I concede that you can define an arbitrary set of circumstances where, in a vacuum, you download a file without perturbing the universe in any measurable way. This isn't a starting point for drawing conclusions until you answer the question of "how those circumstances could ever occur".
Furthermore, it's not persuasive. You're avoiding the obvious fact that these innocuous downloads --- those that not only involve people who would not pay for content, but who are also so hygienic in their downloading practices that they do not contribute to the climate --- are a tiny minority of all downloads.
Finally, if we've really arrived at the crux of your argument --- that you can personally define one form of illicit download that imposes no costs on society --- then you've already lost the "debate" (such as it is). We're talking about Torrentspy, a huge contributor to the climate you're meticulously and artificially trying to avoid helping.
I didn't say anything about Torrentspy. Do you have any suggestions for what I can do in future discussions so that people listen more to what I actually say?
As for how common this type of downloading is, do you think if torrent sites didn't exist that even half of the downloads they facilitate would have been purchases instead? I don't think most downloaders have enough money to buy that much stuff.
Respectfully, you might start by remembering what you originally said, considering the plain meaning of your words, and the context in which you say them. In this case, you begun this thread by referring to the "vast amount of good" that "sites like" Torrentspy do.
Your other argument seems to be that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the costs inflicted by torrent sites, because they are small --- "not even half of the downloads" directly rob producers of revenue. I don't care to chase that argument down. If you believe your argument is persuasive, I have good news for you: you needn't bother paying your taxes, either. The marginal cost to the government of losing Bruce Lewis' tax revenue is very nearly zero. In fact, if everyone like you stopped paying taxes, we'd be no worse off. Under your argument's rubric, I can see no reason for us to trouble ourselves with the task of collecting taxes from Scheme web developers at all.
You ignored the other ways in which one illicit downloader contributes to other downloaders, and ignored the original point, which is that torrent sites like Torrentspy do not obviously do "vast amounts of good", as you originally claimed. Do you feel like your arguments are convincing?
All freeloading is vastly good for the freeloaders, Kevin. Do we need to go through the pointless excercise of demonstrating all the instances of freeloading that you aren't comfortable with?
>Do we need to go through the pointless excercise of demonstrating all the instances of freeloading that you aren't comfortable with?
Go for it.
In the end, I am comfortable with the damage done to content producers. Since there appears to be no solution that will maintain the status quo, there's going to be dramatic change in the information industry. Already, smart commercial software developers sell a service rather than a binary executable. I love live music, soon I will be able to see more of it. There will be less uber-produced studio music, but I'm fine with that. I don't care for Hollywood blockbuster movies. They're ok sometimes, but I can handle a future without them. I watch TV with advertisements when it is available online; generally there are far fewer commercials than in the cable/broadcast version.
What do you think the solution to the problem is? Or describe your idealized where content producers are fairly compensated when technology allows for their works to be freely copied.
Which way could a careful user not avoid contributing to that kind of climate?
The "vast" good is the over 50% of downloads (my estimate) that wouldn't have been purchases anyway. Even if it's 5%, that's still a lot of value of movies/etc that people get that is good.
How is it "good" for people to get things they place a value of zero dollars on? How does that "good" outweigh the damage they do by disincentivizing content creation? If infinitessimally small costs are OK in the case of torrents, as you say they are, why vaccinate your children? That, too, imposes a tiny cost on everyone else. Why pay your taxes? Why not send spam? Your spam messages impose a tiny cost on everyone, compared to the major spam factories.
It's not a value of zero dollars. People don't buy (or rent) things when the price is higher than the value to them. If the price is $10, and the value to them is $3, they wouldn't buy it.
Your argument is incoherent. It observes that, at $70,000, a BMW M5 is priced too high for me to buy it. So, I should simply take it, blaming BMW for mispricing it.
Furthermore, it's not persuasive. You're avoiding the obvious fact that these innocuous downloads --- those that not only involve people who would not pay for content, but who are also so hygienic in their downloading practices that they do not contribute to the climate --- are a tiny minority of all downloads.
Finally, if we've really arrived at the crux of your argument --- that you can personally define one form of illicit download that imposes no costs on society --- then you've already lost the "debate" (such as it is). We're talking about Torrentspy, a huge contributor to the climate you're meticulously and artificially trying to avoid helping.