Pirates in Parliment

[CattyNebulart]

The pirate party got a seat in the European parliament, and it was quite close to getting more than that. good thing or bad thing? Discuss.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Ayiekie]

Meh, it's democracy. I loathe them, but considering all the far-right, anti-immigrant and fringe group parties that won seats in that election, it's
hardly the most depressing news to come out of it.

[Foxboy]

Nu? What governmental system do you think would work best? They've all got their problems.

Communism is a pretty idea in theory and may even work on a small scale, but, due to human nature, tends to get corrupt FAST on a larger scale.

Feudalism is all well and good for the nobles, but the peasants/serfs won't necessarily agree.

Democracy's biggest problem is that it depends on the people, and people (in large numbers) are stupid.

Anarchy, well again, Human nature being what it is....
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[CattyNebulart]

Communism is a model of economics not goverment, though it does specify anarchy as it's political system. I believe the USSR's goverment forinstance would technically be a federal republic, much like the USA. Now there are obviously huge differences between the USSR and the USA, but they are due to implementation details.

Ayakie, why the hate for the pirate party? The hate for pirates (high sea) I can understand and empathise with, the hate for pirates (internet) I can understand but not empathize with, but hate for the political party I find hard to understand.

For those unfamiliar here is a nearly one hour talk on the policies and the motivations behind them of the pirate party.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1918823479

EDIT: I hate yuku, why can't it handle links?
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Wiregeek]

link looks fine to me.

currently in "light everyone involved on fire" phase, avoiding actual topic.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Ayiekie]

I despise the political party because I despise the ideas and philosophies they stand for. Pretty much the same reason I despise the Republican Party.
That's not really very hard to understand, I think. I also hate all the racist parties for the same reason (indeed, very much more so). So I think their
getting seats is a bad thing, but not even close to the worst thing to come out of that election.

I have far more sympathy for Somalian pirates than the Pirate Bay and its supporters, incidentally.

[CattyNebulart]

I despise the political party because I despise the ideas and philosophies they stand for.

Limited copyright and the abolition of patents? Which of these two is so objectionable to you and why?

I have far more sympathy for Somalian pirates than the Pirate Bay and its supporters, incidentally.

That's like saying you have more symapthies for people who commit armed robbery than you have for people who speed. While I'm sure there is some sort of reasoning behind it i can't see it.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Epsilon]

CattyNebulart wrote:

---

I have far more sympathy for Somalian pirates than the Pirate Bay and its supporters, incidentally.

That's like saying you have more symapthies for people who commit armed robbery than you have for people who speed. While I'm sure there is some sort
of reasoning behind it i can't see it.

He didn't say "pirates" he said "Somali pirates", there are several critical differences.

Here is one:

In one case the people doing it are starving to death because we dumped toxic waste in their water and killed their entire food supply.

In the other, rich entitled people are looking for more entitlements.

---------------------

Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

In one case the people doing it are starving to death because we dumped toxic waste in their water and killed their entire food supply.

Somalia is a mess for a lot of reasons, and I can understand desperate people wanting to do something. However hijacking ships for ransom at gunpoint is not acceptable. Especially since the crews of the ships have nothing to do with the mess in Somalia.

By that same reasoning people who lost their job due to the recession should be allowed to rob banks, after all it's the bank's fault that the recession occurred.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Epsilon]

Human beings are capable of having sympathy towards other humans beings even if we know what they are doing is wrong and condemn it at the same time.

It's this thing called "empathy".

----------------------

Epsilon

[ECSNorway]

Empathy is fine.

Saying that people who are committing kidnapping, rape, murder, pillage, and theft are more deserving of our empathy than people who download e-books is...
uhm.

I'm sorry, but I don't have words that I feel fit for use in this company that describe how vile that is.

Ayiekie, congratulations. You're the first person on this forum to actually make me despise and hate you. Not even RevDark and his anti-theism rants have
accomplished that.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Ayiekie]

Reaaaaaaaaaallly, ECSNorway? Really? Why don't you tell us your thoughts about the kidnapping/rapist/murdering guards at Guantanamo Bay and other American
prisons, and those above them right up to the last President and Vice-President of the United States that authorised all that? Somehow I'll bet you have
words other than "vile" to describe them, despite it being on public record both that all of these things happened and that it was at worst condoned
and far more likely explicitly authorised all the way up to the top.

The Somali pirates do what they do because their country was destroyed by Westerners, and their livelihood taken away by Westerners and Asians. Starvation is
so rampant in Somalia that the country is a byword for it, there isn't even a functional government, 73% of the population lives on less than $2 a day, and
there has been a civil war going on with absolutely horrific levels of brutality for nearly 20 years, for which Western involvement for the last 10 years was
limited to US air strikes, which themselves were only used in an attempt to kill Al Qaeda operatives. In return, these destitute, starving former fisherman,
who can no longer fish thanks to the developed world taking advantage of the lack of a Somali government to illegally fish Somali waters and destroy their fish
stocks, have resorted to capturing and ransoming merchant traffic (often from the exact same countries who fucked their country in the first place). In these
piracy operations, the Somalis have routinely treated prisoners well, going so far as to hire caterers for them. Meanwhile, in a recent "triumph",
the US had snipers assassinate three out of four of the pirates they were negotiating with, leading to several pirate groups to announce they will no longer
treat prisoners so well and may even just kill them.

Are the pirates great guys? Not really. Although the bulk of them are former fishermen, many are soldiers from the aforementioned horrific civil war, which is
where they get many of their weapons and training for same. However, do I have a fuckload more sympathy for the circumstances and lot of destitute starving
Africans than I do for a bunch of spoiled rich white Europeans? Yes. Do I really care that a torture-supporting chickenhawk thinks badly of me for it? No.

I approve of limiting copyright to a certain time past the originator's death. That is not the main purpose of the Pirate Party, though it is part of their
platform. I am capable of agreeing with certain portions of the platform of political parties I dislike.

As a fun fact, for the cost of the war in Iraq (not even including Afghanistan) so far, the United States could have given every man, woman and child in
Somalia over 90,000 dollars.

[Foxboy]

This thread had already had me thinking of Gilbert and Sullivan, specifically the Pirates of Penzance where it's revealed that the pirates in question are Members of Parliament.

However, I'm now reminded of the Lord High Executioner's aria from The Mikado which includes on the list of folks to be summarily executed:

"The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone

All centuries but this and every country but his own..."
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Ayiekie]

To follow up more and clarify, I'll quote Mahatma Gandhi: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." This is a favourite quote by Christians, but alas, never does seem to get applied in situations like this.

I think the piracy ought to be stopped. I also think that the pirates ought to eventually lose their ill-gotten gains. However, I think that a purely military solution is compounding an injustice with another injustice. Starving and desperate people steal; stealing is wrong, but pretending that the one does not lead to the other, and that the fault is entirely on the thief, is willfully blinding yourself. I think developed nations should certainly patrol Somali waters to fend off pirates. I think they should also, just as assiduously, defend those waters from the predations of foreign fishing fleets (though sadly, it is too late for that to really save the fish stocks, but it will help them recover). I think that the UN should be intervening in the Somali civil war, and especially ought to be taking action with (and forcing the adherence of the Geneva Conventions by) the Ethiopian army, which invaded Somalia during the crisis. Mediators should also be appointed to try and end not only the main conflict and the Ethiopian conflict, but also to settle the question of the various Somali breakaway provinces (such as Somaliland, Puntland, et cetera).

Shooting a bunch of starving ex-fishermen and leaving again is no more ethically justifiable than what the pirates are doing. While it's certainly true that Somalia has problems beyond what was directly done by European and Asian countries, to pretend that most of their problems don't stem directly back to that is simply a lie. And none of those people were ever punished for their crimes, nor any compensation given for the destruction they wrought.
Edit: (Psst. I'm not American.)

[CattyNebulart]

Part of Somalia's problems come from their own response to the problems caused by westerners during the cold war, which in turn has it roots in the history before then. sure those people starving and dieng in somalia don't deserve it, but if they kidnap people at gunpoint they are part of the problem.

The problem with using historical wrongs to justify what is done in the present leads to things like the isreal-palastine conflict, and if we really want all wrongs to be redressed then we should probably give Rome back it's empire. Tit for tat doesn't work and will just lead to more violence, there is a need for an international justice system that act on justice, not laws, and that has the power to enforce it's edicts. it would never work and no country would accept it's authority.
but without that we are left with laws, and if a goverment does't have laws limiting the fish catch then you can legaly fish as much as you want. the law is a really bad proxie for justice, but it is the best we have. Without that you get into trouble that what is considered just varies around the world.

Shooting a bunch of starving ex-fishermen and leaving again is no more ethically justifiable than what the pirates are doing.

I disagree they picked up a gun and thereby created a reasonable threat to everyone around them. If you pick up a lethal weapon you should be prepared for people to respond in kind. they threatened a hostage who had done nothing, should he not be rescued because his country bombed Somalia? by that reasoning it would be ok for a middle-eastern to torture an american because bush authorized it done on some middle eastern people. That is just flat out wrong, bush should go to prison for what he did, but John Doe american should not be punished for it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.,
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Ayiekie]

So, CattyNebulart, what do you think about the Japanese government and its treatment of history textbooks covering the Japanese war in China and, oh, just to
narrow it down a bit, the Rape of Nanking? Should the Chinese be using "historical wrongs" to justify their current unfriendly attitude towards
Japan? Before you answer, I'll remind you that European colonisation of Africa was still in existence within the lifetime of many people currently alive
(indeed, it is more recent than anything Japan did in China). What's the statute of limitations on atrocities, or on theft of natural resources, or on
fomentation of conflict? Incidentally, the Israel-Palestine conflict is also primarily based on events in the relatively recent past, within the lifetimes of
many of those involved. It has very little to do with anything historical beyond the fact that Israel exists where it is due to historical reasons (but not
only due to that by any means).

Historical wrongs don't "justify" the present. But they certainly go a long way towards explaining it. I already said I think the piracy should
be stopped and the pirates should not keep their gains. I am not a "supporter" of the pirates. But the developed world (and several less-developed
nations) are primarily responsible for the situation they are in and therefore also has a responsibility to try and improve it, which also attacks the root
cause of the problem instead of its symptoms (and would assist in the ending of a massive humanitarian crisis, and therefore would be laudable even without the
responsibility aspect). This is largely ignored in the media, in favour of unabashed cheering of military efforts to stop the pirates and a studious lack of
examination as to why precisely there are so many Somalian pirates to begin with.

Incidentally, you are completely incorrect in that there were not laws preventing other countries from fishing in Somalia's territorial waters. There are
(indeed, they are implicit in the very concept of "territorial waters"). The problem was that those laws were ignored because the government did not
have the power to enforce them (or much of anything else). There has not been a functional Somali government since the early 90s.

I'll also point out that an International Criminal Court does exist, and does have significant power provided you're not lucky enough to be a citizen
of a great power (although. Also, "justice instead of laws" is a completely meaningless phrase. Who defines "justice", exactly?

Finally, I'll remind you that the Somali pirates have by and large treated their prisoners more humanely than the United States has. They're not
generally nice people, but armed robbery doesn't carry a death penalty in your country, let alone elsewhere in the developed world. So what exactly is your
ethical justification for killing them (I'm not including situations where people would be defending themselves or where the imminent death of a prisoner
seems likely)? What did they do for which they would deserve to be responded to with lethal force?

If they do deserve such a response for their relatively minor crimes (and I will note that this hardly characterises every encounter with them, but you
certainly seem to be supporting it with your "respond in kind" reasoning), why shouldn't that also apply to Americans? I'll remind you every
soldier in Iraq, for instance, is a volunteer who went there of their own free will. What should be done to them? Your John Doe American (presumably) took part
in the illegal unprovoked invasion and occupation of a foreign country. He would also have been carrying lethal weaponry. He has likely at least attempted to
kill people, and quite possibly has succeeded in killing people, maiming them, and so forth. He is indirectly responsible for starvation and poverty, and an
official representative of torturers and murders of prisoners. So are his captors justified to "respond in kind" (which would be, at the very least,
summary execution)? Or does your standard of summary justice, and lack of sympathy, only apply to Africans who extract ransoms from corporations?

[CattyNebulart]

Who defines "justice", exactly?

That's why I said it wouldn't work. But without that you get problems like getting the permission of a kleptocracy through a 'donation' for whatever purpose. I am confident that many of the overfishers got he permission from someone for a fairly trivial price.

So what exactly is your ethical justification for killing them (I'm not including situations where people would be defending themselves or where the imminent death of a prisoner seems likely)? What did they do for which they would deserve to be responded to with lethal force?

As far as I know threatened prisoner and immediate self defense have been the only times lethal force has been used. That said I am hardly an expert on the Somali situation so if there are counterexamples I would condem them. I just don't know of them.

but you certainly seem to be supporting it with your "respond in kind" reasoning

My argument is that response in kind doesn't work. i was rather sleep deprioved when i wrote that so i am sorry if it's not that clear.

I'll remind you every soldier in Iraq, for instance, is a volunteer who went there of their own free will.

Hardly, many volunteered before the Iraq war. Granted they should have forseen that they might be embroiled in a war, but the USA is supposed to have safeguards against that.

So are his captors justified to "respond in kind"

from what i get from your argument, your position is that yes they are. my position is no, if you do you will just drag on the conflict and spread the misery and injustice.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Ayiekie]

Fair enough, I did indeed think you were advocating lethal force. Volunteering before the Iraq war doesn't change the fact you only serve of your own free
will - yes, you would be court-martialed, likely jailed, and so forth for refusing to go to Iraq... but the option was there, and indeed American soldiers are
supposed to refuse illegal orders (in fact, there were several soldiers who refused to go to Iraq on those grounds). My point is that they did so of their own
free will, and the fact that they would have faced hardship for refusing doesn't really wash by the same reasoning that has been used to condemn the
pirates (who do their own illegal activities to avoid hardship).

I do not think it is morally justified to kill American prisoners, no, nor to torture them. To quote Gandhi again: "An eye for an eye makes the whole
world blind." I understand WHY, and sympathise with the position of the native Iraqis who resist the occupation, even though what they have done in such
cases is still wrong (and I'll hasten to point out that this has not happened to all American prisoners, of course). Same goes for the American troops in
Iraq. I sympathise with their position, but that does not change the fact that some of them (certainly not all) have done things that are horribly wrong, and
that all of them are guilty of aiding and abetting in an illegal and unjustified war (but the ultimate blame does lie with the government). And so by extension
you have the Somali pirates. What they are doing is wrong and should be stopped, but I understand WHY it happens, and I sympathise with the lives that led most
of them to what they're doing. Therefore I do not think a purely military solution is a morally justified one, especially in light of the culpability of
many European and Asian countries in the situation.

Which is why I sympathise with them more than the people who lead the Pirate Party, whom I have no sympathy for since piracy is a crime with a purely selfish
motive. The pirates are committing a significantly worse crime, but their circumstances and motivations are more sympathetic. Nobody's child was going to
starve to death if a Swedish man didn't illegally download a music album, and Sweden did not suffer under the depredations of the RIAA Overlords within
living memory.

[CattyNebulart]

My point is that they did so of their own free will, and the fact that they would have faced hardship for refusing doesn't really wash by the same reasoning that has been used to condemn the pirate

You are right. Though I would make a distinction between those who are ordered to do something and those who due to circumstances do something. If you rob a bank because someone told you to and will kill your family if you don't it's quite different than robbing a bank because you are out on the street and starving.

if the pirates hijacked a few ships and demanded that the UN fixes Somalia for their return or something like that I would be a lot more sympathetic. Sure it would be decried as terrorism, but at least they would be trying to fix the situation.

Therefore I do not think a purely military solution is a morally justified one, especially in light of the culpability of many European and Asian countries in the situation.

A purely military solution won't work, and finding a solution that will work will be very hard. yes the world is obligated to fix the situation but they needs to find a viable solution first.

Which is why I sympathise with them more than the people who lead the Pirate Party,

The people in Somalia are in a far worse situation, granted. That said I have far more sympathy of the people who try to eke out a living in somalia without hijacking other peoples ships.

Okay lets close the Somalia debate since it probably does not belong in this topic. The pirate party is not running on a platform related to somalia, they are running on a platform of copyright and patent reform.

The current copyright regime is just wrong, it's alleged original purpuse was to encourage creators to make more stuff, but if what you create will keep paying for you and your kids and grandkids then there is not much incetive to make more than one thing. If copyright expires after 5 years then you have a lot of incentive to make more stuff so that you will keep earning money.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Ayiekie]

Yes, getting back to the original topic...

Very, very, very few artists make enough money from one thing to feed themselves for a year, let alone their kids and grandkids. The vast majority of writers,
for instance, have to keep day jobs even after having several books out. The same goes for musicians and actors (the average annual salary of an actor in
Canada is $10,000, and acting gives you no side benefits like dental, drug plans, et cetera).

I think that the continual extension of copyright past a person's death, largely pushed by Disney in the United States so they don't lose control of
their older properties, is wrong. The only thing it benefits is a corporation. But I also similarly believe that limiting copyright to such a short time is
also wrong. Why should an artist not receive royalties for their work for at least as long as they live, given the many, many, many downsides to pursuing an
artistic career? Moreover, anything popular will continue to be produced after copyright expires, most likely not by the original artist (who will not have the
funds unless they were already rich). Therefore, the main beneficiary will again be corporations.

[CattyNebulart]

But I also similarly believe that limiting copyright to such a short time is also wrong. Why should an artist not receive royalties for their work for at least as long as they live, given the many, many, many downsides to pursuing an artistic career?

Because other people have rights too.
1) If I pursue a career as a walmarkt cashier i also won't earn much money, which is a result of my choosing to supply a job which is already well supplied. basic economics.
2) CD revenues are extremly low, and only the most popular artists make what other people consider significant money out of them. Also the artists need to regularly sue the collection agencies to get their money.
3) Other artists use the work in a new way, creating more culture. think of fanfiction for instance, that is clearly built up on other works, and yet I think we can all agree it's a valuable artistic work. imagine if fanfiction authors for older works could publish their work, or add a donation button to their site
4) Even if the work becomes public domain I can still make money of it, say by playing the song at a concert. With public domain works it's just that anyone can do that likely driving the price down, but i imagine many people would still pay extra to hear it from the original artist.
5) Economic reasons, such as: "Beyond this basic result several other very interesting facts have emerged. First is the differential impact of file-sharing on an artist depending on their existing popularity. According to Blackburn who investigates this issue the ‘bottom’ 3/4 of artists sell more as a consequence of file-sharing while the top 1/4 sell less. Second is the first tentative estimates (by Waldfogel and Rob) of the welfare consequences of file-sharing. Waldfogel and Rob’s dramatic result is that file-sharing on average yields a gain to society three times the loss to the music industry in lost sales. While, as they emphasize, this result is preliminary and based on limited data it indicates the urgent need for more research on this issue as well as the possibility to have a win-win situation in which both creators and the public get a better deal via a change to alternative compensation system such as a levy." Quoted from Rufus Pollock. He also claims that 15 years is the economicaly optimal length of time which some economist dispute, arriving instead at less than 6 years and similar numbers. It depends on the data and assumptions you use to derive the estimate. Regardless most economists seem to agree that optimal copyright length is less than or equal to 15 years.
6) Todays filesharing regime is similar to the prohibition early in the last century. The prohibition created a variety of bad effect on society as a whole, many of which we are still dealing with the fallout of, such as organized crime. It's probably better to fix things before they get as bad.

There we go, those 6 should suffice for now. I think 5 especially addresses the point of the poor artist.

Moreover, anything popular will continue to be produced after copyright expires, most likely not by the original artist

Of course, the bible forinstance is still being made without any sort of copyright protection, so there is a lot of competition which keeps the price at roughly what it costs to produce and distribute the work. But because of the wide competition there is not much profit in it, so corporations won't earn much on it. if the do a new corperation will start to compete with them and get some of the money, that is the way a free market works.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Ayiekie]

Why precisely would the "rights" other people supposedly have supersede the rights of artists (or, for that matter, inventors) to profit from their
own work? Why precisely do you deserve to get someone's music for free? They did something. You didn't. Seems to me their rights in the matter ought to
trump yours.

1) Irrelevent. You could use the same argument to say doctors ought to earn the same as Walmart cashiers, but we very quickly would not have many doctors left.

2) That is due to how the industry is currently set up, and any and all problems with that are an entirely separate issue.

3) Fanfiction exists in a legal grey area under current copyright law (and is pretty much legally clear if it can be reasonably defined as parody). Destroying
copyright in order to make fanfiction authors (who are not routinely prosecuted) slightly more legally safe strikes me as a very dubious reason. It is, in
addition, already possible for fanfiction and other derivative works to make money via obtaining legal permission to do so. See: Star Wars novels, Star Trek
novels, video-game tie-ins, and so forth.

4) What about movies? What if it's instrumental? What if you just wrote the song? What about books? What if you can no longer sing? What about the myriad
amount of examples where artists will not be able to monetise their creations without copyright?

5) Go try and sell some software in Taiwan and tell me again how file-sharing increases legitimate sales. The real world performance of every single industry
affected by file-sharing is uniformly negative, everywhere in the world. Yes, some people will benefit from file-sharing. I will note that people are perfectly
free to share their creative works and waive copyright under the laws that exist now. So, since they can already do this, why do the laws need to be changed to
force those who do not wish to waive their copyright to do so? The concept of "benefit to society" is completely nebulous and meaningless. I am
concerned with people being rewarded for their work, a far more concrete and measurable concept.

6) There are already legal filesharing methods, and many free pieces of music, film and so forth that can be downloading. Your comparison to Prohibition would
be invalidated by that, as well as the many other differences (the product is not addictive, the product is not necessarily physical, and so forth).

7) When there is little money to be made from something, generally speaking far less of it is made. That too is part of a "free market", which,
incidentally, neither you nor I nor anyone else on this planet live in.

[CattyNebulart]

Why precisely would the "rights" other people supposedly have supersede the rights of artists (or, for that matter, inventors) to profit from their own work? Why precisely do you deserve to get someone's music for free? They did something. You didn't. Seems to me their rights in the matter ought to trump yours.

1) Irrelevent. You could use the same argument to say doctors ought to earn the same as Walmart cashiers, but we very quickly would not have many doctors left.

Clearly you don't understand the point I am making about economics. supply and demand applies to the labor market as well, and doctors require expensive and long training, therefore are limited in supply hence expensive. if artits are not getting much money it's due to there being an oversupply of them.

2) That is due to how the industry is currently set up, and any and all problems with that are an entirely separate issue.

No it is directly related, copyright was made primarily for distributors, and many of the problems exists because of the way the system is set up. If you agree there is a problem then you must agree that there needs to be some reform.

3) Fanfiction exists in a legal grey area under current copyright law

That depends entirely on where you live, and even in the US (the laegal system you seem to be assuming) you could make the argument that it is illegal unless it's a parody. in addition i don't see any fanfiction author not honoring a takedown request. In addition that is just an example, remixing music routinly get takedown requests, when they are practically the same thing under copyright law.

in addition, already possible for fanfiction and other derivative works to make money via obtaining legal permission to do so.

True but you seem to be saying that the rights of artist are different depending on how much their work is influenced by others. tolkien gave us most of the standard modern format for a fantasy world, so in essence pretty much all sword and sorcery fantasy could be considered fanfiction of tolkien. Culture builds on itself, it is forinstance impossible to use many fairy tales, you know those stories made hundereds of years ago, because disney made a version of them and they will sue. In fact they have to sue or lose their copyright.

5) Go try and sell some software in Taiwan and tell me again how file-sharing increases legitimate sales. The real world performance of every single industry affected by file-sharing is uniformly negative, everywhere in the world.

Bulshit. link to studies on filesharing. Most of these conclude otherwise. So you have research to back up your assertion?

The concept of "benefit to society" is completely nebulous and meaningless. I am concerned with people being rewarded for their work, a far more concrete and measurable concept.

economist routinly messure the benefit to the commons, it is quite messurable. What is the problem you have with basic economics anyway. Under that kind of reasoning we wouldn't have roads because it's a nebulous benefit for the common good.

Prohibition would be invalidated by that, as well as the many other differences

Yes, a lot of differences, but some studies estimate that 87% of people do P2P filesharing, and 150'000$ fines per infringement is normal. In a democracy that means something is very wrong, compare it with the fine for speeding, and speeding theoretically threatens other peoples lives and property and yet is is only a few hundered dollars at most. Yet going by the fines file sharing is much much worse. these fines are comparable to the fines for manslaughter or something similar. It's a symptom of trying to get a failing system to work.

7) and your point is?
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Ayiekie]

First off, you have yet to answer the question of why precisely copyright should be capped at five years, other than by "people have rights". What
rights are those? Why do they have them? Why do they supersede the rights of those who create content?

Now responding in order:

Supply and demand has led to the recording industry being what it is, and artists making the amount of money they do. So why is that bad, and supply and demand
under a different system good?

No, thinking there are problems with the recording industry does not equate to thinking copyright must be destroyed, and saying it does does not make it so.
They are separate issues. Not every country, nor every artist, is under the jurisdiction of the RIAA (or any related body). But all are under jurisdiction of
copyright laws as they currently exist.

Your argument about Tolkien is irrelevant. Sword and sorcery fantasy may or may not be fanfiction in whatever personal definition you choose to use, but the
law as it stands defines what is and isn't a derivative work. However much the Sword of Shannara drew from Tolkien in inspiration, it does not fall under
the legal category of a derivative work, therefore does not violate Tolkien's copyright, therefore is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are also
completely wrong that it is "impossible" to use fairy tales. The fairy tales are not under copyright. That is why every Disney movie is immediately
followed by cheap animated retellings of the same story. Disney can sue anyone they like. If the work is not derivative of theirs, they will lose. It is
certainly true they could get some movie withdrawn because the distributor does not have the resources to fight Disney in court even if they are legally
correct, but that is a separate flaw of the American legal system and has no bearing on copyright law.

There is no thoroughly vetted research that draws the conclusions you say it does. What research there is is on a significantly smaller scale. None of it is
convincing in the face of the real-world examples of what happens to intellectual property when copyright becomes meaningless. None of it is convincing in the
face of the simple fact that every single industry affected by filesharing, regardless of media or country, has suffered significant overall losses of sales
during that time period. Bluntly, if it was the done deal you and other apologists think it was, the industry would support it. They don't because they
know damn well that filesharing does not increase overall sales.

Roads have a concrete and obvious benefit for the common good. The reduction of copyright does not.

What fines there are for filesharing is also completely irrelevant. Please stick to the topic at hand.

[CattyNebulart]

Sorry about leaving out my replies to the rights thing. There are several rights being addressed here, but I am pressed for time so i can't give a full response. i will do so later, but a good started is the google video link i posted in the first page which addresses part of the question. i will type a few reply when I am back, but that might take a few hours.
One of the key issues is that civil liberties would have to be seriously undermined in order to enforce a ban on filesharing.

There is no thoroughly vetted research that draws the conclusions you say it does.

Peer reviewed and published papers, if that is no good enough give me something of equal standard that say otherwise.

Roads have a concrete and obvious benefit for the common good. The reduction of copyright does not.

Economist disagree with you analisys;
dutch study (warning it's in dutch, don't know if you can read it, i assume not): http://tno.nl/content.cfm?context=overt ... 12:57:23.0
here is an older canadian study, but it has some bais issues in it's sample, which where acknowledged but it still makes it's conclusions dubious; http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi. ... 01456.html

I could quote more studies, in fact both of those where commented upon by Dr. Pollock so you should have had no trouble finding them. I have serious research backing up my claims, i have not been able to find serious studies that support your conclusions released after 2004, when this was hotly debated in the academic community. it seems since then there has been a consensus building, and it doesn't support your conclusions.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."