XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Frank Frank sent the following on 10/29/2009 11:00 AM:   
   > Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >> Frank Frank sent the following on 10/28/2009 3:28 AM:   
   >>> Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >>>> SFTV_troy sent the following on 10/26/2009 8:24 PM:   
   >>>>> On Oct 26, 3:05 pm, Jim Gysin  wrote:   
   >>>>>> [Rest of lame justification for theft snipped.]   
   >>> Who said anything about theft? Copying something is not theft.   
   >> If you don't have the legal right to copy it, it's theft.   
   >   
   > Bullshit.   
      
   Why, Seamus!  How uncivilized of you!   
      
   > It may be copyright infringement but it is emphatically NOT theft.   
      
   It's theft in every moral sense of the word.  Feel free to hide behind a   
   law book, though.   
      
   >> It's obviously an inconvenient reality for freeloaders like yourself,   
   >> but denial doesn't change reality.   
   >   
   > Freeloaders? I'm not the one who produces a single hit work and then   
   > sits back and lives large on government largesse.   
      
   And if that single hit work is not worth anything, then people won't be   
   willing to buy it.  But if it *is* worth something, then the creator is   
   still providing something of worth to a new and voluntary audience,   
   which makes him anything *but* a freeloader.   
      
   Furthermore, he's not "liv[ing] large on government largesse," because   
   all of the "largesse" in the world wouldn't have helped him to create   
   his single hit work in the first place.  If anything, he's "liv{ing]   
   large" off the fact that his single hit work continues to appeal to new   
   audiences who are willing to meet his terms in order to gain access to   
   their own copy of that work.   
      
   > Meanwhile, I've paid   
   > at least marginal cost for all of my things, except if they were being   
   > sold below cost as part of a deal or given freely as gifts.   
      
   I'm not even gonna bother getting into how you determine what is a fair   
   marginal cost.  Instead, I'll simply remind you once again that gaining   
   access to, say, a song on terms other than those agreed to by the   
   creator of that song is wrong, and it is theft in every moral sense of   
   the word.  It is not up to you to unilaterally decide what is a fair   
   marginal cost and then use that to justify what you're doing.   
      
   >>>> Besides which, even the smartest people can screw up, as did Albert   
   >>>> with his "cosmological constant."   
   >>> Did he?   
   >>>   
   >>> He called it his greatest blunder, but then in the 1990s some   
   >>> astronomers discovered evidence that there is a nonzero cosmological   
   >>> constant.   
   >   
   > There were some ad homs in here but I deleted them as they were not   
   > worthy of a specific response.   
      
   You misspelled "I can't rebut what you just said, so I'm going to delete   
   it and play victim again."   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)