Saffire

Okay, so there are conflicting reports on whether a Zombieland sequel will be made. But so far it's made a 500% profit. That's light-years ahead of many movies, and in dream-zone for most businesses. For instance, Apple Computer only makes about 20% profit margin. http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-may-kill-zombieland-sequel-writer-claims-091111/ Not sure what universe you live in, but a 500% profit margin is hardly "devastating". You might want to pick another movie for your example, if your goal is to get me by the heartstrings. I disagree that downloading movies hurts anyone. I've already explained why: because intangible and non-scarce "goods" are not subject to economic laws of supply and demand. Okay so this relies on the assumption that 1/4 of the people who downloaded the movie would have been willing to trade 8 or 10 dollars for a movie ticket to go see the film. Currently the film has grossed around 100 million dollars, so it's about 1% of the total revenue. Not much. They're worth what people are willing to pay to see them. If they can figure out a way to peacefully prevent all piracy of the movie, then I'd be totally fine with that. They have every right to do that. But if the film leaks, then too bad. You can't punish people for copying information. I know this, you don't have to explain it to me. I'm simply pointing out that there isn't a rational ethical case to be made against peoples' right to copy data. You're allowed to have a personal moral preference against it, and shun those who do it, but it's not productive to physically attack people who do it. In the same way that making distribution of drugs illegal pushes their price higher, so does making (unlicensed) distribution of movies/music illegal cause their price to move higher. My point is that movies shouldn't be making as much money as they currently are - it's an unnatural economic environment created by government intervention and nonvoluntary taxpayer financing of the prevention/punishment/enforcement apparatus. Your argument about the book is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. However I disagree that this scenario is the one that'll play out. Assuming the book is popular, I can accept donations online, and some of my fans will offer me money so that I can write a sequel. I can release one chapter at a time online (in sort of the same way Charles Dickens did). I can create an "Authorized by the Creator" edition of my book, and include my signature in it for public sale. I can offer to write-in advertisements and names for people who are interested in using my popularity to spread their own products and views. There are many ways to make money creatively in a non-IP environment. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVusj2a0pzg]Against Owning Information ('intellectual property') - YouTube[/ame]

Hey Kiame, from now on whenever you annoy me I'll just remind you of Zombieland. ;)

Sorry kid, I'm done responding to you.

LOL Good to see I'm not the only person here Reilly loses his marbles over.

Oh you too! Hey there. Mother Jones... National Review... Lindsey Graham... You're building up quite a list! ;)

Aww, whassamatter? Can't reply to any of my points/links? If you can't take it, don't dish it out. ;)

I'm going to go ahead and paste what I said in my previous response to you, since you appear to either have missed it or maybe you didn't understand it: I know most of you agree with uhh... the National Review... lol. But I have a different view. Sorry.

Sorry about that last post, had to get that out of the way! lol Evidence? So they "only" tripled their investment, and Sony refused to make a sequel based on that? According to the Wikipedia page for the movie, there will be a sequel and they're planning on it. They're even thinking about a TV series based on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombieland Soooo yeah, your argument here (and your example) doesn't hold water. You're assuming the movie is worth that much (meaning the people would have voluntarily traded their money to see it in theaters rather than downloading it). Not according to the Swiss government, which recently legalized piracy there: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111204switzerland?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+digitalmusicnews+%28Digital+Music+News%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader Why is offering customers a product they want at a lower price a bad thing? You've yet to explain the ethics/economics of this. But what about consumers? Why are you siding with certain producers here? That sounds corporatist. Well let me go on record that I'm annoyed with your propensity to do the same. I think you're a warmongering corporatist socialist who doesn't believe in individual sovereignty or self-determination. :) How'd they manage to do that? So is the root of the problem the government? It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Are you sure that's the real reason? Or was that merely their stated goal? Why are you assuming the government is selfless here? Sounds fishy. So basically you're saying nothing of substance here. I disagree. I pointed out early in this thread that the issue came down to government, and you agreed with me! I happen to think your positions are simplistic - that the government is going to act selflessly, that it can print/steal money and use that for the purposes of helping the poor, etc. It's sort of 4th grade. No offense.

Kiame: *sigh*, that felt good.

Hey, a den of statist, economically-illiterate, naive, elitist children. What else is new? I'm done responding to you people.

I disagree. Piracy isn't theft - it's simply copying, which is peaceful. There are many people who don't believe "intellectual property" is really property, because the concept of property only exists as a shorthand way to settle disputes between people who make claims on the same scarce resources, and data isn't scarce. "Smuggling" is just a dirty word for "trading across imaginary lines on the ground". I see nothing wrong with it. The fact remains that Norwegians are without butter because of their own government's use of force and threats of force against peaceful traders.

Well you're entitled to clarify your position, if you'd like. Yeah the butter shortage will last as long as the Norwegian government makes it last.

Well I wouldn't expect you to. :P

Again, that's not the point. The point is, they don't need to have a trial to prove she's a terrorist. They can simply call her one and then indefinitely detain her as a result. I'm not claiming they're "abusing the NDAA" here, only that it's a legal avenue that's available to them now.

So you think people who sell butter aren't peaceful? Weird.

That's not the point, the point is they called her a "terrorist". According to the NDAA, they can indefinitely detain her without a trial now.

Why's it bad that the police stopped them? Because they were peaceful people!

They probably weren't licensed importers, or they didn't pay a tax. (I'm just guessing.)

http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2011/12/two-swedes-arrested-for-trying-to-smuggle-550-lbs-of-butter-into-norway What brave police. I'm glad the government is providing order and stability to the people of Norway!

http://ottumwacourier.com/local/x1666051253/OHS-student-charged-with-terrorism 16 year old girl charged with terrorism. That happened fast.

One major reason the North Koreans are starving (besides socialism) is the fact that Kim Jong Il built a huge (unnecessary) dam that flooded a large portion of their arable farmland. Pff, lol.

The reason this blog even exists is due to the massive number of pictures of the man looking at things - but why is he looking at things? Why is he photographed doing this? The reason is: the government of North Korea is in charge of all industry there (it is basically a full-spectrum monopolist). Kim is photographed looking at the production of goods because the pictures are used as propaganda in the country. It's a way of saying, "Look at how talented Kim Jong Il is! He knows the best way to provide the people with what they want!" I doubt anything much will change in North Korea, and I think the reaction of the people there (crying and depression) is very similar to the extreme swings of emotion in American politics. When Obama is elected, people literally cried tears of joy. If Obama is defeated, there will be a lot of anger among Democrats, and thrill among Republicans. But just like North Korea, when the torch of power is passed, it changes nothing. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSWN6Qj98Iw]North Koreans weeping hysterically over the death of Kim Jong-il - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zT8lKweG00]The death of North Korea Kim Jong-il obituary ??????? - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8-Vr_r36Fg]Christopher Hitchens - North Korea - YouTube[/ame]

Again, I think it's time you admit that my views on this subject are at least valid, Parrotdies. Also the article you linked to isn't as thorough and doesn't substantively dispute Glenn Greenwald's interpretation. So be a good debate partner and do like I did - admit that yes, interpretation in the law is possible.

The US is trying its best to drag other Western nations down into fascism with it. I really hope the Australians/New Zealanders/Swiss/Danish/etc. take a more Ron Paul approach. Cobalt, you should have seen the Republican debate last night. It was horrific. They were literally talking about abolishing courts. Here's a clip from it: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c&t=8m31s]Ron Paul Highlights in 12/15/2011 Presidential Debate - YouTube[/ame] (The good parts are after 8:31)