If you are of that philosophical mindset, there is no rational argument that will change it. The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left.
If you think it's acceptable to go into someone's yard and pick the flowers they have spent money on for seeds, time designing the flower bed, water, fertilizer, weeding -- and then robbing them of the opportunity to benefit from the hard work they've put into it by seeing their flowers when they come home.
Well... what can I say to someone who thinks that is okay? It's not okay. If someone wants two cars and they can only afford one, is it okay for them to take your car out of your driveway?
Are you serious?
Extrapolate your philosophy to everyone in the world and tell me if you think it's a good one to live in. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? A world where people can just take whatever they want, simply because they want it? Without working for it? Without paying for it? Because that's the easiest way?
> The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left.
That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied. Your argument below that they are not 'free' because they take up server space and electricity and so on are also not valid because the storage, electricity and server space is not exactly provided by the original authors in the case of a pirated copy.
The whole piracy thing is a backlash against people that have been stealing from artists and consumers both.
Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this.
Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead.
It will just take a while longer before we get there.
Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there.
I can't even name one band launched in the last 5 years that stood out for me that was not an indie band.
The record labels never stole anything. They entered into agreements with the artists. They put cds in stores that consumers agreed to pay for.
How can people on your side, in one argument say it isn't stealing to copy music, but it is stealing to enter into an agreement whereby one party exchanges something (music) for something else (money) and all parties freely choose to do so?
Please, those 'agreements' were put together by the best shyster lawyers to put artists in debt even if they were successful.
> How can people on your side, in one argument say it isn't stealing to copy music, but it is stealing to enter into an agreement whereby one party exchanges something (music) for something else (money) and all parties freely choose to do so?
Because 'just because it is written on a piece of paper and has a signature under it' doesn't make it right.
The music industry had turned fraud in to an art form.
Arists that don't get paid royalties, artists that are signed to a label only to find out there is no intention to produce, artists that are screwed in to being in major debt just because of some fine print clause that you'd have to be another shyster lawyer to spot and so on. The list is endless.
And then we're not yet talking about price fixing, the war on fair use (especially sampling) and so on.
And don't get me started on stupidity like the 'happy birthday' thing and Mickey Mouse and copyright.
Really. If you want to be the champion of something find a group or a cause that is worthy of it, the major labels are not, and plenty of the smaller ones are not much better.
If A list artists have a problem you can bet your life that it is worse at the lower rungs of the ladder.
At a friends (who is an artist, and a fairly famous one here in NL, several major hits and an enormous repertoire of songs for third parties) invitation I went to a local BUMA/STEMRA meeting a year ago, it was unbelievable how strong the disconnect is between the rights organizations, the labels and the artists.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone knows when you enter into a legal contract you should understand what the legal words mean or don't sign it.
I don't care about the major labels, what I care about is maintaining a social structure where creativity can be rewarded and the investment and time put into great quality intellectual products isn't wasted.
You really have no idea what you're talking about here. An industry that has had almost a century to prepare has a considerable legal advantage over rookie musicians, who can usually barely afford their instruments, let alone proper representation.
> I don't care about the major labels, what I care about is maintaining a social structure where creativity can be rewarded and the investment and time put into great quality intellectual products isn't wasted.
Such a structure will eventually unfold, we're looking at a lively market here.
Just like open source didn't kill software development wholesale copying won't kill the music market. But it will kill the current business model.
You have no idea of what I have an idea. Why do conversations here seem to degrade into "You don't know what you're talking about?" Or as camperbob puts it, "Clearly you've thought a lot about this?"
bit sharing and open source are two topics that are so religious around here. This community has a huge axe to grind against powerful organizations who have profited off intellectual property. Why?
What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?
> What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?
Because the current system works by an artificial monopoly. Monopolies harm the public. The compensation that copyright is supposed to provide -- incentivising production -- is not clearly supported by evidence. And the restriction inherent in monopolised distribution is fundamentally opposed to the new benefits that the internet offers -- if we want one, the other must be reduced -- and we want the internet.
The problem is not people profiting from creating, it is that the system has been rigged by current encumbents to rip-off and obstruct the public.
"That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied."
Since copying is okay, is it okay to copy currency? After all, it's just a bunch of paper and ink and only a perceived value. If you look at the damage this causes the economy, you can directly see the damage it causes a content creator.
"Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this."
Boo Hoo. They signed a contract that gives the record companies their souls and are now complaining about it. This argument is bullshit. The creators of the Pirate bay don't really give a shit about the rights of anyone. They freely admit that they believe in sharing of everything, just like when they were children.
I find it a little ironic that many of the same people that are pro-piracy get all in a tizzy when companies decide to sell their information, which is just a copy (you don't actually lose anything. It's not like stealing a physical copy of something).
"Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead."
Really? Create a full Metallica album from your house. How about Photoshop? If you can't, it means there is still a value for content creators. Copying us much different than creating. You seem to be equating them, which is just ridiculous.
Piracy pushes artists toward big corporations because they have no other way to make a living.
"Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there."
Right, because people that love art don't need to actually make a living.
It is my belief that piracy has made many markets stagnant. When you blur the line between losing sales due to piracy and losing sales due to a shitty product, content holders just increase copy protection rather than trying to innovate (because there is really no way to see the difference).
A real revolution would be creating a way for Indy artists to make a living and sell their music without a label.
There is a way, it's called the internet. They can put their music on their website and let paypal handle the transactions -- except people don't pay for it that way either and no one hears of the artist when they do...
"There is a way, it's called the internet. They can put their music on their website and let paypal handle the transactions -- except people don't pay for it that way either and no one hears of the artist when they do..."
Artists can still have clips of their own music on their site to give people a taste. They could even give out some songs for free (not all). There are multiple ways to get yourself out there without a label. The difference is that it's the artists' choice.
Without a major label, the Artist not only needs to make the music, but manage everything (including marketing). This is not an easy task and takes time away from what they really do best. Most people don't have the ability to run a successful business (which is what it is). This is why labels will always be around in some form.
You're making the point that paying for content is good because it enables the artist to eat while concentrating on creating the content -- rather than some other task to earn money.
And no, record labels may not always be around in some form if they can't make money doing what they do.
I think you're over-analyzing. For me, the best summary of the debate comes from a ridiculous anti-piracy ad that used to play before movies in theaters here in Canada.
The ad said "You wouldn't download a car, would you?"
To which my reaction, and probably that of most people in the audience, is "Are you kidding me??? Of course I would if I could!"
Most people have an aversion to physical stealing, but most people are also happy to get a COPY of something for free, even if it's illegal. That's what reality boils down to, and I can't see anything changing it.
I understand your moral argument, and I don't disagree - there's nothing ambiguous about it. But if you could "download a car", for free, with no fear of repercussions - are your convictions strong enough that you would still choose to go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars on a "real" car?
I'd just do without. Just like I do without the latest version of photoshop or microsoft office. Instead, I use open office in a manner which its creators want me to use it.
> I use X in a manner which its creators want me to use it.
I still did not understand this kind of often repeated argument, after years and years of reading it. Why _exactly_ should I freely, without any legal and consensual contract, limit my usage of any particular product X (be it a hammer, a car, a song, or a office spreadsheet) in any kind of way its manufacturer wishes after the point of sale?
This must be some kind of moral argument, please explain.
I'm saying that open office creators want you to use it for free. Creators of music do not want you to use it for free. They want to make some money that they can use to pay for rent and time to invest in more music. If you download a song, you are not entering into any product/consumer agreement.
If you think it's acceptable to go into someone's yard and pick the flowers they have spent money on for seeds, time designing the flower bed, water, fertilizer, weeding -- and then robbing them of the opportunity to benefit from the hard work they've put into it by seeing their flowers when they come home.
Well... what can I say to someone who thinks that is okay? It's not okay. If someone wants two cars and they can only afford one, is it okay for them to take your car out of your driveway?
Are you serious?
Extrapolate your philosophy to everyone in the world and tell me if you think it's a good one to live in. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? A world where people can just take whatever they want, simply because they want it? Without working for it? Without paying for it? Because that's the easiest way?