In both cases, a single copy is paid for and shared with potentially tens of thousands of users. Now, you may have had the cost and physical inefficencies in mind as a rate-limiter on the unpaid (to the IP holder) consumption of media, but Falkvinge called that a quantitative, not qualitative, difference that doesn't matter. Honestly I'm not sure I agree [1] -- but who gets to define "how many" or "how cheap" is too far? I'm pretty sure the IP lobby would kill all libraries, lending, and re-selling if they could. Is that fair?
[1] It's perhaps too much like saying that deploying automated networked license plate scanners in every inch of a city is OK, because it's "just like a cop standing on the public street corner observing which cars are driving by", and I would definitely be against the scanners.
In the digital age that "one person at a time" limitation seems far more arbitrary and limiting, which calls into question whether or not the original "one person at a time" compromise is still relevant in this day and age.
The most direct analogy carried over to the electronic space is e-book lending systems with built-in DRM. These systems usually keep the N-number-of-copies-available-for-loan restriction in place. Unlimited file-sharing does not at all resemble the balance between the-good-of-public-knowledge vs the-right-and-need-for-publishers-and-authors-to-make-money that a physical library model provides.
Just like how governments subsidize libraries, so too should they subsidize file sharing.
All it takes is either illogical, inconsistent thinking, or logically invalid thinking. There's no barrier to either of these, in theory or practice.
All it takes is either illogical, inconsistent thinking, or logically invalid thinking. There's no barrier to either of these, in theory or practice."
Fixed it for you. ;-)
Would you oppose if someone managed to buy just one single piece of food, then replicate it at a molecular level and at virtually no cost, and distribute it for free to the whole world, so that no one would ever have to starve ever again?
"Of course you can champion public food banks, and simultaneously oppose food replication and sharing. Don't be ridiculous! All it takes is either illogical, inconsistent thinking, or logically invalid thinking. There's no barrier to either of these, in theory or practice."
Some will make the argument that things that are easy to duplicate are OK to steal. If I wrote a book, I can assure you it would not have a low production cost however easy it was to duplicate/steal/"share".
What is really at work here is that people have become accustom to stealing easy to duplicate works and now they will use all kinds of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they aren't actually thieves.
So you're just wrong, technically as well as practically.
What is the correct term for taking something that isn't yours?
I suppose that you're referring to "theft", but copyright infringement isn't theft: it's just infringement. So, mind your terminology in the future, and you'll be just fine.