Quote:
Originally posted by Rataxes:
Meaning, I could unearth The Argument to end all arguments, I could show statistics that showed worldwide CD sales increasing ever since Napster was created, I could have bloody record company executives happily admitting that Internet piracy was the best thing that ever happened to them
And you'd still be adamant in your Black & White view that Internet Piracy = BAAAAD!
_
_
_
Having a discussion under those circumstances could compete for the very definition of a Waste of time. I'd say it's time to call it a day when it's clear that the opposition has no intention of ever refuting my arguments, but just insists on banging their view of the world into my head with a sledgehammer.
|
Errr, yes, but what IF it can be proven Internet Piracy boosted record sales. You are right people wouldn't be able to say they lost income through it, but does it make piracy legal all of a sudden? I don't think so.
If it were proven that theft was a boost of the economy (unlikely, but let's assume it), do you think that would mean it was OK to rob people?
I think what artists are complaining about is that they CREATE something, and people steal it from them. I don't think there is a real difference between creating a sandwich or a bookshelf and creating art - well, of course the difference is obvious, but LEGALLY, there shouldn't be any.
The fact that it's easier to copy a song than to copy a painting doesn't mean that stealing music should be legal and stealing a painting theft.
I like to do calligraphy, and sometimes make little cards that I give to my friends. But if I ever decided to try and earn money from designing greeting cards, I would consider it theft if someone took a designed card, printed off a thousand copies and sold them - AND THE LAW WOULD AGREE WITH ME. Now what's the difference?
Don't get me wrong, 1. I think CDs are monstrously expensive and should be MUCH cheaper and 2. I disagree with you Hugh that artists usually create the album as an inseperable whole, and also with the assertion that there aren't a lot of albums consisting of a few good songs and lots of useless fillers - so I do think it should be made possible for people to pay for downloading individual songs AND albums.
I also think dragging classical music into this is not very relevant: I happen to like classical music and if I buy a CD, it will invariably be a classical one. However, out of roughly 200 classical CDs I have, there is only one that I paid more for than for a regular CD. Almost all CDs were less than half the price of a popular CD. Of course there ARE expensive recordings in classical music, but you KNOW you get value for your money with one of those (they're often double CDs with entire operas or performances of very good quality). The point is, you can get very good quality classical music for very low prices. But if these CDs had been the price of regular CDs, I would have a big problem.
So I completely understand why people who DO want to buy popular music are complaining now. I do not think downloading music instead of buying the CDs is morally right, but I do see the problem with buying CDs.
One last thing Hugh... I know how close this topic is to your heart: you are trying to make a livelyhood of what people say they don't want to pay for. I already made the comparison to my calligraphy (something I am still considering to pursue as a way of making a little money on the side) - so I DO know how you must feel. But can I just say I haven't even seen you as vehement on that other close-to-your-heart topic, religion?
I know how much this means to you my friend but please don't get so upset at people about it, OK? [img]smile.gif[/img]