3 ms·

"For a correct analogy, make the Amish a billionaire who makes money by exercising a monopoly." Nonsense. People sharing files don't take the status of the con

"For a correct analogy, make the Amish a billionaire who makes money by exercising a monopoly." Nonsense. People sharing files don't take the status of the content provider into account. It's a pleasant story to tell yourself, that you're just sticking it to the man, but it doesn't reflect the reality of file sharing.

jkn 15y ago
Sure, most people don't think about the immorality of copyright laws when sharing files, but that doesn't make the laws moral. As for sticking it to the man, I was precisely trying to move the analogy from man-centered (the Amish) to the bigger picture: immoral laws preserving a bad business model that impacts the whole society. Quite the opposite of the Amish actually.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  "but that doesn't make the laws moral." Doesn't make them immoral, either. Next you'll be saying "property is theft".
  - jkn 15y ago
    "Doesn't make them immoral, either" Indeed. I was just expressing my point of view. "Next you'll be saying "property is theft"." No, this wild extrapolation doesn't reflect my views.
njs12345 15y ago
If I download a small artist's music illegally but then spend the money on going to see them live, how is this any different to buying their music except that I've got something for nothing? What about artists who have become big because of all the free marketing that the Internet offers them? As with many things in the real world, it's a murky situation..
- jonhendry 15y ago
  It's only murky if you keep your eyes closed because you like it that way. If you download the music illegally, then spend money on a concert, guess what? The artist is still out of the revenue of the music you downloaded illegally. Especially if self-published. And if you could afford going out to a concert, which is typically much more expensive than an album download, you could have also paid for the music.

jkn 15y ago

Sure, most people don't think about the immorality of copyright laws when sharing files, but that doesn't make the laws moral. As for sticking it to the man, I was precisely trying to move the analogy from man-centered (the Amish) to the bigger picture: immoral laws preserving a bad business model that impacts the whole society. Quite the opposite of the Amish actually.

jonhendry 15y ago
"but that doesn't make the laws moral." Doesn't make them immoral, either. Next you'll be saying "property is theft".
- jkn 15y ago
  "Doesn't make them immoral, either" Indeed. I was just expressing my point of view. "Next you'll be saying "property is theft"." No, this wild extrapolation doesn't reflect my views.

njs12345 15y ago

If I download a small artist's music illegally but then spend the money on going to see them live, how is this any different to buying their music except that I've got something for nothing? What about artists who have become big because of all the free marketing that the Internet offers them? As with many things in the real world, it's a murky situation..

jonhendry 15y ago
It's only murky if you keep your eyes closed because you like it that way. If you download the music illegally, then spend money on a concert, guess what? The artist is still out of the revenue of the music you downloaded illegally. Especially if self-published. And if you could afford going out to a concert, which is typically much more expensive than an album download, you could have also paid for the music.