4 ms·

This seems to be the fundamental shift in thinking since mp3's have become so ubiquitous in the last 15 years. The thinking that, if this isn't offered the way

This seems to be the fundamental shift in thinking since mp3's have become so ubiquitous in the last 15 years. The thinking that, if this isn't offered the way I want (mainly priced at whatever I choose, or as close $0.00 as possible, or if it isn't available), then I am rightly justified to steal it. Doesn't anyone else think this is a problem? I'm not saying I don't do the same, but I don't justify it in any other way than saying that I want stuff for free.

jarek 15y ago
I personally don't think it's a problem, because I don't agree with your classification of the action as "stealing." It's problematic enough with content I do actually want (copying is not directly analogous to stealing just like potential income is not the same as income), but when the business doesn't offer a product you want (so there isn't even lost potential income), obtaining such a product in a way that doesn't cost the business anything (such as copying a file) from a third party is not stealing.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  This argument comes up over and over again and it doesn't make any sense. If you are consuming the content then it does have value to you, therefore you should be paying for it.
  - jarek 15y ago
    > If you are consuming the content then it does have value to you, therefore you should be paying for it. Who do I pay? What if the value it has to me is less than what anyone would like me to pay for it?
    - res0nat0r 15y ago
      The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content.
      - jarek 15y ago
        > The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content. What kind of "right" are we talking about here? Moral, whose? Legal, in which jurisdiction? Under your definition of right, do they have the right to deny me their content they won't sell to me, if my consumption causes them no loss? If a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no right to stand around and watch the TVs?
        res0nat0r 15y ago
        Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. You value the content enough to consume it, so it is not 'free'. Why is it everyone thinks music is exempt from payment when value is derived from it? You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? By this standard you will happily then give me your paycheck for this coming week correct? I believe the output of your work to have zero value, therefore your work entitles you to zero compensation. This is essentially your argument. Why would an artist want to produce music if they can't afford to pay their bills because you deem it your obligation to have their work for free?
        jarek 15y ago
        > Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. Repeating this doesn't make it true. A specific pair of jeans costs a specific amount to create from raw materials, and if not paid for causes a loss. The situation with a set of bits being copied is subject to interpretation and I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's. My paycheque is the result of an agreement between me and my employer, who does believe the output of my work to have some value. Whether the people who use Facebook apps I help build or the corporation that paid my employer for them agree is irrelevant. Artists and producers get paid by their label, in some degree, independent of efforts of the distributor, and certainly independent of the public's perception of the worth of their work. It might influence their next contract (just like everyone thinking my work is shit/great would influence my next job offer), but few contracts are written to be based 100% on distributor's performance. However, I will be sending you a bill for reading my posts in this thread. You value the content enough to read and reply to them, and so you are causing me a loss not paying for the content. Again: if a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no "right" (under your definition) to stand around and watch the TVs? Why or why not? Is the bar functionally different from a music or film distributor?

jarek 15y ago

I personally don't think it's a problem, because I don't agree with your classification of the action as "stealing." It's problematic enough with content I do actually want (copying is not directly analogous to stealing just like potential income is not the same as income), but when the business doesn't offer a product you want (so there isn't even lost potential income), obtaining such a product in a way that doesn't cost the business anything (such as copying a file) from a third party is not stealing.

res0nat0r 15y ago
This argument comes up over and over again and it doesn't make any sense. If you are consuming the content then it does have value to you, therefore you should be paying for it.
- jarek 15y ago
  > If you are consuming the content then it does have value to you, therefore you should be paying for it. Who do I pay? What if the value it has to me is less than what anyone would like me to pay for it?
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content.
    - jarek 15y ago
      > The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content. What kind of "right" are we talking about here? Moral, whose? Legal, in which jurisdiction? Under your definition of right, do they have the right to deny me their content they won't sell to me, if my consumption causes them no loss? If a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no right to stand around and watch the TVs?
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. You value the content enough to consume it, so it is not 'free'. Why is it everyone thinks music is exempt from payment when value is derived from it? You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? By this standard you will happily then give me your paycheck for this coming week correct? I believe the output of your work to have zero value, therefore your work entitles you to zero compensation. This is essentially your argument. Why would an artist want to produce music if they can't afford to pay their bills because you deem it your obligation to have their work for free?
        jarek 15y ago
        > Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. Repeating this doesn't make it true. A specific pair of jeans costs a specific amount to create from raw materials, and if not paid for causes a loss. The situation with a set of bits being copied is subject to interpretation and I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's. My paycheque is the result of an agreement between me and my employer, who does believe the output of my work to have some value. Whether the people who use Facebook apps I help build or the corporation that paid my employer for them agree is irrelevant. Artists and producers get paid by their label, in some degree, independent of efforts of the distributor, and certainly independent of the public's perception of the worth of their work. It might influence their next contract (just like everyone thinking my work is shit/great would influence my next job offer), but few contracts are written to be based 100% on distributor's performance. However, I will be sending you a bill for reading my posts in this thread. You value the content enough to read and reply to them, and so you are causing me a loss not paying for the content. Again: if a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no "right" (under your definition) to stand around and watch the TVs? Why or why not? Is the bar functionally different from a music or film distributor?