[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

No, I said
1. I don't listen to their music,
2. I don't download their music, and, as a consequence,
I neither care about their music nor their livelihood (it comes from being unimpressed by their efforts, you see). What I did say, in my post leading up to that, is that *if* I like something (say, classical music, or Dostoevsky translations, I will happily buy those [within reason]). Academic publishing (excepting textbook publishing) is also something I respect, as it demands at least something from its authors, whereas any Dan Brown can get published in a normal publishing house.

The fact that you don't bother to respond to any of that, claiming I'm too "immature" - or whatever other silly adjective you can come up with - for you to talk to, as well as the whole of my earlier post, as well as the allegations leveled against you in this one only tells me that you have no way of defending yourself against it, as you know that you were indeed stacking the deck in your "favor".

This is what I said – to Moejoe:

I’m not a fan of the publishing or music industry, but to try to justify illegal behavior, regardless of its economic impact, simply because one finds them distasteful strikes me as violently immature and irresponsible.

Could you please point out where I called you immature?

How is it exactly that you "understand" the cost of piracy, when there are almost no real numbers out there on the effects? Gut feelings? I have yet to see any reliable figures from the **AA (the multibillion figures they spout regularly tend to run all over the map depending on whether you ask them, the IFPI, or yet another sponsored study.), so I'm really curious.

I never said I understand every aspect of the costs associated with piracy, that was not my point. I was responding to this:

MoejoeIf - If you willingly discount what's happening without trying to understand, then that is your want, but don't expect anybody to take your opinions as anything more than reactionary and ignorant.

I never claimed to be the be all end all authority on file-sharing.

Going even further than that, I also respect criminals for stealing my wallet because they have families (or addictions) to feed...

That’s great. Should you ever find your entire savings wiped out due to say, identity theft, or a corporation acting illegally, well, I’m sure you’ll find it within you to understand and sympathize with the perp’s point of view.

In other words, I'm not required to care about other people, whether you call me narcissistic or not. But sure, put people who don't care about others in neat little boxes, like "hippy" and "irresponsible adolescent". I'm sure it helps you feel better.

No, you’re not, but at one time, it was more or less expected of an educated adult, a.k.a. an responsible citizen — at least that's what I got taught. Your results may vary.

I love fallacies. Really. Which is why it pains me to see you type "illegal". downloading copyrighted works (games/software excluded) is legal in a fair number of countries around the world, including most or all of the EU. This is because current law compares it to making copies in libraries. You are allowed to photocopy books, after all. Apart from scale and ease, downloading is no different. [uploading being another matter]

Perhaps you should have shared your love for partial “fallacies” cause, in many countries, including the States, to which I am referring, it is illegal to download illegally uploaded, copyrighted works.

Again the big words. Violently immature, irresponsible, illegal.. And all that even though I've yet to see you support any of those adjectives.
In point of fact, it's not illegal, it's not "regardless of economic impact," (that is, if there was no impact, there would be no laws, and that goes both ways. Secondly the actual impact is wholly unknown, especially in the case of book downloads) and most of all, how in the devil's name is it "immature" to oppose things you disagree with in a lawful way?
"Illegal" is a legal term, not a moral one, and if you privately prefer to conflate the two, that's fine, but don't try to stack the deck with them to make your point. It's lame.

In fact, in some countries it is illegal regardless of economic impact. You attack my use of generalizations, with one of your own. It is immature to skirt the law simply because you do not agree with it. The mature way to handle such situations is through legal channels, write your congressperson, the publisher or the fucking president for christ’s sake – but you cannot just decide to pick and choose among a list of laws you with to follow. GW did that, and where did that land us?