&quot;You called me ignorant directly and you started it&quot;<p>I didn&#x27;t call you ignorant, so much as your argument that involved currency and north korea. But I realize it&#x27;s a fine line and should have used a different word. Not that you are taking the high road here either.<p>&quot;The topic was a sarcastic example about piracy and theft in terms of supply, demand and value. It was not at all about copyright law.&quot;<p>How is piracy and &quot;theft&quot; not about copyright law? If you&#x27;re not breaking copyright law it&#x27;s not piracy.<p>&quot;Possibly based on discourse but not based on reality and therefore off topic&quot;<p>I obviously don&#x27;t think so. My kind of arguments are the ones being discussed at conferences, in books, documentaries and papers.<p>&quot;What dream world do you live in where you think this is all that happens with piracy? Many people also copy things that they would have bought in the first place.&quot;<p>There&#x27;s a reason I used the word &quot;theoretically&quot;. Still a 14 year old is seldom going to buy a $4000 program and companies sometimes recognizes these scenarios. Microsoft did in China for instance.<p>&quot;Who cares? Increasing supply is a part of reality, and that is what I&#x27;m talking about.&quot;<p>I don&#x27;t see how increasing supply in general is relevant. If I seed some flowers I&#x27;m increasing the supply of flowers, but few people would see that as a negative thing. If there were no copyright, like in (to some extent) fashion or cooking, copying would be part of reality and there would be little point to compare it to copying currency.