[Logseman]

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.

If I'm stumbing against beliefs, against the belief that I'm lying or that I'm dishonest (which is implied by your statement), we may of course leave the discussion. I won't bear to be insulted by my word being taken as a lie, for I haven't taken and will not take yours as such. If something ought to be clear is that we're two honest people sharing points of view about a topic. Or is it that, since I "steal" as you say, I deserve to be treated as a crook?

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.

Ta-daaa! Thanks to the magic labeling process, now I'm an Anarchist without me having said a word about it myself. If you want my stance, I consider myself a Strabic Bigot, aka Strabigot for briefness's sake. If you want to know what it is (though I count that you won't) I'll merrily explain it where you wish.

Aside of that, I've given my reasoning that it's not stealing if it's not physical property, which actually causes a loss of value if it's stolen: on the contrary, intellectual property is how they manage to put fences on the sea. However, let us take your words and follow the logic: thwarting someone's prospects of income is stealing. How can any new business be opened then? By its very creation, it implies more competition against the other firms of its industry. Those other firms or individual businesses will possibly be less profitable, thus their prospects of income are thwarted and, well, that is something we cannot allow, can we?

Do not think it's a reductio ad absurdum: it happens already. We only have to ask about banks, insurance companies, doctors, lawyers and a wide array of industries where there are huge entrance barriers. After all, letting more competition would menace the revenues of those who're "In The Money" as poker players say.

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.

A-ha! I was considered dishonest, and now I have the mindset of a psychopath. Downloading things from the darknet is not only communism, as that old mock poster said, it's even a mental sickness.

The state is an autonomous body inside society, not society itself. Such a synecdoche is usual, so I can understand your stance. Nevertheless, confounding chaos with spontaneous order is one of the biggest hazards in understanding what we're talking about. I never denied that you need rules in a society, I just claim the state, as an organisation which resorts to aggresion, is not legitimated to give them. That leaves a huge quantity of individuals to set up their own laws and codes, as they actually do today. At any rate, your choice of words is interesting: "either you obey or you must be prepared to face the consequences"... Capisce?

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.

I established the example of black markets as an example of spontaneous organisation which rises from the opposition of the State to the ingenious initiative of the individuals. Those psychopaths will try and get away with selling rationated items out of the ration system.

For the second statement, I'll leave a small graph,popular in Econ 101 course, to explain the matter:


Compare the efficiency area below the "price ceiling" bar with the market efficiency area which comes from crossing the demand and supply functions. Which is bigger?

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.

It's interesting how noone asks people who pay taxes in the Cayman Islands to consider themselves affected by their own country's laws. It is just us, the ones who have no other way but paying our taxes, who shall submit to the strongest rulings.

You may feel that it is ok to download as much as you can for free. That doesn't it make it moral in the opinion of society at large.
You also have a misunderstanding about what the power of consumer's choice means. It doesn't mean that if I feel like it, I steal it.

If it's society at large's fault, I'd like to commend you to the right thread:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77605

Consumers' choices try to maximize their enjoyment and welfare. Producers' choices try to maximize their profits (their ideal being eternal revenue sources). They do everything what is in their power to arrive to such status. But then again, do not pay heed to my psychopathic mumbles.
_________________________________________________

For the "old people buy - young people download" disyunction, I'd like to point out a small bit: young people download content for their elders too.