4 ms·
To counter act some of your points: 1) you don't support big labels, thats fine, I applaud for it, but not supporting it means boycotting, not stealing the stu
by BSousa 16y ago
To counter act some of your points:
1) you don't support big labels, thats fine, I applaud for it, but not supporting it means boycotting, not stealing the stuff and say you don't pay because you don't agree with it.
2) So you are ok with me taking the car and only leaving money for costs, lets say it costs the company 20k to manufacture it, so if I pay for the 20k, I should be ok, as the company didn't lose any money on it. On the same idea, it should be ok for your employer to not pay your wages whenever it feels like it, it didn't take anything from you, your home or your car, just your time, so it should also be ok?
- sdgdthfd 16y ago1) I am boycotting first and foremost. If I were unable to listen without paying (as indeed I am for a significant portion of my obscure tastes) I still would not pay. The fact that I still listen to music I like through piracy is a separate issue, IMHO, because of this. Like I say, whenever I find music I like with no industry involvement, I pay for it without giving piracy a second thought. 2) No, I'm OK with you taking the car, as long as the original is left where it is. If you can't think of a way to do that with a physical object such as a car, then your original analogy was flawed. Again: If my employer didn't pay me, the time that I had worked for that pay would not be left untouched and marketable - it would be gone, ie, stolen rather than illegally copied. The lack of loss of the original is key in the piracy debate, these analogies are flawed because they don't analogise that key point. Piracy is a loss of potential market share, not a loss of something tangible like a car, or my time. In my case that market share simply does not exist - I have deprived the labels of nothing that I haven't already deprived them of through my boycotting.