That is making a rather ridiculous assumption that you have a fundamental *right* to get paid for your house. In fact, what you describe is exactly how the housing market works. If some developer moves into your neighborhood and builds a large number of cheap replicas of your house, your house will get devalued. Legally.
You will lose money and be pissed, but then oh well, you gambled assuming that your house would be of value in the future and lost. This is precisely what is happening to the music industry (i'll later make the distinction between the industry as a whole and individual musicians). The industry gambled that their cd's would be of value in the future. However, other industries came along and suddenly undercut the over priced pieces of plastic that large record companies gambled on to retain value.
I am a musician and absolutely believe in musicians getting paid. However, most musicians do not make the majority of their money in cd sales (note I said most musicians, not most top 40's musicians). In fact, many musicians see cd sales as primarily a good advertising method, and the records sales usually barely pay for themselves. So, if I can put my music out into the ether, and get the same advertising without having to deal with record execs, why shouldn't I. I don't believe musicians will be hurt by this changing business model, but recording labels that fail to adapt to new business models in the face of technology will.
I'll agree with you that the arguments presented here, whether or not founded logically, often fail to present their logical foundation and end up sounding like emotional drivel. That being said, stating that a person or entity is 'evil' implies that what they do is somehow immoral. Morality and Legality are two very distinct concepts, and neither is entirely inclusive of the other. In a democratic society, it is true that we strive to make the legal system reflect our collective moral standards and expectations, but it does not take much review of history to find a plethora of cases where our laws don't support, and in some cases reject, generally accepted moral ideals.
I will not attempt to recreate the moral arguments that have been presented in much more detail and eloquently elsewhere by people such as Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglen, Alexis Rossi, and others. This is primarily because to establish a truly sound argument about the negative social, moral, and economic impact of current copyright and patent law requires more space and time then I have for this comment.
Continuing to push for changes in legislation is certainly more productive than simply commenting on ones dislike for the current situation, and I hope people continue to vote and lobby for legal changes. There are logical reasons for believing that the actions of the RIAA are morally justified. However, dismissing an argument that has been made many times before as merely 'emotional drivel' simply because it is not restated in its entirety is not fair to the presenter and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the background subject.
Slashdot Mirror
That is making a rather ridiculous assumption that you have a fundamental *right* to get paid for your house. In fact, what you describe is exactly how the housing market works. If some developer moves into your neighborhood and builds a large number of cheap replicas of your house, your house will get devalued. Legally. You will lose money and be pissed, but then oh well, you gambled assuming that your house would be of value in the future and lost. This is precisely what is happening to the music industry (i'll later make the distinction between the industry as a whole and individual musicians). The industry gambled that their cd's would be of value in the future. However, other industries came along and suddenly undercut the over priced pieces of plastic that large record companies gambled on to retain value. I am a musician and absolutely believe in musicians getting paid. However, most musicians do not make the majority of their money in cd sales (note I said most musicians, not most top 40's musicians). In fact, many musicians see cd sales as primarily a good advertising method, and the records sales usually barely pay for themselves. So, if I can put my music out into the ether, and get the same advertising without having to deal with record execs, why shouldn't I. I don't believe musicians will be hurt by this changing business model, but recording labels that fail to adapt to new business models in the face of technology will.
I'll agree with you that the arguments presented here, whether or not founded logically, often fail to present their logical foundation and end up sounding like emotional drivel. That being said, stating that a person or entity is 'evil' implies that what they do is somehow immoral. Morality and Legality are two very distinct concepts, and neither is entirely inclusive of the other. In a democratic society, it is true that we strive to make the legal system reflect our collective moral standards and expectations, but it does not take much review of history to find a plethora of cases where our laws don't support, and in some cases reject, generally accepted moral ideals. I will not attempt to recreate the moral arguments that have been presented in much more detail and eloquently elsewhere by people such as Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglen, Alexis Rossi, and others. This is primarily because to establish a truly sound argument about the negative social, moral, and economic impact of current copyright and patent law requires more space and time then I have for this comment. Continuing to push for changes in legislation is certainly more productive than simply commenting on ones dislike for the current situation, and I hope people continue to vote and lobby for legal changes. There are logical reasons for believing that the actions of the RIAA are morally justified. However, dismissing an argument that has been made many times before as merely 'emotional drivel' simply because it is not restated in its entirety is not fair to the presenter and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the background subject.