You can make counterfeit money. Passing them on as genuine money causes a problem for the value of real money, which society actually needs, since those still bring an additional needed value to society.

Filesharing on the other hand, only impacts the value of the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, a business model which in turn no longer is needed by society, since it no longer adds any additional value.

You shouldn’t confuse what society needs, with an individual party’s desire to get revenues from a particular single business model. Their need doesn’t necessarily coincide with society’s need.

> “Really? In how many business?”

Any business that only provides an added value that the consumer can add themselves, free of charge, is obviously not needed.

> “If it’s no longer needed, lets abandon it.”

Well you are free to try, but do not expect special legislation to aid you, such as a legislative monopoly.

> “Some pharmaceutical company invests billions in production of a new drug. The second it’s out, lets all just copy it and produce it, right?”

The day people can manufacture their own identical medicine free of charge with their own physical property, the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling medicine, will no longer be needed by society. That is correct.

> “Society obviously needs movies as much as money.”

Well, even if that were so, you shouldn’t confuse society’s eventual need for movies, with a need for the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies.

>> “I have never claimed that the copyright monopoly is unjust because people feel or say so?

> “I need to quote you? Seriously?”

Actually, yes you do, because i have never claimed such. Please quote what sentence from me you have misinterpreted in that way, and i will gladly help you read it properly according to correct English, so that you can understand it as it actually written.

“It is upon those, that are breaking the law to prove it should be changed, not the other way around, cmon, get real.”

No, the burden of proof always lies on the party that desires the legislation to perform in intrusion into peoples freedom or property rights. People should never have to argue for why they don’t wish their freedom or property rights to be intruded into by legislative prohibition.

The fact that such intrusions once were believed to be needed in the legislation, does not reverse the burden of proof. If the relevant party can’t continuously argue for such intrusions whenever they are questioned, the legislation should naturally reverse to it’s natural order.

> “Wait a sec? What legislation? The one I shouldn’t care about? Someone being a hypocrit again?”

No, with or without the legislation, the meaning of the term non-profit still is very clearly defined, in our dictionaries.

>> “There are clear rules that legislation must uphold to.”

> “What legislation? You don’t care for it.”

People don’t care for it, because it doesn’t uphold to those aforementioned rules.

> “Stop with the monopoly nonsense. If I had 70% of the salt seling market, that’s be a monopoly. If I have rights for a one book, one of hundreds of thousands on the market, I have no monopol.”

If everyone else are legislatively forbidden to manufacture copies of that book, you have by definition been privileged with a legislative monopoly on that action. The fact that there are hundreds of thousand of such monopolies does not change that fact, that it is in fact a monopoly.

> “Entertainment products have their own rules and legislation. You can’t apply practices from other business just cause you feel you should.”

I don’t do it because i feel i should? The exclusive rights that an author is privileged with through the copyright legislation is by definition a legislative monopoly.

All intellectual property rights are made up of legislative monopolies. That’s the very core function of all intellectual property rights legislation, to provide the rights holder with a legislative monopoly, that gives them an legislative advantage on the market. Punch in the word monopoly in a dictionary or Wikipedia and you’ll find this to be a fact.

Trying to deny the very core function of all intellectual property rights, and that they in fact are made up of legislative monopolies, well, that is a bit backwards..

> “Just like filesharing of copyrighted content brings benefits to certain individuals and deprives other individuals or their income and devaluates their work.”

Filesharing does not devaluate the value of any intellectual work. It devaluates the value of the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies. That is not the same thing as the value of the intellectual work.

> “Yes you are, certain content is given for free, but that’s not enough for you.”

Content can not be owned. Therefore it can’t be given to anyone. Regardless, about your original statement, people filesharing are not given anything for free. They manufacture copies themselves for free. And they share them for free, i.e. give them away.

> “It doesn’t seem to have and effect with santioning speed limits violations. They will never be able to catch everyone speeding. Or will they? Is that fact enough to remove speed limits on roads?”

No, nor have i ever stated that the fact that it’s impossible to catch all people filesharing, that’s the reason for why the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly are unjust and should be dismantled.

> “Patriot act seemed to do stuff people didn’t think will ever happen and yet it did. Wanna push it that far?”

People filesharing are not pushing for any more intrusive legislative changes. Other parties are. That’s their responsibility alone.

>> “I understand very well what the law says.”

> “When you want to.”

No, all the time, even when people don’t feel the need to obey it. The fact that you don’t obey the law, does not mean that you don’t understand the law.

>> “Which i never claimed in the first place. And it works the other way around, people don’t feel the need to obey the copyright monopoly, because it is unjust.”

> “OMG, you are actually able to contradict yourself in one paragraf? I rest my case. You will deny something that you wrote severa times in just one earlier post. I have enough, you need to check yourself.”

Actually, it’s you who need to check again what i actually wrote. There are no contradictions in what i wrote.

It is not the fact that people disobey the law, that makes the disobeyed law unjust. It is something else that makes the law unjust.

That, something else, is the reason why people don’t obey the law. Something else in this case is the fact that the copyright legislation doesn’t uphold to the rules of legislation.

>That does not change the fact that money is still needed?

Why? I can make my own money, why not? Is 3D version of Avatar needed?

>single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

Really? In how many business? If it’s no longer needed, lets abandon it. Some pharmaceutical company invests billions in production of a new drug. The second it’s out, lets all just copy it and produce it, right?

>You are confusing society’s need for money, with an artificial need for a single particular business model.

How come? Society obviously needs movies as much as money. Money are being offered in exchange for money, not for free.
If you wanna buy a dvd, ok, wanna share it with your friends? No problem. Wanna share it on bittorrent or similar? That’s okay too, broadcasting licence is for sale as well. You just need one person to buy that licence and than he can share with whole internet.

> “Just because YOU feel something is unjust, or some group of people says they feel it’s unjusts, it doesn’t make it so.”

I have never claimed that the copyright monopoly is unjust because people feel or say so?

I need to quote you? Seriously?

>The burden of proof does not lie upon me, it lies upon the party which claims that the copyright monopoly is needed.

LOL, seriously? It is upon those, that are breaking the law to prove it should be changed, not the other way around, cmon, get real.

>> “There is no non-profit copyright, never is. You might believe it is, but there isn’t.”

>According to the legislation and the dictionaries there most definitely is. The term non-profit has a very clear meaning.

Wait a sec? What legislation? The one I shouldn’t care about? Someone being a hypocrit again?
So it’s about people’s egos, nice. Quote the law when it suites you, call it unjust when it doesn’t. Nice.

>> “You could also be shown hundreds of cases where copyright is just, has meaning, benefits the society, it advances the technology, but you just wouldn’t accept it.”

>There are clear rules that legislation must uphold to.

HAHAHAHA, again? What legislation? You don’t care for it.

>The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly does not uphold to these rules.

Stop with the monopoly nonsense. If I had 70% of the salt seling market, that’s be a monopoly. If I have rights for a one book, one of hundreds of thousands on the market, I have no monopol.
Entertainment products have their own rules and legislation. You can’t apply practices from other business just cause you feel you should.

>These are well known facts. The possibility that the copyright monopoly might produce some positive effect for some individuals or an individual business model, is something completely different.

Just like filesharing of copyrighted content brings benefits to certain individuals and deprives other individuals or their income and devaluates their work.

> “Because you are not satisfied with the stuff you’re given free.”

People filesharing are not given anything for free. They manufacture copies themselves for free. And they share them for free.

Yes you are, certain content is given for free, but that’s not enough for you.

>> “Change the law and then do what you want.”

>The law obviously has no effect on filesharing. This fact has been proven over and over again over the last 15 years.

It doesn’t seem to have and effect with santioning speed limits violations. They will never be able to catch everyone speeding. Or will they? Is that fact enough to remove speed limits on roads?

>> “You might also believe that there’s nothing it can be done regarding piracy. There could it, it’s just the quesiton how far you wanna bring it.”

>Actually, legislation can do nothing about filesharing that takes place in private encrypted communication such as F2F.

Patriot act seemed to do stuff people didn’t think will ever happen and yet it did. Wanna push it that far? Funny world, eh?
I don’t what something like that to happen, I am just mentioning it for argumant sake, to bring you into reality.

> “You obviously just don’t get the point, that business models evolve.”

Industries built around legislative monopolies seldom do. And still, that does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

Well, in that case, business will evolve and you’ll be stuck with companies like apple and worse. They’ll make tons of money and you’ll lose your privacy… willingly. Funny, eh?

>> “It’s time you understand what the law says.”

>I understand very well what the law says.

When you want to.

>> “Just because you feel you don’t have to abide to it, that’s doesn’t make it unjust.”

>Which i never claimed in the first place. And it works the other way around, people don’t feel the need to obey the copyright monopoly, because it is unjust.

OMG, you are actually able to contradict yourself in one paragraf? I rest my case. You will deny something that you wrote severa times in just one earlier post. I have enough, you need to check yourself.

That does not change the fact that money is still needed? The fact that filesharing might diminish the economical value of the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

You are confusing society’s need for money, with an artificial need for a single particular business model.

> “Just because YOU feel something is unjust, or some group of people says they feel it’s unjusts, it doesn’t make it so.”

I have never claimed that the copyright monopoly is unjust because people feel or say so?

> “SOME people might think a lot of things, but they don’t make it legit.”

I never made such claim either.

> “Again, that’s what you think. Just like YOU believe you argued something and thus prove it, it still doesn’t make it so.”

Again you try to reverse the order of society in an dishonest way. The burden of proof does not lie upon me, it lies upon the party which claims that the copyright monopoly is needed.

> “There is no non-profit copyright, never is. You might believe it is, but there isn’t.”

According to the legislation and the dictionaries there most definitely is. The term non-profit has a very clear meaning.

> “You could also be shown hundreds of cases where copyright is just, has meaning, benefits the society, it advances the technology, but you just wouldn’t accept it.”

There are clear rules that legislation must uphold to. The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly does not uphold to these rules. No evidence exists that proves that the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly produces a collective positive cultural effect for society. No one has been able to produce any such evidence over the last 40 years. Nor does the non-profit parts of the monopoly even work.

These are well known facts. The possibility that the copyright monopoly might produce some positive effect for some individuals or an individual business model, is something completely different.

> “Because you are not satisfied with the stuff you’re given free.”

People filesharing are not given anything for free. They manufacture copies themselves for free. And they share them for free.

> “Change the law and then do what you want.”

The law obviously has no effect on filesharing. This fact has been proven over and over again over the last 15 years.

> “You might also believe that there’s nothing it can be done regarding piracy. There could it, it’s just the quesiton how far you wanna bring it.”

Actually, legislation can do nothing about filesharing that takes place in private encrypted communication such as F2F.

Secondly it’s not the people filesharing that want to bring something. It’s the people who don’t accept that there no longer is any need for their business model that do, and the politicians they fool. This is their responsibility alone.

> “You obviously just don’t get the point, that business models evolve.”

Industries built around legislative monopolies seldom do. And still, that does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

> “If entertainment business offers entertainment, then you are free to consume..”

You seem confused? You are free to consume whatever you have in front of yourself. The entertainment business has no say on that. You do not need permission to consume goods you have in front of yourself, that you own.

> “Whatever is offered for payment, that has to be paid..

If you chose to buy it yes. People filesharing on the other hand don’t buy any goods or services. They manufacture the goods and services themselves. There is nothing to pay for, when you do the work yourself.

> “Whatever you think is a non-profit copying, it isn’t.”

According to the legislation and dictionaries, it is. It’s not a question of my belief, on the contrary, it’s an indisputable legislative fact.

> “Someone is making money either with banners or ISP is banking on bandwidth.”

That someone else makes money from something else, does not change the fact that manufacturing and distribution of copies through filesharing is a non-profit action.

> “If you copy for free something that was supposed to be paid”

Filesharing is not supposed to be paid, it is offered free of charge. There is nothing to pay for.

> “..then that’s not non-profit, there was a damage done in same way if I printed money. You devaluated property.”

The fact that some property might lose it’s value as a result of non-profit filesharing does not change the fact that it is non-profit filesharing.

> “It’s time you understand what the law says.”

I understand very well what the law says.

> “Just because you feel you don’t have to abide to it, that’s doesn’t make it unjust.”

Which i never claimed in the first place. And it works the other way around, people don’t feel the need to obey the copyright monopoly, because it is unjust.

>I don’t remember you asking me either of these questions before?

yeah, that’s why you think I stopped replying, while I didn’t. Even last post I had to write twice, cause it couldn’t be seen on some browsers.

>> “1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?”

>Neither. Nor is the answer relevant to the filesharing debate

That’s your opinion. I am not stealing from anyone, I am just making my copy that I might share with others. What’s wrong with that?
Oh, it devaluates real money, right.

>> “2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?”

>I’m not familiar with the current legislation in that area, so i don’t know.
It is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that explains why the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, and therefore something that people don’t feel the need to care about.

See? Just because YOU feel something is unjust, or some group of people says they feel it’s unjusts, it doesn’t make it so. Some people might feel gay marriage shouldn’t happen. SOME people might think a lot of things, but they don’t make it legit.

>The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, because it is simply made up of illegitimate legislation, that no one can produce any sort of evidence that it is actually needed to help the goal of copyright.

Again, that’s what you think. Just like YOU believe you argued something and thus prove it, it still doesn’t make it so. There is no non-profit copyright, never is. You might believe it is, but there isn’t.
You could also be shown hundreds of cases where copyright is just, has meaning, benefits the society, it advances the technology, but you just wouldn’t accept it.

Why? Because you are not satisfied with the stuff you’re given free. You absolutely want for free all the stuff, that you’re not allowed to copy by copyright holder.
Change the law and then do what you want.

You might also believe that there’s nothing it can be done regarding piracy. There could it, it’s just the quesiton how far you wanna bring it.

>It is fully possible that in the future gene copying turns into something that the public embraces on a large scale and use for themselves in a manner that brings them appreciated value,

Of course, I will make fingers with your fingerprint, copy your iris and then “share” it with anyone who wants. Whether they will then use it for fraud or make money, that’s up for them.

You obviously just don’t get the point, that business models evolve. If entertainment business offers entertainment, then you are free to consume and share whaterver is given free. Whatever is offered for payment, that has to be paid, regardless of what you think or believe. Whatever you think is a non-profit copying, it isn’t. Someone is making money either with banners or ISP is banking on bandwidth. If you copy for free something that was supposed to be paid, then that’s not non-profit, there was a damage done in same way if I printed money. You devaluated property.

It’s time you understand what the law says. Just because you feel you don’t have to abide to it, that’s doesn’t make it unjust.

I don’t remember you asking me either of these questions before?

> “1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?”

Neither. Nor is the answer relevant to the filesharing debate and the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly’s intrusion into people own property, or the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

> “2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?”

I’m not familiar with the current legislation in that area, so i don’t know.

But since you seem to have a hard time dropping that irrelevant question, i feel i need to remind you of what i wrote over a week ago the last time you tried to confuse yourself with that thread.

The debate about gene code doesn’t change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

It is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that is why the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, no longer is needed.

It is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that explains why the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, and therefore something that people don’t feel the need to care about.

The single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed, since it no longer add’s any additional value, that consumers can’t add themselves.

The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, because it is simply made up of illegitimate legislation, that no one can produce any sort of evidence that it is actually needed to help the goal of copyright.

The copyright monopoly performs an intrusion into peoples own physical property, that they own. If you would manage to copy genes, you would perform no intrusion into other people’s physical property.

It is fully possible that in the future gene copying turns into something that the public embraces on a large scale and use for themselves in a manner that brings them appreciated value, and as a result of that some particular business model goes out of style. And as you know, on a free market, companies that wish to operate an outdated business model should never be privileged with legislative monopolies, that forces their outdated model on the consumers, when they don’t need it.

> “Being able to get something for free, if possible, has always been the norm.”

No not really, but the act of having copyrighted works made available and accessed in a non-profit manner and large commercial scale, free of charge, without any regards to the creators wishes, and without them being privileged with any compensation from such, that has been the norm in society for over 150 years now.

“Just answer two questions they way you answered all others and lets see where we are”

Where we are? We already know were we are, from out week old discussion? You put forward claim after claim, that in no way changes the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed.

Then your claims are refuted and proven wrong or irrelevant. And then you simply drop that argumentative thread, ignoring everything that just was written, and start a new side track discussion, that still doesn’t change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed.

Or you just simply stop responding all together, as you did after this answer to you:

http://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-110821/#comment-295792469

1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?

2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?

Being able to get something for free, if possible, has always been the norm. The funny part here is that all pirates trash the very content they download the most and praise the content they don’t consume at all. Bunch of hypocrits.
Just answer two questions they way you answered all others and lets see where we are

1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?

2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?

Being able to get something for free, if possible, has always been the norm. The funny part here is that all pirates trash the very content they download the most and praise the content they don’t consume at all. Bunch of hypocrits.
Just answer two questions they way you answered all others and lets see where we are.

Well, since filesharer’s don’t steal anything, that claim is completely irrelevant. They manufacture items with their own physical property. The only thing that performs theft is the copyright monopoly, since it performs an intrusion into people’s physical property. That theft is no longer accepted by people.

> “I can understand kids with no morals and no money wanting things they can’t afford, but older adults?”

Can’t afford? The cost for manufacturing your own copies, with your won physical property, is free. Everyone can afford that?

The desire to spend as little money as possible for items you want, either when you buy them or when you manufacture them yourself, is called basic capitalism. There’s nothing strange with that.

> ” You’re addicted to free shit..”

Yes, that became the norm over 150 years ago, when society decided that there is something very good with all people having completely free access to all intellectual works available, and that the act of making available and accessing culture in a non-profit manner and commercial scale, without any regards to the creators wishes, and without them being privileged with any compensation from such, is completely ok.

> “..and you’re scared the proper and just laws will not enable you to collect free shit.”

No filesharer is afraid of that. It’s already completely clear that no legislation or technical countermeasures will ever stop pirates from accessing as much culture as they desire. This is a lesson that has been taught over and over again over the last ten years. Although some people missed that lesson, and are still in need of education.

I can understand kids with no morals and no money wanting things they can’t afford, but older adults? You’re addicted to free shit and you’re scared the proper and just laws will not enable you to collect free shit.