6 ms·
@Falling3 - If you mean to tell me that the majority of people who download copyrighted items, then go forward to buy the music, sure your argument is fair. @T
by sritch 14y ago
@Falling3 - If you mean to tell me that the majority of people who download copyrighted items, then go forward to buy the music, sure your argument is fair.
@Tomp - Well it's hard to compare digital products to physical products since you don't have to create the item more than once for a digital good. Just because you didn't plan to pay anyway, doesn't make it any less "stealing" You can't use the argument "I was never going to buy it anyway" as a valid reason for stealing something.
- Falling3 14y agoMost of the people I know that still regularly download music are huge audiophiles and buy a lot of physical music, attend concerts, and purchase other music merchandise. And that still leaves two other arguments. Personally, I downloaded a lot of music and movies when I was a poor HS/college student and there was literally 0 chance of me purchasing them as an alternative. The lost profits argument just doesn't apply.
- sritch 14y agoYes it does...you deprived the artist of making money as opposed to depriving yourself of music and movies. How does that not apply? You took for free what others paid for.. Your income doesn't matter. Poor people aren't entitled to free goods because they were never going to drive business anyway.
- njs12345 14y agoYou can't deprive someone of something that was never there. Consider the following sets of situations: 1: An album is available for $10. It is worth $5 to me. I don't buy it. 2: An album is available for $10. It's worth $5 to me. I pirate it and obtain it for $0. The second set of circumstances is better for everyone: I have gained total welfare of $5 and no one has lost out. I don't see how this is worse than the first option, or morally wrong..
- res0nat0r 14y agoI'm sure the artist who just lost out on his 5 to 10 bucks would beg to disagree. It isn't your right to choose the price you'd pay for something and then copy it if you feel so inclined. You either pay the asking price for a good / service, or you don't pay and don't enjoy the benefits of the service / good. This is why copyright infringement which subverts this system is illegal.
- delian66 14y ago>>I'm sure the artist who just lost out on his 5 to 10 bucks would beg to disagree. I'm sure that the artist getting a new fan, and becoming more popular for free is a very dangerous process indeed :-) ...
- res0nat0r 14y agoYou aren't a 'fan' if you aren't paying for it, I'd call that a 'leech'.
- delian66 14y agoTo be a fan, the major criterion is that you have to like the artist. Paying comes at a later stage.
- res0nat0r 14y agoYou liked it enough to download and listen to...but not to pay? That's not a fan. If you don't intend to pay then don't download against the artists wishes and listen to it via free means.
- njs12345 14y agoThe artist hasn't 'lost out' on anything. With digital distribution there is no marginal cost for extra consumption --- it's all fixed cost. This is why a patronage model (such as Kickstarter) is probably more appropriate nowadays. Even if you do think copyright is still appropriate, it needs to be carefully managed. In general, the purpose of copyright was never to ensure authors have some 'right' to control their work in perpetuity, as is commonly assumed today --- you can see that at work right there in the US Constitution 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries'. There's some interesting discussion here http://rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright_talk.pdf http://rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright_t...
- tomp 14y agoA study by the Swiss government showed that people have a fixed budged reserved for entertainment - if they can download music for free, they will spend it going to the concerts instead.
- sritch 14y agoWhat does that matter?
- shinratdr 14y agoArtists are still getting the money.
- res0nat0r 14y agoExcept of course the artists who didn't get the money they otherwise would have if a free mp3 rip of their music wasn't already posted online somewhere.
- tomp 14y agomore likely, noone would know about them... I think most people underestimate the effect that file-sharing has had on our society. Music is so popular, not because of MTV, but because of napster&ThePirateBay&YouTube. If it weren't for these services, most people would probably listen to at most 10% of the music they listen to now, more likely 1%.
- Falling3 14y agoIf the argument is "piracy is bad because it results in a loss of profits", then the counterargument "that's ok I absolutely would not have bought it anyway" is completely valid.