SDM based his claim on the well known fact that after almost 15 years of filesharing and online infringements exists no evidence to support the thesis that online piracy causes any harm to neither society, creators, culture, the goal with copyright or the culture industry’s current record revenues. Manslaughter most certainly causes harm.

When one crime that no one can prove causes any harm, in sentenced in the same range as with individuals committing manslaughter, the point is indeed valid, and the comparison stands, there is no proportionality regarding the punishments for piracy.

> “You know nothing about creating digital media and operating a business in the online marketplace with said media..”

Something that you know nothing about, and again, my eventual knowledge of that has no relevance whatsoever to anything regarding this discussion.

My initial claim however stands exactly as it was written, piracy can cause harm to nothing other than weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market. The fact that a weak failed entrepreneur that can’t handle himself on the free market makes less revenues does not equal that society, human beings and life has been caused harm. The free market effect is not considered harm by any definition.

> “I certainly know what you don’t do..”

No, you most certainly do not. The fact that i previously responded in the way that i did to your question if i create did not mean that i didn’t create, i only meant that since what i do has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion, i will not comment on it.

> “Your use of “Weak failed entrepreneurs” is missleading at best.”

An entrepreneur that can’t handle himself on the free market without a legislative monopoly is by definition a weak failed entrepreneur. A strong successful entrepreneur needs no monopoly, he can compete on the free market and still succeed regardless of competition.

> “Protecting copyrights does not make an entity weak or failed.”

It most certainly does. A strong successful entrepreneur would not care about free market effect of piracy. He would succeed anyway, regardless of the competition from piracy. Only weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market would try to oppose the free market effect of piracy.

> “I haven’t dropped an argument I’ve simply asked another question.”

Because you could no longer respond to the initial line of reasoning. The deterring effects you spoke of in your initial claim simply does not exist.

> “One which you aren’t very well qualified to comment on since you sit in a Quarterbacks armchair.”

The punishments for copyright infringements has no deterring effects on online piracy, this is something anyone can corroborate easily regardless of what type of chair one resides in, by simply looking at the facts that online piracy continuous to grow by each day, despite ten years of allegedly deterring punishments.

If the punishments actually had deterring effects piracy would have decreased for each day over the last ten years.

> “I said I was aware of this. And I assumed you would understand the point that even though those penalties do not exist today and the penalties that do exist might appear harsh to some people, that doesn’t mean that those penalties are dissproportionate or meaningless, even if some continue to risk the consequences.”

That was not what the straw-man argument was about, now was it? Is was the following argument that was a straw-man:

“That doesn’t mean that society would function better if every law was thrown out of the window, just because a percentage of people are willing to break them”

Nor have i ever argued that today’s penalties are harsh, disproportionate or meaningless because some, as in hundreds of millions of people, continue to risk the consequences. That’s again another straw-man argument you out forward.

> “In your opinon..”

No. Legislative monopolies are indeed a rare type of law, and they by definition put the free market out of order, because that’s the only thing legislative monopolies does.

> “..others are going to argue that piracy also puts the Free market out of order..”

Well, then they would be idiots, not understading that there exists no free market when legislative monopolies decide which entrepreneurs that are allowed to even enter the market in the first place. Piracy can not put something out of order when it doesn’t exists in the first place.

> “..in addition to other damages.”

Alleged damages, that no one has been able to prove.

> “By a percentage of the public, certainly not all.”

Those legislative monopolies that intrude into people’s private property rights are indeed a type of law that has always been ignored by large percentages of the public. I have not claimed that they were ignored by everyone.

> “And that wouldn’t surprise anyone. The nature of a percentage of the populous (when there is a high reward vs low consequence situations) will naturally swing their moral compass to reward.”

You seem confused. People’s moral is not decided by what the law says, or the risk for getting caught. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever for the concept of morality. The reason people feel it’s morally acceptable to disregard legislative monopolies that intrudes into their property, is because it’s their property in the first place. People to not need to morally justify why they should be able to do as they wish with their property, that they already own.

The only thing that needs justification is the prohibition in law, so the two things that people weigh against each other is not high reward vs low consequence , but the natural right to use people’s own property so that it benefits them vs an intrusion into their property that hasn’t been successfully justified.

Obviously people’s moral compass will tell them that it’s acceptable do as they wish with their own property in that scenario, regardless of what the law says.

> “….incidntally, there are many laws that at one point or another large parts of the earths population ignore and that some of them will argue also have dissproportinate penalties.”

This discussion is not about laws in general, this discussion is about a rare type of law as in legislative monopolies that intrudes into people private property. Such rare laws has never been widely accepted and they have almost always had disproportionate punishments.

> “That doesn’t make it true simply because they were one of a small percent that were caught.”

Nor have a ever claimed that the penalties against piracy are disproportionate for any of those reasons. That’s another dishonest straw-man argument of yours.

> “still your opinion.”

No, most certainly not. There are well established psychological guidelines in society that decides whether or not someone is sane, and someone who believes that piracy and intrusions into legislative monopolies should be addressed in the same range as manslaughter and the extinction of human life most certainly is not sane. Ask any psychologist.

> It isn’t treated more harshly than manslaughter, thats a false statement.”

Which was not a statement i’ve made. Another straw-man.

> “Here we go again with the “if I say *sane* it proves my point more” statement. Its still your opinion, like it or not.”

Again you completely avoid responding to what i actually wrote. No, it’s not my opinion. There are clear rules for legislation and intrusions into human rights, that parts of the copyright monopoly and it’s punishments does not follow today.

> “We don’t agree on what constitutes free speech..”

I have never put forward my opinion on what constitutes free speech? What constitutes free speech is something that’s well documented in several constitutions, and in none of them are there exceptions that says the it isn’t free speech if the information transferred should happen to be information that either can be used to manufacture copies of copyrighted works(as with filesharing), or help you find out where you can find such information(as with torrent sites).

So the problem here isn’t that you and i don’t agree(which is something you know nothing about since i rarely reveal any personal opinions), the problem is that you don’t agree with what free speech actually is, according to several constitutions.

Operating a fully legal site as Pirate Bay offering information that people wish to spread is free speech. Transference of information in private communication describing patterns of people’s own physical property(as P2P-filesharing), is free speech.

As i said, you have been crystal clear that you advocate and applaud censorship of free speech and fully legal sites such as Pirate Bay, and violation of the human rights protected freedom to seek, receive and impart information.

So i’m not making anything up when i say that human rights is not something that you consider at all relevant or important when it’s balanced against protecting legislative monopolies and the profit of weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market

> “What point ? Comparing civil rights abuses to copyright infringement sentances is asinine.”

It is not, when abusing of civil rights is the currently used method to stop piracy, as in violation of free speech through censorship of fully legal websites, and dismantlements of the human rights protected freedom to seek, receive and impart information.