> Well, maybe you don't know it, but in a legal context, preventing someone
from making money that they would make under normal circumstances is
considered "lost gains" (liberal translation)
Under normal circumstances, I would never have bought the music my friend
gave to me;
if I listen to the music, like it and then decide not to give any money to
the artist, this can only be accused by to facts:
1. There's no easy and anonymous payment system
2. I'm really poor
First one is true at the moment, second one only for a few people.
So if you don't do *this* although point 1 and 2 are false, then we're
talking about immoral actions (even then it's not piracy, but it's immoral).
They are not ok, but sharing is ok.
You're pretending everyone who gets a copy from a friend would have bought
the media otherwise; surely a false assumption.
> If you were to call it a flower, and I used it to hit you in the head,
guess what, it would STILL BE A HAMMER!
Funny to hear this from your mouth.
If I were you I would now claim "but the meaning of words change over time!
now it's a flower!"
I know a few very young teenies sharing illegaly proprietary software. Why
are they doing this? First, they don't know about the bad effects of
proprietary software. Second, because they are curious and want to discover
technology.
They never would have bought a 1000 € adobe photoshop version.
*You* are the one who says this curious teenies are murderers who attack
ships.
> You think that by calling you what you are, makes me lose the reason and
the right on this argument?
I think loosing the head and insulting people is not a very good argument,
lol.
> Yes, if the author decides that, you should obey!
The author don't has the right to tell me what I should do with my copy of my
book in my house. And just because I read the book without his permission I'm
no murderer and I don't attack ships.
> If you are listening to a pirated music and some friend comes to visit you,
he will say "I really like that music"
I'll call this "case A" for further argumentation
> BUT if the friend comes to visit you and you are listening to a CC licensed
song, maybe you are using an online service like librefm who knows, and he
says that he likes the music
I'll call this "case B".
Now, just because case A happens x times, this doesn't mean case B happens
less often.
And as I said before, if you restrict yourself to cc music, you're wiping out
other music.
That's worse than sharing illegaly for the artists, because this way artists
don't gain anything from sold cds AND they loose popularity.
I think no artist will say thankyou for this because you "respected his
licence".
You taught me so many new things in your last post, I'm really glad.
Now will I teach you something:
Just because someone has a different opinion than you, the word "asshole" is
*not* the proper term for him.
You don't know a thing of me beside the fact that I often disagree with you,
though you're calling me an asshole. *I* know many right terms for persons
like you, but I won't put the shame on me to write them here, because I obey
community guidelines and social guidelines instead of unjust license terms.
Obviously, you didn't develop neither any form of discussion culture nor the
ability to deal with other opinions or critizism.
You're repeating the same propaganda terms all the time, the same weak
arguments. Emotional reactions instead of rational thinking.
Poor performance, really.
