http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_TeYqvpk-A&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div 

i don't see how anybody could think copyright infringement is stealing.

A thief takes something away. Copying doesn't. The sum of the good on the world is actually larger, while with theft it's equal. 

Can you explain how someone copying my IP is good for me as the IP holder? 

He never said it was good, he said it wasn't the same thing as stealing. 

... to recover the money you invested.
I'm working in an IP provider company (i.e Bluetooth and 802.11 IP), and believe me, when you (or your company) invest 1$ you (or your company) want to recover it, and make money by selling the IP several times...
So if somebody comes and copy your stuff, will you make money ? No, because you lost a customer, and you can consider somebody has stolen your IP: That is as simple as this.. 

"He never said it was good, he said it wasn't the same thing as stealing."

Actually, he specifically used the word good:

"A thief takes something away. Copying doesn't. The sum of the good on the world is actually larger, while with theft it's equal." 

I actually converted to a "piracy is kinda bad" attitude but mostly because I embrace free stuff (as in CC, BSD, GPL etc) nowadays.


Never ever think that someone who copied something would have paid for it. Never. Ever. 

Less evil != good. It means less evil. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5JHMpLIqO4 

watching those things float around is badass! 

Oh, and all kinds of smrat from author of one of the better books on file sharing (pdf of which is on most trackers ;)

http://thepiratesdilemma.com/the-tao-of-pirates/everybody-lost-the-pirate-bay-trial 

The fact that they didn�t do so ten years ago cost a generation of artists billions. No-one is ever going to trial for that.

Yup 

this is a tough question, i mean which zero-nuance extreme-end-of-the-spectrum opinion do I agree with?

On the one hand there is the belief that intellectual property is a harmful legal contrivance, and that the government should not enforce any sort of monopoly rights for intangible creations. Probably the assumption is that, either art would be created in the same volumes as today, or that we don't really need this much art and a smaller supply of free art would be better. I guess if you believe this, you already don't pirate the sorts of art that wouldn't be produced at all without the assurance of copyright protection.

On the other hand the the belief that since intellectual property is a good idea in general, then the current state of the copyright law must be the optimal balance between the interests of creators, and the public good. This probably includes a assumption that copyright law isn't written disproportionately by and for the largest copyright-holding corporations. Since the law is the law, you shouldn't infringe copyright. Or jaywalk. 

Artworks is only a part of the goods that IP applies to. What about games, software, non-fiction books? I wouldn't say that those can be qualified as art (maybe contain some art). 

I meant "art" in the really broad sense, meaning creative works. 

If you haven't noticed yet, the Orange Box is supposedly going for $10 this weekend on Steam. 

No thanks! Even for free I would not install Steam. 

Yes, you wouldn't want to install ease and convenience on your computer. Heaven forbid. 

Yes, you wouldn't want to install ease and convenience on your computer. Heaven forbid.

This :) 

The experience I had with Steam was quite the opposite but it was a childish post from me so let's just pretend it never happened. 

Funcers will never forget this insult. 

I'm a funcer 

A Mother Funcer. 

But not the Orange box.

When's Ep3 coming out?

Also. The stealing thing. Oh nevermind it's bloody fucking obvious. 

You Funcy mother, you missed out - it's back to $30.