I agree 100%... except with copyright infringement you are not taking something you are copying it.
If you have trouble comprehending these concepts and the differences between them here are the definitions of the words "take" and "copy"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/copy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take
Interesting debate. If I take someone's Rolex, that's an obvious one. But if I meticulously and faithfully make a copy of someone's Rolex, the person who currently owns the Rolex doesn't suffer. However, I now have a Rolex (for all intents and purposes) that I did not pay for. So I got something of value for nothing. Personally, that just doesn't seem fair, either to the Rolex company, or the guy who bought his Rolex. Eventually, Rolex will just stop making watches, because there's no way on earth they will ever be able to compete, pricewise, against the pirates.
Here's an interesting point of view. Piracy, and the advocates of piracy, are really interested in digital socialism. I think the article actually made a reference to that. But there's a fundamental issue with socialism as a structure. It removes the motivator for production. Like it or not, we live in a largely capitalist world driven by capitalist principles. Call it corporate greed, economics, whatever, it is what it is. No-one these days is going to produce content (music, games, movies) 'for the love of it'. They expect to be rewarded for their effort. At the moment, the industry appears to be able to afford piracy. The contributions of the many are subsidising the losses of the few. But if this piracy movement gains critical mass? When the composers, developers and directors can no longer afford to cover the costs of their production, how will they produce content? How on earth could James Cameron be able to afford to make Avatar at a cost of $500,000,000 if no-one was going to spend the money to watch it??
You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution. Consider the following urban legend:
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single
student, but had once failed an entire class.
The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be
poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said,
"OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so
no one will fail and no one will receive an A."
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had
studied very little were happy.
But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little
studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since
they couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average
was a D.
No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an
F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted
in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism
would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater
their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward
away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.
Socialism has failed numerous times as a system of government. China manages it work out of desperation largely by bullying and subjugating their population. What makes you think that digital socialism will fare any better?
Juice
:erm:
.
I aim to please and entertain.