# Wikipedia blackout

by Hurkyl
Tags: blackout, wikipedia
PF Gold
P: 4,287
 Quote by ParticleGrl Inviting a friend over to watch a movie you own (or have rented) results in loss of income for movie companies. Should it be in the same moral area as theft?
Writing a negative review for a popular magazine/newspaper/online source results in waaayyyy more loss of income than inviting your friend over. And they get paid for it.
HW Helper
P: 2,949
 Quote by Jimmy Snyder Don't be silly. The only difference between shoplifting and armed robbery is the weapon. No such difference exists between theft and copyright infringement.
The *only* difference is the weapon?!

How about aggressive intent and assault?

How about long-lasting and scarring emotional and possibly physical trauma caused to the victim(s)?

To disregard all this is far sillier!

And to assert that "no such difference" exists between theft and copyright infringement? That's just as silly! I've already made a long post detailing why I think no exact parallel can be drawn between the victim(s) of theft and the "victim(s)" of copyright infringement. I don't like repeating myself, so feel free to re-read that at your leisure.

And please stop *your* silliness. There is no way you can convince a rational, objective party (i.e. one not brainwashed by the massive disinformation campaign in the media) that theft and copyright infringement are the same thing.
HW Helper
P: 2,949
 Quote by Evo If the end result is loss of income, it's the same damage to the victim. That's the point. Anyone really not understand that?
Nope, not the same damage at all. I do understand that there *may be* fiscal damages to the copyright holder in the case of copyright infringement - and even this has NOT been conclusively proven. There are definitely very tangible material and financial losses suffered by the victim in cases of actual theft.

My understanding is fine, thanks very much.

(Not to nitpick - but the issue in theft is not the loss of *income*).
P: 2,179
 Quote by ParticleGrl There is no material loss in infringement.
Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.
HW Helper
P: 2,949
 Quote by Jimmy Snyder Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.
Prove it.

Essentially, you have to prove that all (or even most of) those "infringers" would've paid for the product if they could not have procured it illegally.

Noone has yet been able to do this. All we have is a massive smokescreen fudging the issues.
Mentor
P: 16,319
 Quote by Curious3141 Essentially, you have to prove that all (or even most of) those "infringers" would've paid for the product if they could not have procured it illegally.
Does he? Or does he have to show that there was one lost sale?

There is a difference between saying "a little theft is too much trouble to try to counter" and "a little theft is morally OK".
HW Helper
P: 2,949
 Quote by Vanadium 50 Does he? Or does he have to show that there was one lost sale?
Well, he did use the word "substantial", didn't he?
 HW Helper P: 2,949 It's good if we got back to the issues here. I freely concede that copyright infringement is legally wrong (in many jurisdictions). I am also willing to concede that it is morally wrong, although nowhere near as abhorrent as actual theft (in whatever form). Given those, the law is justified in trying to shut down copyright infringement (piracy is another emotionally-laden term, so I'll eschew using it). But how extensive should their powers to do this be? This is the crux of the SOPA/PIPA debate. Most people feel that these bills, if passed, would place too much power into the hands of bullies (as they've repeatedly shown themselves to be). *This* is what this debate should be about, so please let's get it back on track (I'm sorry for my part in having skewed it off track).
 P: 2,179 Just one kind of copyright infringement. Cost of movie piracy
P: 685
 Quote by Jimmy Snyder Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said that if I photocopy your book, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR BOOK. If I copy your software, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR SOFTWARE.

If I steal them, you no longer have them. Thats what I meant by "loss." Not indirect revenue considerations.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way to enforce IP more effectively that doesn't result in enormous costs/dead-weight loss (in this case born by the taxpayer). We already have enough enforcement that entertainment industry is very profitable. The average taxpayer is enormously entertained: we are suffering no loss of entertainment product.

So, why should I (as a taxpayer) have to pay more taxes AND deal with the annoyances of a potentially fragmented internet FOR NO BENEFIT?

 Just one kind of copyright infringement...
The source's numbers are hokey. Keep in mind that when someone downloads a movie instead of paying for it, they eventually spend that $1 (I think thats the redbox rate?) somewhere else. Piracy redistributes resources, it doesn't remove them from existence. When I watch a movie my neighbor rented, I don't simultaneously set my cash on fire. I use it to buy popcorn or chips or whatever I'm bringing over. Less jobs for redbox, perhaps, more jobs for the grocery store. PF Gold P: 4,287  Quote by Jimmy Snyder Just one kind of copyright infringement. Cost of movie piracy Where's the methods for their calculation? P: 2,179  Quote by ParticleGrl Keep in mind that when someone downloads a movie instead of paying for it, they eventually spend that$1 (I think thats the redbox rate?) somewhere else.
Small comfort to the owner of the copyright.
P: 685
 Small comfort to the owner of the copyright.
I can't help but feeling your are simply trolling. Instead of addressing the meat of anything I've said, you are taking quick potshots.

My point was that any numbers that say $x lost to the economy/$y dollars lost in tax revenue,z jobs destroyed should be immediately suspicious.
 PF Gold P: 4,287 no methodology, bleeding heart global crisis.... makes me suspect bias research.
 PF Gold P: 1,951 I see a lack of reasonable discussion from at least one side here. This thread needs to be locked. Maybe someday we can have a reasonable discussion, from both sides, about piracy.
PF Gold
P: 4,287
 Quote by Char. Limit I see a lack of reasonable discussion from at least one side here. This thread needs to be locked. Maybe someday we can have a reasonable discussion, from both sides, about piracy.
Simply report the offending posters to the moderators :)
 P: 71
P: 1,414
 Quote by ParticleGrl My point was that any numbers that say $x lost to the economy/$y dollars lost in tax revenue,z jobs destroyed should be immediately suspicious.
Your points make sense to me. Here's a thought:
Maybe the net effect of internet piracy of movies and music is that it actually benefits the general economy. This conjecture is based on the assumptions that (1) a significant portion of the revenues from sales of dvd's and cd's is kept in the financial sector, and (2) virtually all of the money saved by downloaders of pirated stuff is spent in the general economy.

 Related Discussions General Physics 8 Current Events 22 General Discussion 9