them), steal money that they already had, steal physical property that they already had, or waste their resources. Pirates do none of those things.

Sorry if that's not what you meant.

You're right. But, I ask again, since merely copying the product does not alone harm the author (since they're not deprived of anything from the action of copying), how does someone merely having the product hurt them? People who do not buy the product are doing the exact same thing that many people seem to think causes harm to authors: not giving them money. Since merely copying the product does not harm the author, they're nearly doing the same thing as the pirate.

But, not giving someone money doesn't harm them anyway. In order for you to harm then, you'd need to steal money they already had, waste their time (specifically request that they do a job promising payment and then not pay them), waste their resources, or deprive them of property (not merely copy) that they already had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_law

Just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong. Yes, one action is indeed currently legal, but I was saying that that is illogical because they are doing almost the exact same thing as a pirate (not giving the business their money). The pirate may have the media, but the sole act of copying (which doesn't deprive anyone of anything) does not by itself harm someone.

Just to make absolutely sure this time, you're arguing that if we continue to allow piracy and it becomes widespread, artists won't make money and therefore won't be able to produce anymore digital media, correct?

Ah, I see. The law may think that in some circumstances it's logical, but it really isn't. In order for it to harm someone, they must actually lose money, time, resources, or property that they already had.

I did read your comment, and I already responded to at least twenty-five other posts using the same argument. The "potential sale" argument is simply illogical.

Ultimately, nearly everyone can be counted as a lost sale. If they would have bought the product or given another person their money, that person would have been better off.

Fortunately, however, it is not possible to harm someone merely by not giving them your money. In order for you to harm them, you must steal money that they already have, waste their time (as in, you must specifically request that they work for you while promising that you'll pay them but ultimately don't), waste their resources, or steal property that they already had. Pirates do none of those things (the authors of the media are the ones who decided to make the media).

If no harm is being done, then it is not a wrong thing to do. If people don't give the author a reward for their efforts and they eventually can't produce any media, the people have only hurt themselves (because again, the act of copying does not deprive the author of anything). The only way a pirate could hurt an artist is if they wasted their time (as in, the pirate interacted with the author and requested that they do a job with promises of payment), wasted their resources, or stole property that they previously had (potential profit does not exist).

I've already responded to that argument. It really only harms the theatre if they were full (or perhaps the customer who bought the seat).

People would hurt themselves (and only themselves) by not giving the author a reward for their effort, and in the current system, the author wouldn't be able to produce more media. Again, the mere action of not granting someone money does not harm them. In order to harm them, they must have had the money in the first place and then have it taken away. Other possible ways to harm a worker would be to waste their time directly (and not have it be of their own choice), waste their resources, or actually steal something that they previously owned.