Downloading

Sckxyss wrote: Option 2. If the only way you can get an album is by forking out $40+ on ebay or Gemm, the artist isn't getting anything for it either way, so there's no point IMO (unless you want the hard copy). Otherwise, I think it's important that the artists get paid for what they're doing.

Sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well. 

The problem with analogies is they only work up to initial the point of comparison, then they collapse - defeating an analogy is not winning the initial point, it is simply defeating an analogy ... and at some point every analogy can be defeated. A closer analogy (though still not an exact match - since an exact match analogy is no longer an analogy) would be the computer software industry. Try arguing with Microsoft or Apple lawyers about the unethical legality of software.

I believe Folly just entirely won by this "If you want to make analogies, please make ones that make sense." alone, let alone the other stuff he said.

Pnoom! wrote: Nope, because then they couldn't sell the ferrari you took to someone else.   Then if you go to a doctor and refuse to pay, it should be OK, because you're depriving the doctor of nothing, he can still have other clients.....It's absurd I might be infringing on his property rights but I am not depriving him of anything.   The musician has provided a service, and if you want to enjoy it, you must pay, if not, it's stealing. If you hire a service, and dion't pay, you are stealing even when you are not depriving the doctor or lawyer of nothing, the only conditions to consider it a crime are: Animus Delicti: You know it's illegal and still do it Animus Lucrandi: You got a benefit for you or a third person Downloading music has the two conditions. I really don't care what the law says.  The law should conform to what is ethical, and there is no reason (beyond self-preservation) to obey an unethical law. And who decides if it's ethical.....You?   There is a reason to obey the law, the government democratically elected by the majority, has released it, and if you want to be part of a democratic system, you must obey every law even if you don't like it. But it does have a market value.  And even if it doesn't, your use of the word invaluable is misleading (either unintentionally or deliberately, I don't know), because when people say something is invaluable, they tend to mean that it's so valuable that you can't express it quantitatively.   I'm talking in legal terms, a right that can't be quantified exactly is called invaluable in legal terms,    When you copyright a song, it has no market value, because you do it before it's released when can't be valued, the music acquires value if it's bought by the people. Iván

Laplace and Tony just won this thread.  It should probably end now.

Edited by Pnoom! - February 15 2009 at 16:56

^ nothing really. You were saying that you found laws which protect legal downloads (with a fee involved) unethical - people who try to circumvent the fees get prosecuted. This implies that you think that it's unethical to charge money for music downloads. I know the Radiohead experiment (I purchased the big vinyl box) ... essentially that boils down to free downloads together with the possibility of making a donation. I'm not saying that I dislike the idea ... I just think that most people would simply not donate anything.


My solution for the whole problem would be to get the big record companies to introduce more flexible price models - with a worldwide distribution and the price models adjusted to the typical income level of each country. For example, I don't mind if people from Brazil download illegally, considering that CDs cost like 10 times more than they cost in the US or in Germany, compared to the typical income. Give people the opportunity to pay a reasonable amount of money for the music ... eMusic.com is a good start, but they need to be more flexible than the "pay the same amount of credits for each track" routine.

^ "A Lockean defense of property, for example, might say that no, you shouldn't have that right, at least in the case of downloading, because of the principle of leaving "enough and as good" for others."

I hope you know that this essentially means that musicians can't make any money with their music, no matter how much time and money they spend on making it. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

^ and why is that so ethical compared to the other legal download opportunities?

Imagine you're a musician. You spend a lot of time of money recording something. Shouldn't it be your right to decide how you make this recording available to others? How is it immoral to forbid others to infringe your right?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: "I really don't care what the law says.  The law should conform to what is ethical, and there is no reason (beyond self-preservation) to obey an unethical law." So we should all decide which laws are ethical and which are not, and then only follow those we would agree with?

Yes, with the understanding that if you're caught breaking a law, however unethical, you'll be punished.

Or, if you're a more productive individual, you could campaign to have those laws revoked or get elected and help in that way.

Of course, ideally, all laws will be ethical.  Unfortunately, we don't have any perfect ethical theory yet, so that won't happen.

Sorry, but illegal downloads are just that ... illegal. I'm not judging anyone ... and neither do I get angry about the whole thing. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it myself, and I would encourage anyone I met to try legal alternatives instead.

And in confederate times, freeing someone else's slave was illegal.  Obviously that's a much more extreme example, but an immoral law is an immoral law, and there is no ethical reason why you ought to follow it.


Edited by Pnoom! - February 15 2009 at 15:35