Slashdot Mirror
Only 2 in 500 College Students Believe in IP
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "David Pogue of the New York Times has an interesting story about how fewer and fewer people believe that infringement is wrong. He mentions talks he gave back in 2005 where people were willing to believe that making backups of DVDs you own is wrong. Today, however, at his talks, he was only able to get two people out of a crowd of five hundred college students to say that downloading a movie or album is wrong. He goes on, like many before him, to bemoan the immorality of young people today, saying: 'I do know, though, that the TV, movie and record companies' problems have only just begun. Right now, the customers who can't even *see* why file sharing might be wrong are still young. But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?'"
So less than one percent believe in IP. If not Internet Protocol, which network layer protocol do they believe in?
But seriously, there are reasons not to believe in "intellectual property" even if you do believe in copyright. For one thing, "intellectual property" confuses copyright law, patent law, and trademark law..
While copying media goes way back (remember the DAT tax or the fear that cassettes or VCRs would end the world?) before college students of today, the media conglomerates campaign against this type of crap is only really starting. With the RIAA making up its own commercials, getting laws passed by paying off lawmakers and adding so many fucking anti-infringement notices to their media that I burn DVDs just to rid myself of them.
In 30 years we might not see what we would expect. The RIAA and MPAA has deeper pockets than the nerd crowd and they have a lot more to lose.
No one here, or really anywhere else, could believe the RIAA would win that fucking case in Duluth and yet they did. For whatever reason there are still people out there that can be easily swayed by the bullshit that is strewn from the mouths of those douchebags.
I fear the worst. Support those artists that support freedom of music and media before your money is used against people just like you.
First everybody will believe that IP doesn't exist. Even now many people (including reasonable nerds such as we are) believe that IP does not exist in the form it struggles to exist today.
The context of IP is changing and it has to change according to Internet rules. People think that it might seem unethical but the availability of sharing (especially when there is more than a single network node for each human being) cannot be just neglected by the trivial assumption that people should respect for IP.
I don't believe in IP and I don't think they deserve it. Is the amount of effort they are putting to produce a song, really worth the millions of dollars they are claiming that they must make?
No way.
That's why they will lose. That's why they are losing every second. And at some point, they will really understand that resistance is futile.
Internet will prevail
There's plenty of room at the bottom! Richard P. Feynmann
People are always scared of what happens when children grow up.
That's one reason why I think that the politicians are trying to erode individual rights. They're scared shitless about what's going to happen when the children grow up and start making public policy.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Yes we would. (Since you didn't support your argument with any facts, I don't feel compelled to do the same.)
Personally, I think what will happen in 10, 20, and 30 years is that these college kids will finally get real jobs and realize that when folks steal their stuff without compensation, they don't get paid. Then they'll all bemoan the next generation who will be hacking copyright protection with their newfangled brain implants.
E pluribus unum
Students, nay people see Tv shows broadcast over the air as fair game. and will always feel that way. If I record lost and give that copy to a friend in Germany there is no common sense logic that can say that I am stealing it. I got it for free, the advertisers paid for that show to be aired over public airwaves, they got the benefit of it and the station did as well, when I send Hans the DiVX copy he get's to enjoy the crappy local car lot ad's and coca-cola ad's as well. (yes I'm a lazy ass and dont strip the commercials out, boo hoo that's what 30 second skip is for)
Many feel bad a bit about downloading a pay tv only show like Dexter, but SOMEONE paid for the right to view it and record it. All the companies involved got their money.
And that is what people see, they see all this IP crap as nothing more than a extra greedy money grab. Almost everyone sees that Comedy central pulling youtube clips as 100% greed and when people see greed they retaliate against it.
As long as the media companies are acting insanely stupid and publically showing their insatiable greed this will not only continue but will grow in the opposite direction. If they keep it up we actually may see common folk caring about copyright to the point that they want copyright laws repealed.
The one dark nightmare that make media company executives wake up screaming at night.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Fewer and fewer people believing infringing is wrong" is not the same as "not believing in IP." I believe in the concepts of intellectual property, very strongly. However, the MPIA, RIAA, etc., have made fair use and reasonable pricing and distribution of profits to artists into such an absurdity, people can easily rationalize copying.
I think most people would believe that artists and their associated support network should retain their rights to their music or other works. And if things were available at reasonable prices, with reasonable ability to archive and move to new media, then people would pay, respecting the rights of the owners.
But $20 for a CD with one formulatic pop song that's a bit catchy, and a bunch of filler, makes rationalizing copying a lot easier than it should be.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Before anyone starts discussing the 2/500 statistic, remember that the interview method - asking an auditorium of college students to raise their hand - is not the best way to get a truthful response. The percentage of people who believe that downloading a movie/album illegally is wrong is probably much higher.
"But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?'"
They'll "grow up"/sell out like the Hippies and turn into reactionary fear freaks who will be as easily manipulated as all previous generations?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
If everybody believes the world is flat, is it?
The risible rhetoric that the "Intellectual Property" barons has been pushing for so long has been so plainly wrong that they don't even have the credibility left to make reasonable claims and be believed.
Insistently equating trespassing on someone's copyrights with armed robbery ("piracy") and "theft" when it plainly is neither for so long means that now a lot of people have trouble taking the whole concept of copyright seriously, unfortunately.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The "immorality of young people today" argument is as old as Plato and Socrates. Every generation is (apparently) more immoral than the previous. Your point is?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If everybody believes the world is flat, is it?
Of course not, but that's not a completely arbitrary human concept which only exists for as long as it's supported by the population composing the society from which the concept arises.
Personally I think what will happen in 10, 20, or even 30 years is that these industries will finally be so impacted by the devaluing of distribution and production that they'll have to change business models. I also personally think that morally, copyright infringement IS a bad thing as by removing yourself from those sales completely you hurt the whole line of people involved from point "hey guys i got this idea for a song" to "hey guys, ima buy this (album|song)". Sadly this includes the talentless middlemen who provide nothing towards the finished product beyond a cool building to record it in.
Imagine though, a world where recording studios spend their time headhunting TALENT and then marketing that talent to artists. I'm not just talking about the musicians themselves, but the mixers, the choreographers, every step in between. A company that was a firm reputed to have power content creating talent and just needed someone to insert content would always have tremendous value to humanity until art is officially dead. You can pretty much s/recording studios/movie industry/ as well.
The problem with this is it would invert the power structure. This would put tremendous control into the hands of the actual content creators, as well as the various talented studio people. The companies would have to woo talent as being highly rated in terms of talent would be the only metric. This would create an environment where either studios have to woo potential content creators, or allow the creators to shop around. This would also create tremendous competition, with studios with price ranges for the already successful, ones who did well in their debuts, and ones who have to apply for a loan to even consider getting into he business to begin with (read: the ones who normally would have had to swallow whatever contract terms were to be had to have a significant chance of ever existing on the world stage). Granted, wealthy artists would then have a fair bit of leverage to create a new cartel that could suck, but then there ALREADY ARE artists producing completely independently.
If a company such as this was created, was profitable, and gained serious investment backing i think the current boys club would have a bloody stroke on the spot.
Then there are TV studios, whose current model is to have their customers pay for the privilege of having their eyes sold off wholesale for the content they offer. To boot, it's always the SAME offerings from any cable company anywhere for the most part. Hopefully the pushes for a-la-carte content will shift this current situation but who knows.
I imagine a world where customers pay for the content they want to see, and stations shift their model to being paid to provide the best range of coverage for their local regional demographic. Skews of what is popular changes by region a fair bit, and there would be value in doing the research to find what is popular in what proportions to see how to allot ones budget on the rights from the creators.
Sadly, I do not actually believe any of this will come to pass in a means that benefits the consumers.
Also sadly, many see copyright infringement as the means to nudge the current top-heavy structure, but I still find most people are merely rationalizing their desire for free-as-in-beer content that isn't free. If one is truly so self-righteous about it, consume truly free content. There's only metric goat-loads of it out there.
Too bad most people also think Good Content == { Shiny Expensive Effects , TnA , Celebrities } exclusively.
A Merry X-Mas Rant from Lower Canuckia
Ice Cream has no bones.
So you implicitly agree with the GP. The basis for the present set of IP laws is the belief that people should have to pay for creative works in perpetuity for each and every discrete use of the works.
The belief that major corporations have the right to make a profit through IP, even if it harms the public, is not correct. The point of patents and copyrights are to promote the publics best interest by creating an incentive to create new works that benefit all. After a period, the works are then supposed to go into the public domain for use by anybody that wishes to use them.
The reason why so many young people don't believe in IP isn't that they think that the works aren't valuable, its that they don't think that they are as valuable as the corporations are wanting them to believe. Realistically, as Lincoln said, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." And that's what's happened, the media outfits in particular have pushed so far to force a profit that they've actually managed to undermine their position.
And to throw in a Star Wars quote: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
The media corporations largely brought this on themselves by pushing to extend their protection to beyond the average life expectancy of a person born on the day a work is created. If they wish to have people respect their rights, perhaps they should respect the rights of the public at large first. I have very little faith in them to ever do so.
It would have surprised Shakespeare to learn that his plays were not the property of his theatrical company. It would have surprised him even more to see them performed by a rival.
You do not need to go to law when your patron is Elizabeth or James.
Copyright gave voice to writers of lower and middle class origins. Writers who were not independently wealthy, Writers who were not tenured professors or clerics.
Why? After all nothing was taken... It shouldn't be illegal, either.
It's not that only 2 in 500 believe in IP. Only 2 in 500 care enough to raise their hand in public. More probably don't want to look bad in front of their peers, or didn't want to risk being held up as an example by the strongly biased speaker.
I realise I'm in the minority here but I'm in my late twenties and have enough disposable income to regularly buy music CD's or films on DVD. Generally if I want something in particular, I download it. Either way I never pay for it if it's from the major labels or studios. To some this is reprehensible but to me the action of giving any company associated with the RIAA money is worse.
If the artists were getting fairly compensated then maybe I would have come around. If they hadn't lobbies so hard for all these bullshit laws then I might not have these opinions today.
As far as I'm concerned: the artists can starve. Let this entire industry crumble. I have a sneaking suspicion that people would continue making music anyway, because it's what they love. Today a band can form, play some live gigs, press their own CD's, and still turn a profit. It might not be enough to live on if they don't get really famous, but you can make enough to recover your costs and then some. For most bands signed to the labels this never happens - they are left with a debt to pay off.
Anyhow, my original point was that hopefully the kids of today will be just as alienated by the kinds of tactics that we're seeing that they won't grow up and get with the program. A guy can dream eh?
It'll be just like when, in the 1960's, most young people had a laid-back attitude towards drug use, which was illegal at the time. Now, 40 years later, those people are in power, and drug use is perfectly... uh... oh... wait. Never mind.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Something is intrinsically wrong when it can be shown that innocent people get hurt as a result of the actions of another. If someone is performing actions that hurt some innocent party, then they are wrong to perform those actions. Stealing music, such that those people who spent a part of their lives creating and distributing it do not receive compensation for their efforts, then those people are being hurt. They are, as it turns out, innocent of any wrondoing. Therefore, those people that are downloading music without compensating those people that created the music and promoted the music and distributed the music through legal channels are absolutely, positively, as a matter of absolute, "no relative morality applies" WRONG. What the future holds is less people willing to produce music for the rest of us to enjoy. Better get happy with your old copies of the Beatles and Led Zep, 'cuz there's not going to be that sort of effort put forth by people working like slaves (the Beatles were some of the most hardworking musicians in history - and it shows) to bring us memorable music.
Fair use, though, isn't to allow you to take parts of a copyrighted work and use it in another work wholesale. Fair use is all about using things for purposes of critique
Fair Use also allowed for education, teaching, and for backups. Of course making a copy of a book for backups was actually more expensive than just buying a new copy.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Copyright infringement isn't "stealing". One important distinction is that when something is stolen, the person or organization from which it is stolen is deprived of an object of value. When copyright infringement occurs, whoever owned the relevant intellectual property rights is not deprived of anything except possibly for potential income. And the statistics on downloading vs. legal sales (which basically show that the former doesn't do much if anything to actually decrease the latter) seem to demonstrate that the potential income in question would only rarely, in the absence of infringement, translate into actual income.
The vast majority of people who don't believe that downloading a movie off of BitTorrent is immoral will almost certainly tell you that shoplifting is immoral. And the above-mentioned difference is a large part of the reason for that.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
It's kind of scarry to see this attitude (IP = imaginary) coming from american students. Forget right and wrong for a moment and think about survival and self-interest. Apparently these students don't realize that the country they live in has no other real 'industry' anymore. We have offshored a the vast majority of production, and we are in the process of offshoring services (call centers, more to come). Sure, there will always be some level of 'physical' work needed - but it has dwindled, and our economy exists now primarily based on the concent of intellectual property - because it's the main thing we produce in this country. Without it the US economy would fall apart. Those of you not from the US may chose to dismiss this out of hand, but it is also true for many other 'first world' nations to varynig degrees. It's one thing for chinese companies to ignore intellectual property and sell iPod clones in China. If we toss out the concept of IP in the US and they can sell those clones back to the US (and other first world nations that currently respect IP) then Apple goes out of business. I'm talking about exact iPod clones made by the same plants making them for Apple, if you're truely throwing out IP let's even put the apple brand on them and the Apple phone support number while we're at it - it's not "real" property, right? The same applies to many companies whose primary creations are intellectual.
I'm a college student, and I believe in intellectual property, and understand its value to society, HOWEVER:
/yours/.
- I was raised in an analog world, and now have my youth in a digital one. In my analog world, if a TV show came on when I couldn't watch it, I simply programmed the VCR and listened to my parents whine that they didn't know how to do so. In the digital world, if I am to record it using consumer equipment, at one day, those who are NOT in charge (Remember, those that are, that is, the USC, said it was OK.) can take away my right to do so. Therefore, I'm not going to give them the chance. I will use BitTorrent to time and format shift my television viewing.
- In my analog world, the only rule for renting a video was "Be kind, rewind." In the new digital world, I'm also told that I will be prevented from copying the video for my own personal use. I never had any use to before - a movie rental is just a 2 mile drive and $3.00, but since you decided to prevent me from doing so, my curiosity was provoked, and I will now copy the video just to say that I can.
- In my analog world, if I didn't like all the crap on an album the shills are trying to sell, I could purchase the single, and probably get a B-side or two with it. Now, I can't. Furthermore, with digital distribution, I'm asked to take a quality hit in order to help defray the costs of the distributor. Not likely. I'll download it.
- In my analog world, if I hear a song that I like, I can call up my favorite radio station, ask the DJ to play it, and then tape it. Unfortunately, due to payola and the ClearChannel buyout of my entire county, sometimes I can't do that - but it is still my right under US case law! In the digital world, however, RIAA tries to require safeguards to keep me from doing that. Therefore, if I hear a song on internet radio, I'm going to have no qualms in downloading an MP3 version of it.
- In my analog world, $20 used to be able to get you two movie tickets, two sodas, and a big ol popcorn. Now, when I go, I'm carded for the R movie (I'm twenty-one), searched for a camera (and I'm a slim person), and then charged upwards of $35 for a low-quality (DLP) show in a sticky auditorium. Being searched for a camera in order to watch a movie is too much, so I'm going to download it.
I'm not immoral. The powers that be simply think the rules should change now because it's a new system, and I'm sorry, they're not going to. If you try to take away what rights I had, I'm going to disregard
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
Ummmm...no. He might've been pissed off (perhaps gotten involved in sword fight or an act of petty revenge), but the playhouses & writers of those times copied & ripped each other off all the time - Shakespeare is well-known for the amount of stuff he ripped off from his contemporaries.
Here and here are links which mention the copyright context in Shakespeare's time. The first link is specifically about Shakespeare & describes how he had to fight to make money from his plays, and the 2nd mentions Shakespeare briefly in the context of an argument of why copyright is a good idea (which I don't necessarily agree with), but both of them are fairly straightforward that copyright as we know it did not exist in Shakespeare's time, and that he did not depend on copyright in order to make a living.
Just like we did when we allowed Disney to indefinitely extend his copyright?
Similarly, it's a shame that one of most well-known United States signs of IP, the "Happy birthday," song, was copyrighted in 1935 and will have 2030.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
I don't hear anyone complaining about that obscure IP tidbit. YES, THAT INCLUDES OUR GENERATION AND TWO GENERATIONS BEFORE. We think IP's going the user's way? Nope. It's going the corporate way. My guess is these kids and their kids will just balance out the corporation force, but most likely they'll just sell out to The Law, like you say.
Networks will take less chances, since under current broadcasting there are a number of eyes on a station just because of what time it is, and what show precededs or follows. On demand means the network needs the show to be a hit, before they even air it; so you'll end up with the same formulaic stuff, except there's no possibility of a groundbreaking "gem" emerging from the riff-raff. Shows like "Seinfeld" would be cancelled before it could become a hit because the money to make the next episode didn't show up.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
To not use their products at all (or as little as possible) is even better, thus making you not a freeloading thief, nor a supporter of the MAFIAA. That's what I do.
a few points:
I've never once seen a 14 year old tithe any real amount of money to any war chest of a corporation. It's always those kids who looked forward to playing tiny sums into the chest that became the big consumers later. The danger is if the 14 year old learns and gets confortable with bit torrent, he will NEVER have any reason to pay for music again.
I've seen people who can't figure out how to install a program(any program) learn to use bit torrent in under 20 minutes. It's amazing what a financial incentive can do. So 20 minutes and you will never have to pay for music again... and it's better quality than any online store even comes close to offering.
mix tapes are not in any way equivalent to what I can do now. If my girlfriend burns me a cd of 10 songs I like to listen to in my car, it's trivial. If I download the entire garth brooks, michael jackson, beatles, alan jackson, and 3 more artists COMPLETE works in 1 night, it's a different story. It's hard to compare the losses between the two. I have no reason, ever, to pay for any of this music outside of a warm feeling of supporting an artist. Concerts are not an equivalent form of paid work for an artist and it's ignorant to think it is. paid for distribution of music allows for everyone who likes an artist to enjoy music and support an artist (as a career) even when they are limited geographically for one of many reasons (including a lack of density of fans to actually make money at each concert).
The problem with downloading is it completely distorts the market. The market works because if there is a product people want, the market can reach a price where it clears. But the key method in which the market communicates information is by a price. All we currently know is that 20$ is too much and 0$ has lots of demand. Well guess what? it doesn't take a genius to see that people will consume your product for FREE. And when 0$ as a reliable option exists, no price you set will communicate real information from the markets. For all we know, if free downloading didn't exist, maybe 20$ would be the level CD's would continue to clear at and now, the only benefit of paying for music is ease of distribution. It means the market has real problems pricing the value of music to the consumer and coming to a proper level.
"People can still sell their intellectual labor even without "intellectual property" laws - and the labor is where the value comes from."
Well Sparky, since you're so friggin' bright, perhaps you can tell us how an author would make the money to reimburse him or her for the time and effort spent in writing that novel.
As far as clones, perhaps you don't understand the concept. It's taking something and duplicating it, not creating a product which simply performs the same functions.
"You might respond that Apple has to charge more because they have to pay for the research that went into designing the iPod, and I wouldn't disagree. But it's not my fault, or any other potential iPod owner's fault, that Apple chose to structure their business that way: paying the researchers out of money that might materialize down the road someday."
And here you demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the world. How the hell would Apple pay their researchers? From the generous donations of people such as yourself, who altruistically want the world to progress?
At least be honest so you don't have to conjure up lame rationale. You just want the cheapest version of something and are willing to support rip-off scumbags to get it.
"It's a flawed business model, trading actual money today for imaginary potential money next year (when you may not be in a position to compete with others who are selling the same thing)..."
Not if they don't rip it off. What part of creating your own product do you have such a hard time with? Oh yeah, I already answered that. Paying for the result.
"The justification for copyrights and patents is that, on balance, they make information flow more freely, allow for more interoperability, etc."
No it isn't. It's to allow the originator to be reimbursed for their efforts. That then makes for more content from the originator. Interoperability is simply something you layered on, has nothing to do with CR and patents.
"I don't see that happening."
Yeah. We have more content than at all other times in history combined and languages, machinery and systems are more interoperable than at any other time. But you don't see it.
The same way a civil engineer makes the money to reimburse himself for the time and effort spent designing bridges.
The same way a pilot makes the money to reimburse himself for the time and effort spent flying planes.
See where I'm going with this? Writing is a job like any other. You find someone to pay you to do it, then you do it, then you collect the money that they already agreed to give you.
Barbers don't go around cutting hair for free and then asking for money later. Pilots don't just fly any old plane they come across and hope someone will pay them for having done it. They find a paying customer first and do the work afterward. As far as clones, perhaps you don't understand the concept. It's taking something and duplicating it, not creating a product which simply performs the same functions. Of course. What else did you think I was referring to?
Apple manufactures a product called the iPod, which consists of certain parts arranged in a certain way. If someone else can arrange the same parts in the same way to produce the same product, but do it in a more efficient way that allows them to sell the product for less, then that's good for customers. That's competition. And here you demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the world. How the hell would Apple pay their researchers? From the generous donations of people such as yourself, who altruistically want the world to progress? What I've demonstrated is your closed-mindedness. Research is a service, and it'll be paid for by the people who benefit. Think about that: who benefits from the existence of the iPod? Everyone in the chain, from manufacturers to musicians to listeners, has an incentive to pay for that research.
You know, most people don't call it a "donation" when they pay for something that benefits them. They call it a "purchase". In this case, they'd be purchasing a service (researching new products), but that's nothing unusual; people purchase services all the time. At least be honest so you don't have to conjure up lame rationale. You just want the cheapest version of something and are willing to support rip-off scumbags to get it. No, that's just a strawman that copyright apologists like to put in their opponents' mouths. You're hardly the first person to realize that it's easier to argue against a caricature than to address what I'm actually saying. Not if they don't rip it off. What part of creating your own product do you have such a hard time with? Look, if I buy a bunch of components and put them together to form a product, that's "my own product" in every important sense, even if they're the same components in the same arrangement that make an iPod. You can't own an arrangement of components. That's as silly as owning a number, or a color, or a size. It's an attribute of a product, not a product in itself.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
It's to allow the originator to be reimbursed for their efforts.
That is incorrect. The justification for patents is their benefits for society. Monetary rewards for the originators is merely a means to an end. If there were no benefit to society, then there would be no justification for giving the originators any rewards. In that way, patents and copyrights are fundamentally different from property.
We have more content than at all other times in history combined and languages, machinery and systems are more interoperable than at any other time. But you don't see it.
Of course, we have more content and interoperability than ever before. However, it is erroneous for you to attribute that to patents or copyrights; the primary factor in this growth is clearly technological, in particular, since much of that growth occurred during a time during which copyrights and patents were less restrictive than they are today. I would argue that we would have even more content and even better interoperability with shorter copyright terms and stricter patentability criteria. But people like you just don't understand the issues.
What's the biggest demographic that buys what the large music labels are selling?
True—but why is it different this time? The same argument has been rolled out after every new technology advance. The first time someone could tape a song off the radio and play it any time they wanted, for instance.
So...explain to me why it's reasonable for music companies to expect me to get in my car, go down to the mall, pay $20 for a CD that contains 13 songs I don't want and one that I do when I can download the one song that I want right now..."and it's better quality than any online store even comes close to offering." You're making my point for me. The music companies aren't making it convenient for people to give them money.
[Rod Serling's voice] Picture if you will, a man who knows nothing about BitTorrent pays $1 for a top-quality recording of a new song that begins playing within seconds. Doo-doo-doo-doo, doo-doo-doo-doo.
This is a common argument made against piracy. The first time I visited the Microsoft museum in Redmond, they had erected a giant LED board that constantly ticked up the total loss incurred by MS due to software piracy. However, I would point out that just because you download the complete catalogues of these artists does not mean they have incurred losses equal to the retail price associated with the CDs containing those songs. This is the logical fallacy of the false dilemma—it presents a choice between two and only two options—buy the complete works of 7 musicians or download it for free—when there is really a third, and far more likely option: do nothing at all.
If I download a cracked copy of Adobe FooBar and install it, this only costs Adobe money in the case that I would've gone out and bought a copy of Adobe FooBar had the cracked version not been available. In the case of Adobe FooBar, however, I can tell you without a doubt that it's so expensive, if I don't get it pirated, I won't be getting Adobe FooBar at all. I'm pretty sure there's not a marketing executive alive that would tell you they'd rather have someone not using their product than using it without paying. The illegal user promotes marketshare, brand recognition, mindshare, and a list of other minor benefits that a non-user doesn't.
Why do you think Microsoft didn't secure early versions of all their software so that it was uncrackable? Are you under the misapprehension that the necessary technology and methods don't exist?
Do you know how many albums a band must sell under the standard record label contract before they break even with their label? And then, once they break even, do you know how much of that $20 CD retail price actually ends up in the average musician's pocket for each subsequent CD? It's fashionable these days to think that Metallica, one of the biggest crabs about all this P2P filesharing movement, represents the average band. They do not. Metallica cares so passionately about filesharing because they are one of the very few bands in existence that has negotiated very favorable terms with their label, and so they actually do make money off of album sales. Most bands do not. Most bands yield all or most of their album profits to
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.