Also:

Home cooking is killing the restaurant business!!1!1

Another thing destryong music:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

“and I do not agree that whether someone has a product or not is irrelevant”

Why? Again, having the product does not alone do harm. If you disagree, then you must realize that pirates merely copy data and deprive no one of the media itself. Downloading the content, again, does no harm by itself. Even adding the fact that the pirates have the media to other arguments does no good because having the media doesn’t do any harm in the first place.

“in my opinion is incorrect and there is an inherent difference which is relevant.”

How so? That is exactly what pirates are doing. Not giving someone money.

When faced with an argument that the pirate isn’t actually taking the product itself and is merely copying data, those that are against piracy will usually use either a “time” or “potential profit” argument, but both are highly illogical. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’ve argued with enough people about this to know that there are plenty of people who use the potential profit argument and even accept the fact that the pirate having the data alone does no harm.

Do not think that I am defending their logic, I just do not agree on your take on it. I believe your take to be simplistic and I do not agree that whether someone has a product or not is irrelevant – it is the point of relevance to RIAA and the like. I agree that artists are not hurt by it and I agree that potential profit is a very bad concept, but “In reality, piracy doesn’t hurt anyone, and those who think it does must also believe that people who choose not to buy a product are damaging its creators” in my opinion is incorrect and there is an inherent difference which is relevant.

But you disagree and I think we should leave it at that. I am not having a last word here – I just explain my analysis of the situation.

Which is irrelevant and does no damage to the artist by itself. Nothing was taken, and if you say that potential profit was, then refer back to my previous arguments.

“They seem to be quite okay if you don’t use it and don’t buy it.”

Which is what I’m saying is illogical because if it was possible to steal potential profit (which doesn’t even exist), then everyone in existence would be guilty of that.

“Their main irritation is that everyone gets it for free, THUS depriving them of profit”

They weren’t deprived of profit (or anything else for that matter). Their argument is that they are deprived of potential profit (which again, doesn’t even exist).

Whether or not the pirate has the product is again irrelevant. The point that they are making, whether it is their main point or not, is that ‘stealing’ potential profit hurts someone, and that is the illogical argument that my posts are responding to.

In reality, piracy doesn’t hurt anyone, and those who think it does must also believe that people who choose not to buy a product are damaging its creators. One last time, whether or not they have the product is irrelevant. That alone does not do any damage.

I understand what you are trying to say, I just do not agree that they say this. Their main point is that “pirates” ARE using the product. They seem to be quite okay if you don’t use it and don’t buy it. Their main irritation is that everyone gets it for free, THUS depriving them of profit – not because someone decided not to buy it in question, but because they decided to USE it without paying. This is what irritates them and this is the “losses” which they are counting, assuming that if you are downloading this music, then you want it enough to buy it if it wasn’t available. Bad reasoning obviously, but it is not as dumb as you point it out, imho.

I had to read the article twice to make sure I was reading it right and that the context (place, country etc) was what I thought it was.

Epic.