Boycotting: RIAA and MPAA.

[Dude_Doc]

Life is not just about the joys, it has it's hardships as well. You're starting to sound like a kid, "but daddy, I don't want to do my homework! *cries*"

Then I suppose that you don't value freedom?

Downloading is very much legal. You can download freeware from legal sites, or you can download software if you pay for it with credit card, etc.

I were asking if people would ever legalize downloading of music and movies.

The day that they however scrap the notion that you can own copyrights, is the funeral day of the music industry as we know it.

Then let us hope that day comes soon.

Yeah Cyborg, every single one of those kiddies who download music are in fact communists, together united in a single objective: to eliminate class distinctions and poverty

But they are "breaking the rules" of the capitalist system.

People download music because they have no respect for law, because they're to cheap to spend their money in return for music, and because they're convinced it's "victimless". Not because they want to abolish capitalism

Yeah, it seems that RIAA can't scare them with their "Downloading supports Communism" posters....

[Anathema]

Since I'm not seeing any new arguments coming from the other side, I'll make my final reply for now.

I don't see why music, movies or software is any different from other consumer goods, other then that it can easily be copied and distributed. Does that mean the creator can't ask for payment? I don't think it does.

Maybe it would be better if music and movies were free, but that's not the way things are. You shouldn't be trying to work around legislation you don't like by breaking it, but by pressuring for change, and get the lawmakers on your side.

[Dude_Doc]

I don't see why music, movies or software is any different from other consumer goods, other then that it can easily be copied and distributed.

If I own a thing, it makes me the owner of it. If I then sell this thing to you, you become the owner. This is not the case with software. I can make a thing with a program and sell it over and over again, making hundreds of times more money than the product is originally priced as - yet, I'm still the owner of the product. This means that I still get to own the thing and recieve money from you, and everybody else. I simply can't loose, I can only gain.

Does that mean the creator can't ask for payment? I don't think it does.

Of course all workers should recieve payment for what they have done. The artist is no less worker than the constructor, or the doctor. But what I am questioning is if it is even logical that the artist can still own what he has created, and yet still make tonnes of money on it. Sure, everything has a price, even the smallest song, but does it cost billions?

You shouldn't be trying to work around legislation you don't like by breaking it, but by pressuring for change, and get the lawmakers on your side.

Yeah well, maybe I was overreacting , but we should see how the Groekster case turns out first.

[Edric O]

Sorry for the late reply, I've been a little busy with other topics. Now, looking over the past two pages, there are a number of things I wish to answer:

Argument: Music is the same as air / is the same as a christmas tree on a public square

With the difference that nobody worked to create that air, and it belongs to nobody. Though actually it could be justified if the money is spent on cleaning the air: consumers indirectly cause pollution, so why not an environmental tax on goods?

The christmas tree, well it stands on a public square. If the owner wants people to pay for seeing it he should hold an exhibition in a closed building. Similarily, I can't be accused of voyeurism if you chose to walk naked on the street, could I?

You seem to have accepted my analogy with clean air after all. Let's say we have an air-cleaning company. Would you suggest that they should be rewarded for their work by asking people to pay for breathing clean air? Of course not. That would be absurd. Some other arrangement (like an environmental tax, which you mentioned) should be found. The same applies to downloadable music.

As for the christmas tree, you completely missed the point. I was talking about the idea of asking people to pay for light. Replace the christmas tree with a streetlight and you'll see my point better. You can't ask people to pay individually for enjoying the benefit of streetlights, but the power company has to get money from somewhere. So the government pays for streetlights. It's a collective solution, and perhaps we need something similar for music.

Artists/music companies make enough as it is

And that's supposed to justify theft? This is pretty much how sceptics view communism: "stealing" from the rich. Regardless of your political convictions, you're living in a capitalist country and you have no mandate to decide who earns more then he should.

I thought you had just agreed, a few lines below, that downloading mp3's is not theft. You can say that it's "wrong", but it certainly isn't theft. Stealing your car would be theft. Making an exact copy of your car for free isn't theft. And the only argument you have to support your view that such copying is "wrong" is the idea that artists don't get paid for their work when you copy mp3's. We'll get to that in a moment.

It's not theft, you're not actually depriving anybody of anything

It's not theft in the strictest sense of the word, but it's still wrong. If you're not paying, you shouldn't be picking the fruits of other people's work. And suppose I'm a voyeur, and look from my window to spy on attractive naked women, I'm not doing anything wrong because I'm not depriving anybody of anything? The fact that it's not theft doesn't mean it's right.

Of course. But if we are to say that something is "wrong", we need a reason for WHY that thing is wrong. So, why is copying music "wrong"? Because "if you're not paying, you shouldn't be picking the fruits of other people's work". Ah, but we pick the fruits of other people's work every day without paying for them ourselves. Did YOU pay the guy who invented the wheel? Did YOU pay the guy who invented the internet? Of course not. Those people were (or should have been) rewarded for their work by others, not by yourself. So it isn't wrong to pick the fruits of other people's work without paying for those fruits yourself, as long as somebody pays for them and the worker/inventor is properly rewarded for his work. This is the "radio principle": You can listen to music on the radio for free, because somebody else (the owner of the radio station) paid for the right to distribute that music.

It stands to reason, therefore, that it should be possible for someone (or some organization) to pay for the right to distribute mp3's for free. Now, do you remember the solution for paying the air-cleaning company or the power company without forcing people to take money out of their wallets to pay for breathing clean air or walking down a well-lit street at night? The government pays for those things. So if you don't like the idea of only paying artists for live performances, here's a second solution: Have the government pay them for the right to distribute their music. And, of course, they should always be free to form unions in order to negotiate on equal terms with the government if they don't think they're being paid as much as they deserve.

[DukeLeto]

Allow me to make a sumarizing post of my ideas, in a nice, pretty, bulleted format.

• The comparison to famous artists of the past is actually quite topical.  These artists sold their paintings to others for a one-time fee, as a studio pays the musicians.  The paintings were then put on display for the public, either freely, or at a profit...to the person thet bought them.  Indeed, since musicians can put on live shows run by the music labels, it would work in a similar manner.
  
• Something similar works for movies.  Since they are available only in theaters for some time, and the theater experience cannot be emulated at home, there will still be a large amount of money made on the relaese of a movie.
  
• Software piracy is different, however, and I am strongly opposed to it.  Here's why: If you don't buy the games, these people don't eat.  Unlike music artists and moviemakers, who's studios can make money on live and theater performance, there is no way to make money outside of selling the games.  There is no reasonable equivalent to a live performance in the software industry.  And if you attack me about this for "holding a double standard," you probably didn't read my whole post.
  

There it is.  There are viable alternatives to CD/DVD sales to make money for musicians and moviemakers, and the studios that pay them.  And these alternatives would provide more than enough money to make a very comfortable living.  P-Diddy doesn't really need a gold-plated pool deck.  (South Park joke)

[nemafakei]

"Software piracy is different, however, and I am strongly opposed to it.  Here's why: If you don't buy the games, these people don't eat"

Would you be of the same mind for any media which can be reproduced digitally?

[Caid Ivik]

This is a problem of essence of these products. When the product has in essence no definition of quantity, it needs an alternative way to be turned to finances. When you make a one program and copy it on billion CDs, does it mean (let's presume that average cost of a program is 20 euros) you have made something worth of 20 billion euros? Or make a paid download - here you made potentially and infinite source of money! Fairy tales know such bags of gold, but this would cause only inflation. And so it'll destroy programmers' bread as well.

Since I'm not seeing any new arguments coming from the other side, I'll make my final reply for now.

Problem is perhaps that you don't read them...

[Anathema]

I prepared a longer reply a few days ago, but it was lost after I typed it. Curse you, internet explorer >:(

Some other arrangement (like an environmental tax, which you mentioned) should be found. The same applies to downloadable music.

It's a collective solution, and perhaps we need something similar for music.

But streetlights are a vital part of infrastructure that everybody (well, practicly everybody) needs, and air is mandatory to human life. Music is only entertainment.

Governments already spend some money to encourage artistic projects though, so maybe it's not a bad idea. But then we're talking about an alternative system, not about copyright enfringement and how to deal with it.

I thought you had just agreed, a few lines below, that downloading mp3's is not theft.

I was getting to that, and only compared the two for the sake of the argument: copyright enfringement and theft are similar in some ways.

Ah, but we pick the fruits of other people's work every day without paying for them ourselves. Did YOU pay the guy who invented the wheel? Did YOU pay the guy who invented the internet? Of course not.

It wouldn't be justifyable if the heirs of the wheel's inventor would still receive royalties. That's why copyright expires after some time. As for the internet: not only is there not a single inventor of it (though the basics were founded by the CERN institution), it would probably not be possible to ask copyright for it, because it's a relatively simple, albeit huge set of networks.

This is the "radio principle": You can listen to music on the radio for free, because somebody else (the owner of the radio station) paid for the right to distribute that music.

Radio stations make their money by broadcasting advertisements, and make us listen to it by broadcasting music as well. So the price I pay for free music is having to put up with all the crap they broadcast along with it ;D

There it is.  There are viable alternatives to CD/DVD sales to make money for musicians and moviemakers, and the studios that pay them.  And these alternatives would provide more than enough money to make a very comfortable living.  P-Diddy doesn't really need a gold-plated pool deck.  (South Park joke)

The problem with your arguing Duke (and that of others in this thread) is that you're making an argument for an overhaul of the system, but you're not trying to defend law breaking by downloading music right now. In fact there's no reason why music companies and artists should justify their incomes, they're making money in accordance with the law and if you don't like it, change the law.

[Kiyouta]

I dunno bout you people but I steal all my music from the Internet.

Don't really care about the artists getting money, half of it is rubbish anyway. >:(

Expect Such a Surge... damn their shit is WACK.

I don't download movies tho, unless they are hard to get hold of by other means. Downloading films released at cinemas is just being lazy. Plus when you go to cinemas, you get to eat popcorn which is nice. :-