Quantified loss of a potential? You call that quantifying?
Of course... don't you???
Of course not. Why would you? I'm wondering if you notice that if you put "potential" into a sentence, an absolute quantification is impossible. You are going to have to clear up your statement because "potential" (which means possible/maybe/perhaps) precludes quantifying.
Now, don't think I'm trying to argue gnats. I can think of a sentence that removes the word "potential" from the sentence and better represents your position.
When a company spends money on marketing they are spending money on "potential" business. When you stock a warehouse full of goods you are spending money (REAL money) on potential customers.
When a record company spends money producing a music CD they are spending that money based on the potential that they will make it back (and then some) on potential customers!
All investments are investments in potential.
Its pretty simple really...
The record company invests money into a product that they plan to sell for a predetermined price.
Therefore the record company has basically invested REAL money into a product that they will sell to the public. The record company is saying to their potential customers... we have a product that we will make available for you and you can buy it for "x" amount of dollars.
The pirate says...
You don't need to pay the record company for this product for I have copied it and I will give it to you for free.
All the above sounds rational except the "for free" part. Everything costs money, even if it's pennies, or very little money. It's okay that Copyrights are not mentioned since this section is all in context. But let's try this with REAL property:
"The shirt company invests money into a product that they plan to sell for a predetermined price.
Therefore the shirt company has basically invested REAL money into a product that they will sell to the public. The shirt company is saying to their potential customers... we have a product that we will make available for you and you can buy it for "x" amount of dollars.
The pirate says...
You don't need to pay the shirt company for this product for I have copied it and I will give it to you for [very little]."
BUT WAIT - the fashion industry doesn't have Copyright protection. If I copy a shirt (the shirt, not the words or logos) there is no pirate it's just competition. The above makes no sense when we use *real* property. And using your next statement:
A theft has occurred. The product worth "x" has been given to a potential customer for free instead of "x" amount of dollars. the record company has just lost a portion of their investment.
I have yet to see you make an argument that demonstrates otherwise
Well now. Your above quote only makes sense for the contrived world of copyrights. A shirt company has
NO right to collect money from *potential* customers that bought the competition's shirt. This argument demonstrates clearly that
potential customers mean nothing when it comes to the
right to collect money from such customers! The shirt company may lose their investment - but the potential customers
didn't steal anything.
Oh, one more thing, who actually owes the money? The person who offers the CD copy? Or the person who takes a copy? If a person offers to make a copy of a CD for you (or put it in his Napster share folder for you), but you refuse it, has any copyright violation taken place? If you accept the copy, who is in violation - you or the person who offered the copy? Who owes the money, and how much should whoever-that-is pay?
The money lost is the retail price of the item stolen. In this case $17.99 or whatever the CD was priced at times the amount it was distributed.
If you were talking about a candy-bar that some kid shoplifted in a store, then the above statement would make perfect sense. But if instead of shoplifting, the kid gets a copy of the candy-bar from a friend who makes candy-bars "just like Snickers" in his kitchen - would the above statement apply? No it wouldn't. The copyright situation is the same - a copy is not the item.
Can you admit that your statement should at least be re-written for clarity? At least you have to admit that no "item" was stolen, right?
I am not making an argument for the value of the stolen item increasing. Only for the amount of the item at retail.
Your example only bolsters my point in that the thief is guilty of stealing a VCR worth $100 just as the pirate is guilty of stealing a music CD worth $17.99.
Let's go over this again Your word's described the situation thusly "to some extent", "most likely", "We can't be positive", and "potential". These words are what we say when we are not sure. If you can't be sure if the person would have bought the CD at $17.99, then you cannot say what the alleged pirate actually owes $17.99 for lost potential because the potential never actually existed. The actual potential has to be there, not a phantom potential. If the person would never have bought the CD at $17.99, then they are not a *real potential customer*.
That is why my analogy applies. A particular VCR, in reality, has the potential to be a museum piece worth much more than it's original selling price. Why can't the judge apply the potential cost in a ruling? You say that the judge must apply the *potential* cost to copyright offenses.
Perhaps I should pause to mention that I realize the
law says a copyright offender owes $17.99 for every unauthorized copy. I'm saying the law is wrong, that reality dictates that the only potential customers are the customers that
would have purchased the CD at retail price.
In this case potential means just as much as the potential in attempted murder.
When a lady plans to kill her husband but fails... NO murder has actually occurred but your not going to therefore argue that no crime has occurred are you?
Potential DOES mean something.
No, potential doesn't mean the same as potential to murder. Here's why: the alleged pirate did not attempt to buy the CD at $17.99.
Potential in this case is the same as potential customers in any business. That happens to be just about anyone you are marketing to.
Its irrelevant whether the thief WOULD have bought the CD or not. We DO know that they stole the CD without paying for it.
No. It is not irrelevant. It is the only thing relevant. If it were true that every potential customer owes the CD publisher $17.99, then that would include many people that didn't violate copyright law, but didn't buy the CD anyway. For example, if someone buys the CD for $17.99, and gives it to a friend (for keeps) instead of that friend buying that CD, then one or the other owes the publisher $17.99 in your copyright world. Why? Because the friend WAS a potential customer that was *stolen* by a generous friend. Really, he was going to buy the CD, but it was given to him instead. The friend was absolutely much more a potential customer than almost anyone who picks up the CD on Napster. There are many more examples where a person does not violate copyright law but is as much or more a potential customer than a person who gets a copy of the CD via Napster.
Why do I bring this up? Because
you keep saying that the reason a person owes the $17.99 is because they are potential customers that were stolen from the publisher (at least I hope you are since that is the only rational defense for copyright). You say that a publisher is owed $17.99 because a customer "would have purchased" the CD had they not gotten a copy of it off of Napster. But if all potential customers owe the publisher $17.99, then you are including many people that haven't violated any copyright laws. You are including any customer stolen by, oh, perhaps a well meaning CD store employee that arranged the CD's in an pattern that a customer thought was stupid - but
would have purchased the CD had it not been arranged that way. Or perhaps a competing publisher makes a snazzy cover and STEALS a customer from the publisher with neat cover art.
That's why I say potential means nothing. What matters is reality. And the reality of copyright violation is that it is nothing more than competition.
When a teenage boy steals a candy bar from 7-11 we have no way of knowing if he would have bought the candy bar had he not stole it but its pretty clear that he stole it none the less.
The value of the candy bar is set by the company. The boy did not pay that value he took it for free - that is called stealing.
Oops - here is the above sentence, as you should have written it had you followed your own view of copyright:
"When a teenage boy makes a copy of a candy-bar in his kitchen that he saw at 7-11 we have no way of knowing if he would have bought the candy-bar had he not made a copy, but it's pretty clear that he stole it none the less.
The value of the candy bar is set by the company. The boy did not pay that value he copied it for free [very little] - that is called stealing."
Your story does not reflect what is going on with copyright, mine does.
Don't forget - there isn't a physical object actually missing - it is a copy.
The value of the music CD is set by its manufacturers. The pirate does not pay the record company for distributing the music to the record companies potential customers - that is stealing!
No, that would be copyright violation. Nothing is actually stolen.
Shouldn't people have the right to make products of whatever type and charge whatever price they wish to charge for those products?
Sure. And someone who buys a CD product should be able to make a copy of their CD product to produce a facsimile product and charge whatever they want for that facsimile product. Why shouldn't they be able to do with what they own whatever they want? If you own a shirt, and your friend would like that shirt, and you are good at sewing, shouldn't you be able to make a copy of that shirt and give it to your friend if you like? How is stealing your friend as a possible shirt customer any different from stealing a customer who likes the same music as you?
What could possibly stop you from making a copy of what you own and doing with it what you want?
Huh? I think the principle is valid. Can you admit that if a person where to try and copy a poster from Walmart they would merely be competition, not a piracy threat?
Of course not! How can you say that???
Because no one can actually do it! We don't have copyright problems with posters because it isn't *economically* feasible, not because people wouldn't put posters on Napster if they could.
If a pirate copies our poster... he is stealing the money that my customer paid me to design the poster! The pirate is not paying an artist to create his poster he is taking our artwork for his poster without paying - that is called theft how can you argue otherwise???
Because you are stuck in a world where copyright is the only option to survive in the arena of ideas (I am too, but I don't say it is right). Thus you cannot understand that nothing is stolen if something copied. The poster copier didn't steal any money your customer paid to design the poster. If that were true then either your bank account or your customer's would be less the amount that was paid to design the poster. When a thief goes into a bank and takes the cash out of the vault that is your money -
that is stealing.
When your poster doesn't sell because it doesn't appeal to anyone -
who stole the money then? Why is copying stealing according to you, and failure to beat the competition not?
Anyway. I guess this would be similar to a person who was expecting to make money off a translation of a manuscript
No, not similar at all. The translator has an agreement with the copyright holder. There is certainly no comparison there.
Huh? When I made this statement I wasn't answering the question, (which is why the next line was "Now to answer your question"). I said this because I know someone who is translating a manuscript, and just like the author, will copyright the translation and sell it for a profit. Wouldn't the person who is translating the manuscript want as much copy protection as the original author? (It's a rhetorical question) That is all I was saying.
A. How would the author ever make any money if his product were free. Where is the revenue stream?
Aren't you even going to try? Be creative.
B. This last argument of yours is not an argument that demonstrates piracy is not theft, but an argument of marketing strategy. Yes, if a company DESIRES to market their product for free that is their option but that is certainly a different argument all together.
No, I'm demonstrating that
ideas and
property are NOT the same. You must first
justify why you are treating ideas the same as real property BEFORE you impose laws that try to skew reality. We can list the differences.
QUESTION REVIEW:
Shouldn't people/companies have the right to make products of whatever type (*within reason) and charge whatever price they wish to charge for those products?
Sure. And someone who buys a CD product should be able to make a copy of their CD product to produce a facsimile product and charge whatever they want for that facsimile product. Why shouldn't they be able to do with what they own whatever they want? If you own a shirt, and your friend would like that shirt, and you are good at sewing, shouldn't you be able to make a copy of that shirt and give it to your friend if you like?
QUESTION REVIEW:
What could possibly stop you from making a copy of what you own and doing with it what you want?
Who owes the money between the copyer and the copyee, and how much should whoever-that-is pay?
FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION (it's all one question really - answer 1 and you've answered them all):
If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are?
