The Glade 4.0

No losses were added in Taly's source, not by me. Go reread my posts.

I'll answer you question when you answer mine, how can you be against third-party intervention in a market when it wears a Gov't hat but not when it flies the Jolly Rogers?

_________________

Because it's not third party intervention? Of course, I've been asking my question far longer than you asked yours. If you think piracy constitutes and external shift in the demand curve for a given product, you'll have to demonstrate conclusively that piracy results in lost sales; that is, you have to demonstrate that if there were 0 avenue for piracy, people would have obtained the product at retail and legally.

_________________

How is it not third-party intervention, since the pirates are neither the supplier nor the consumer?

It has nothing to do with demand and everything to do with supply. Piracy resets the consumer price to 0. If Collbie Caillat is willing to sell her song to 10 people for $1 each and a third-party intercedes by setting the market price for music to $0 then it is not a shift to the demand curve because all of the people who take it for free wanted to get it for free, the true cost to Colbie is the number of consumers who were willing to pay her market price for it.

_________________

Right, so you still haven't answered my question or met the metrics set. You can keep quoting wikipedia to me all day long, but until you start actually demonstrating a shift in the demand curve for the product, you're not going to get anywhere. Piracy does none of the things you're claiming. None. Period.

_________________

If you seriously think that, it illustrates precisely the problem with most of the rest of the world's attitude towards the United States in the first place. I am pretty sure that if a container nuke went off in Liverpool harbor, every Trident you guys have would be flying too. If a container nuke goes of in another country, and that country then retaliates against two countries that express their intent to engage in pointless beligerance, as well as showing strong evidence of wanting to obtain nuclear weapons, and there's no evidence it came from a third party,then your concern should not be whether the country that just got attacked is "dick-waving".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Khross has a point in regards to the piracy debate - copyright-violating piracy doesn't adequately meat the definition of "Stealing" as it's used in pretty much every other context. When you steal something, you deprive the other party of the use of it.

That's the big problem with the current piracy debate: it focuses on piracy as "stealing", when in fact piracy rarely, if ever, deprives the original owner of the product, or the use of it. It simply copies it.

It does ostensibly deprive them of profits that they might have made from selling it, but that can't be called stealing either. Stealing does not mean "depriving someone of profit they might or might not otherwise have made".

That isn't to say that piracy isn't problematic; I have not made up my mind either way, but the problem is that the debate right now is focused on whether it is or is not stealing, which is the wrong question: It's not, any more than it's arson, or running a stop sign. So what? What's needed is to debate the issue on its own merits, not on whether it fits into some other category of behavior. Even the term "piracy" is problematic because piracy really just means "armed robbery on the high seas or in the air" and armed robbery is, in turn, stealing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, I've stated I believe in intellectual property rights. I've also stated that I think the notions of intellectual property people have are incomplete and rather baseless primarily because so much intellectual property is distributed without consideration of its value at all. Ultimately, this is fundamentally a philosophical discussion, as dealing with legalities and illegalities fails to address the real crux of the issue; that is, what are your thoughts are worth? Why do they have value? And where does that value and its corresponding ownership originate? Case in point, look at today's Supreme Court Decision.

_________________

I agree with everything you said here, which is why I beleive the debate is being framed in terminology that ultimately distorts the questions at hand.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I seriously think that the justification for nuking a country should be positive evidence they actually set the container off, or were engaged in the plot to do so, not simply that they pissed you off with 'belligerence'. I dont think that's anything to do with the United States; I'd hold it true as a, well, point of principle, that you dont kill millions of people without very significant cause and certainty of culpability.

Your standard of evidence seems to be They dont like us (belligerance), they want nukes (wanting to obtain), and we dont know who else it might have been.

That to me seems to be far, far too low a bar. 'Be mean to us and we'll nuke you if anything bad happens'.

There's no burden to shift, Khross. USSC Associate Justice Stephen Breyer made the positive claim and it's now the law of the land. I'm offering examples you might find useful to gain perspective.

Bottom line is, the thief isn't the one that gets to decide the value of what they steal, and tangibility isn't a necessary criteria to recognize that having a movie you didn't pay for is "garden variety theft" -




http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... 0_113.html

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Why do you keep focusing on demand? This is a supply side issue.

Taskiss explained why it is theft already.

_________________

Taskiss:

Again, what personal property is being stolen?

Hopwin:

Once again, for your supply-side argument to be correct, you must first show that in the absence of piracy demand exceeds supply.

_________________

??? Again Economics 101: The lower the price for a product the higher the demand (assuming a market exists for the product). The price doesn't get any lower than free.

_________________

Your points might be valid if physical media was the only way to obtain music/video/software.

That is why I am not making any arguments on the demand side. Price does not affect the demand curve at all, demand is demand and price affects the number of consumers. I am not shopping for a new car but I'd be a consumer @ free.

The impact is wholly on the suppliers by means of destroying their curve.

In the car example above when Cadillac decides to make a new car they compare the cost of manufacturing to their break-even point to set a price based on their understanding of the demand curve. They are not seeking to satisfy all demand for their vehicles, they are seeking profit.

This scenario would be analogous in a Star Trek universe: If Cadillac makes their car and one person buys it and replicates it infinitely in the replicator and passes them out for free. Then you have destroyed the supply curve because there are now unlimited free copies of the vehicle. The end result is that Cadillac loses money and ultimately will go out of the car-making business since every car they produce will be for a loss as a result of a third-party intervention in the form of car-piracy.

_________________

Hopwin, are you really asserting that demand for a given product will be infinite?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No. Where did you get that?

_________________

Oh sweet ****, does no one grasp a supply-demand curve?

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

_________________

Seeing as how it's rather obvious you don't ...

Please demonstrate that in the absence of piracy, the demand for whatever piece of digital media you want to use as an example exceeds available supply.

_________________

Hopwin you're still keeping yourself tied to physical goods, especially with your car example... There is no equal that you can use as a metaphor. It is impossible to run out of supply and it is nearly impossible to quantify the demand.

I don't see why you think this bar would be too low. If we couldn't verify positively that the weapon came from some other source, then it almost certainly came from one of them. The chances are beyond miniscule that terrorists could cook up their own weapon in some desert lab; that only works in Tom Clancy novels, and even then they used a captured existing nuclear weapon as the basis.

The only real question would be is, which one of them it came from. In reality it would most likely be fairly easy to determine which provided the nuke. If we couldn't, well then **** it. Don't be a belligerent ******* that seeks nuclear weapons and constantly threatens war; someone might, you know, see you as a likely culprit when they get nuked.

The real problem here is essentially the attitude that America just got attacked by a nuclear weapon, and your main concern is whether or not America overreacts in some fashion. Even your characterization of their behavior minimizes their belligerence and maximizes that of America. It is not a matter of them "being mean" to us; it's a matter of these countries constantly threatening war against us or our allies for reasons that amount to "you're picking on other Muslims we otherwise don't give a **** about" (Iran) or "You're preventing us from trying to overrun our neighbor to unify us under the Dear Leader" (North Korea; the unlikelyhood of them defeating South Korea anyhow notwithstanding).

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A hypothetical for the Paul supporters: If a consensus is required for the nomination ( no clear winner by convention)and Paul supports a candidate with his delegates (presumably in exchange for some kind of public concessions on certain Paul important issues), Would you vote for that candidate over Obama?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Mmm, no. I cannot in good conscience vote for any of the remaining Republicans but Paul.

I don't like any of the candidates that remain.

Romney's a Disconnected Rich Dude
Newt's... well, Newt.
And Perry's a Bigoted Redneck Jesusite.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Perry's out.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko