[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I find it tasteless to eat while leaning the elbows on a table. I find it tasteless (and that's the most pleasant word I can find for it) to smoke. I find it tasteless to attribute something to your own which is not your own. But the fact that I find it tasteless doesn't mean that I'm going to sue someone for leaning the elbows in a table while eating, even if I can actually measure my distaste for it. Nor even for smoking, as much as I hate it. I hope my point is clear.

You don't have to sue everyone who angers you. I never implied that you would sue someone for that. It is unlikely that you would sue when you really get nothing out of it. In the case that we talked about in this part, you were referring to only the benefit of your name on works that very few people would read and likely know you created anyway. No reason for you to sue on that.

Originally Posted by Logseman

About the "copyright", I did not point that I had "copyright" or that I intended to milk off my works to make money: if they make money it's good, and if it's me who makes it with them it's better, but I'm not going out of my way for that. I pointed that if such a plagiarism comes, I had proof that I wrote it first. If I exercised "copyright", I'd be asking for compensation. On the contrary, I have said I'd not be asking for compensation, but just show proof that the plagiarist has used me as a ghost writer, and thus is a... well, plagiarist. It would shame the writer's reputation in the exact same manner, if you think about it.

Sorry, but I don't believe you on this point. You may have even convinced yourself, but you would not have brought up the money issue unless you would take advantage of it.

Let me be clear, I don't have anything against you enforcing your copyright if your work did make money. I would be glad that you were successful and got paid for it.

Originally Posted by Logseman

I have no moral obligations save to enjoy my life while harming noone's property (bodies, material possesions, etc). As I said before, thwarting someone's prospects of income is not harming their actual property, thus I wouldn't say it's "stealing".

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is the accepted definition of stealing. It is not just thrwarting someone's prospects of income, it is stealing. In every modern culture around the world, stealing is considered moraly wrong.

I know you are an anarchist and believe that the state and corporations either should not exist or have almost no power. Fortunately, very few people agree with your ideas. Otherwise we would all be back in the stone age very quickly.

Originally Posted by Logseman

And about my duties, it is me and the ones around me who sets them, not the State. I won't obey any law which goes against my personal beliefs if I can get away with it. And I work so more and more people can get away with it, for it is noone's duty to obey a State, but to pursue happiness.

You seem to forget, you and the ones around you are the state. The people are the ones that have agreed with and formed the laws.

I am not trying to be offensive here, but the attitude that no one should obey any laws if they can get away with it is primarly the attitude that a psychopath has. Again, I am not trying to be offensive, but there has to be rules in any society and you need to follow them or be prepared to pay the consequences.

Originally Posted by Logseman

I remind you, when an official, State-approved market is dysfunctional, or when it simply is banned, a black market appears. The black market actually improves the outcomes in welfare for the people who take part in it. I would consider this the very same idea: if the State-approved, official marketplaces are rigged in favor of special interests, it's only logical that people find ingenious ways to circumvent the limits of those markets. Curiously, even if they go against their "duty" of obeying the law, and even if they hold the utmost respect of the rest of said law.

This part made very little sense. The market is not banned in any way. Nor is this a black market any sense of the word. This is pure theft, not a resale of the items.

You are also completely wrong that the black market actually improves the welfare of the people. Usually the black market causes great harm to the people.

Originally Posted by Logseman

Which brings me a last question: which law should I obey? The Spanish law, which allows paid-for works to be distributed as long as the distributer doesn't win money with them? The German law, which doesn't? The US Law, which will allow eternal copyright with time? The Vanuatuan law?

You should obey the most strict law that affects the material and yourself. For instance if the material comes from the US, you should obey that law even if you live in Spain. Or if you live in Germany and the material comes from Spain, you follow the German law.