Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
You make another real-world analogy that doesn't fit in with the digital age. The problem is little Timmy wouldn't have bought the work anyway, so nothing is lost. If he's like a lot of casual downloaders then he might grab the odd song here and there, not really bothering with albums or any kind of collection. All those songs he could have easily copied down to tape during the 80's from the Top 40 Charts also. And if the horse-shoes were infinite then taking them wouldn't matter. And the model of file-sharing isn't an evolution of business, it's a revolution of people fed up with the status-quo, annoyed by the silly restrictions and the sheer clunkiness of ancient and unworkable copyright models. What I do agree with is that anybody who sells on copyrighted work is to be despised. That's just wrong. Sharing, I believe, only helps creators, palming off someone else's work to make some quick cash helps nobody.
|
Possibly, but it’s just as likely that before he could simply hop online and download enough free music to fill the Grand Canyon, he would have purchased at least a portion, the way we all once did before most media became freely available.
How and why is compensating a musician or a writer or an artist a “silly restriction”? You speak as though, just because you don’t like the way publishers and labels behave (how dare they ask that you actually pay for what they provide?), the next logical step is to simply take it.
And where does the “sharing” come in – you cannot truly “share” something you do not own? You may own the physical CD or the paper the book is published on, you do not, however, own the contents. Shouldn’t the decision to share be left up to the originator of the art?
You can defend file sharing in all its forms, and that’s fine, but don’t for a minute think that you’re not hurting the artist. As I mentioned, say we do cut out the middleman entirely, the next time someone uploads files purchased directly from an artist – who is being hurt?