The argument is on whether or not it is moral. Theft is a legal term and does not necessarily solve this debate.

I've seen articles citing studies that indicate that there aren't lost earnings for artists from pirated music. I haven't read these studies, and I'm not sure how valid they are, but they exist. If the artist doesn't lose money (or earns more money from increased exposure, as I've also seen claimed) then it's an entirely different paradigm than a stolen car. I think we can agree stealing cars will never result in equal/increased profits.

For the sake of argument, what about things like Mickey Mouse, where the copyright would have expired a long time ago, but every time it gets close to expiring new laws are made that extend the protection. Copyright law exists to allow artists to profit from their intellectual property, but does that extend to their great...(insert number of greats here) grandchildren? In other words should one successful work of art insure comfortable living for generations?

I think we're getting into a pretty high degree of personal preference now. While some people may like to take a risk on indie or freelance music that same person would probably not take a risk on an indie or freelance car maker.

On a side note. What and who do you teach?

So we're all good with stealing yugos then?

Too bad the owner could catch you on foot. Then again. They'd probably offer you $50 and pat you on the back.

I don't bother with looking for pirated music. I've hardly even obtained very much music over the past decade, legally or not -- I just don't listen that much anymore.

I'll download the occasional TV show or movie, though, mainly when we can't get it in the US. Top Gear has its honored place on my external HD, and the last movie I got was the full-length international release of Red Cliff. Other than that, I don't bother.

Fair enough that the artist him/herself does not lose any profit in most cases, but someone out there has purchased the rights to sell the copyrighted material and is therefore losing money on every pirated copy. So in the end, there are still in fact lost profits. You're just forgetting the pee-on working for a lot less than the artist. In the same light, the car manufacturer does not lose the profits for the stolen car. The dealership does.


It's true that laws keep changing, giving copyright holders (and their heirs) more and more time to profit, but disagreeing with a new law does not give you the right to ignore it. If you don't like it, your only correct recourse is to boycott the product, just as Gladiator should before the statute is extended.

Either way, you're deciding what you're willing to pay for. Higher quality costs more, plain and simple. I also wouldn't call it taking a risk. Reliability is not the main determining factor in a car's price. Luxury features and speed are.

You failed at reading comprehension.

:lol:

I teach middle school music. As someone who writes arrangements and original compositions, I can appreciate copyright laws for their basic intent. I can also understand where it has gone way out of hand, and how difficult it is to make a law the properly protects the little person without overprotecting the big cheese.

Well I'd say this just got all garbled and lost. Oh well. It was reasonable while it lasted.

Well, to add to your side:

One could have mentioned the fact that most pirated music is not a lost sale in the first place: Although this kind of survey is probably not very accurate, the vast majority of people said that if they didn't pirate it, they still wouldn't have bought it anyway.

Another angle is the fact that most mainstream top 100 songs are played on public airwaves almost constantly, so downloaders are simply getting an otherwise free song from a different source, making it just a devil in the details.

You could also argue that you're downloading one song out of an entire album. However, this argument would be countered by me asking if you only want a portion of a product, is it ok to steal just that portion? Also, the point has lost its potency now that most songs on legal download sites are sold individually now anyway.

Finally, I'm surprised nobody brought up the production costs of a CD (less than 50 cents). Although that point can be countered by the fact that it is the intellectual property that is protected and not the physical property, it could be argued that the artists and all the middle men get their fair share long before a record goes platinum.

And that those who pirate the most music also purchase the most.

And that one can go to the library, borrow a cd, and copy it. And that you could do this with tapes before digital media.

I'm actually not in favor of pirating music, but I am pretty pissed off at the lobbying the RIAA and whatever the video equivalent did about personal back up copies in the DMCA. And the judicial system. A judge ruled with a straight face that it's legal for copy protection to be put on bluetooth because the ability to make a VHS covers the personal backup portion of the law. That's absurd.

After downloading the full version of Red Cliff, I couldn't wait until I could get it on Blu-Ray. Man, it's cool to see.

I bought the Ultegras, but I only bought them because they were on sale for less than the price of 105s, or else I would've just bought the cheaper ones... which I guess is what I did... *shrug

What? I thought you said you were going to take a car no one wanted?

Well, that would still be illegal since you're not supposed to make copies of borrowed media.


That sucks. Did the judge ever consider that some people might not own a VCR?

Ah, I see what you did.

This idea that an LBS marks up prices 200-300% is totally wrong. You obviously know nothing about retail businesses.

True, but no one made a fuss about it then. I wonder how much illegal sharing actually increased.


It was a strict interpretation of the law as I recall. Since you could make a backup it fulfilled the personal use provision of the law. I don't know if it went anywhere, but the DMCA is completely messed up in a lot of ways. Between their lobbying for laws bordering on absurdity, the ridiculous lawsuits, and their near obsolescence while still taking money from artists I don't feel a whole lot of pity for the RIAA regarding file sharing.

Thanks for sneaking in with the good tip. I'm going to price watch on both sets until the day I buy and go with the better deal but since I'm buying shoes from the same site if the difference is negligible I'll go with the same website to save on shipping and handling. Thanks for the input though! :)