I feel like I'm reading something from Oprah's book club here.
The ideal interaction I described was ideal because it was based on purely voluntary participation and both parties entered into it freely and willingly, without coercion. The interaction maximized freedom and maximized utility (under the circumstances).
You misunderstood my example of the $18 CD transaction: When the price is $18, there are a lot of people who wish to voluntarily engage in a mutually-beneficial transaction with Record Companies. If the price were $5, there would arguably be more people wishing to engage in such a transaction, but it would not necessarily represent as much benefit to the Record Company. The key to these voluntary interactions is that they are market driven, not created by someone who "knows better" as you seem to. You have decided that CDs should cost $0. The problem is, Record companies are not willing to sell them at that price, even though there would be a lot of buyers.
I recommend that you read Marx, btw... You have strong collectivist leanings, and his ideas stem from the same kind of reasoning that you seem to be very certain about.
Regarding selfishness: Selfish behavior is any behavior that occurs when an individual acts in his/her self-interest. We all act selfishly most (if not all) of the time. Acts of bravery and valor are also somewhat selfish because of the glory and public admiration for "heroes".
One final point: You mention that anarchy is the "only system that truly espouses freedom". That is nonsense. That is a fallacy because with Anarchy others are free to infringe on your freedom. Laws increase the net freedom by preventing others from infringing on yours.
It seems that you have a few prejudices that are making it difficult for you to see this issue accurately. Those are:
Businesses are usually unethical
Selfishness is a bad aspect of human nature
People are smarter than markets
Consumers are suckers at the mercy of businesses
People would work in exchange for little or no pay
There is something very humane about socialism
Profit maximizing behavior is by definition unethical
Protection of intellectual property does foster increased innovation. To cite one example, the Chinese developed a fully working water clock a few thousand years BC. Why, then, did China remain on the sidelines of innovation for the next couple of milennia? Because they didn't have a system to that rewarded innovation.
If you really want to get into a lot of specific examples that prove my point, take a look at the excellent book The Lever of Riches. I was fortunate enough to read it before coming to an opinion on this issue.
The book traces the history of innovation throughout cultures, nations, and throughout history. It becomes very clear that systems that are overprotective or underprotective fail to foster substantial innovation.
I must admit that I borrowed Mokyr's assertion of the reason why the US pulled ahead of Europe during the second industrial revolution. The research and the scholarship is all there in the book...
My question is, if we like great music and great software, why would we want to make it harder for those whose intellect and determination creates those things for us to be able to earn a living doing exactly that? I don't want those people waiting tables to pay the bills. I want them producing what they are best at. Undermining copyright law will force these people to find other ways to pay their bills, which will inevitably force them to do less of what they are good at.
Why should we force the gifted programmer to give away the product of his efforts? Why should we force the singer to make money only from live shows when people are willing to pay for recorded versions of music?
In your recent post, you indict greed as well. Selfishness is an essential part of human nature and an essential part of capitalism. Why should anyone do anything for unselfish reasons?
If you desire an outcome, then accomplishing that outcome is a selfish act. This is true regardless of whether you desire to end homelessness or if you desire to retire at age 30 as a millionaire. People should not be ashamed about acting in their own self interest.
We have rules (laws) that govern what behavior is acceptable. People should feel free to act in any way they choose provided it is within the law to acheive whatever selfish motives they wich to acheive. That is called freedom.
When you start accusing people of greed and claiming that greed is a bad thing, you are missing the point.
An ideal interaction is one in which both parties are motivated purely by their individual desire for a particular outcome. That is called cooperation.
If one party does not desire the outcome but is forced or coerced into it, then the interaction is flawed. People do not pay $18 for Britney Spears albums because they are coerced into doing so. They do it voluntarily because they want to. For the same reason, record companies sell Britney Spears albums for $18. When a transaction occurs, it occurs because it was mutually beneficial.
I do not condone illegal behavior, but for a record company to focus on selling the most popular artists is not illegal or unethical. Neither is it illegal or unethical for a record company to attempt to obtain the highest price possible for the CDs.
It is illegal for people to steal pirated copies of songs via P2P networks. I do not condone that behavior. Record companies deserve to be able to make a profit off of their effort at recruiting talent, marketing it, and recording it.
I really think you need to reconsider your stance on selfishness.
Uh... when you break any law you risk that it will be enforced. This is not any different. The company whose profits are at stake will be the entity to initiate the enforcement proceedings. If people find this a deterrent and decide to stop engaging in behavior that they would be prosecuted for, then all the better, since the legal system was spared the burden of the trial. If someone who is prosecuted feels that he/she is innocent, then let the case go to trial and win.
I don't see how it's gangsterlike to publicize that a behvior is illegal and that it will be prosecuted... then to prosecute. It's not like everyone out there didn't know that fileswapping wasn't legal. The RIAA is just trying to protect its business from being eroded by people who don't care about the law.
I am not sure if it's exactly 50 songs... it may be more than that... but the thought process behind your math holds up. There is a straightforward way for artists to make more money from improved distribution methods.
I just wish more Slashdotters would realize that making money isn't evil.
He mentions that he considers C to be the best combination of expressiveness and efficiency. I wonder, fellow Slashdotters, what you think the most expressive language is (efficiency aside)?
You make a good point. But libraries maintain ownership of the property. They buy it legitimately from its copyright owner initially, and if you don't return it you need to pay to replace it.
You don't own a library book at any time during your check-out period.
In fact, there are already online music distribution systems that act much like a library... Instead of downloading a song for $1, as AppleMusic allows, you simply pay a subscription fee and are allowed to have any 50 songs downloaded at any given time onto your PC or portable player. DRM is used to prevent abuse, which is analogous to the way that Kinkos won't photocopy and bind a 100 copies of the book you just checked out from the library across the street.
I think the subscription model will work. People rarely listen to more than 50 different songs in one day, and people get tired of music very quickly. I personally rarely listen to most of my CDs.
Artists are not performers, they're recording artists. The product that is sold in stores is a compact disc, a leaflet containing promotional material for the "musician", and the digital copies of the music. There are so many people whose effort goes into marketing and promoting the "musician", that restricting the money-earning potential of this group only to performances would be to eliminate a very successful source of revenue.
We shouldn't worry about protecting consumers from themselves. If you are willing to pay $18 for a CD, that's fine with me. In the same way I don't care if you spend that $18 on a CD that I like or dislike, or if you spend it on a Tarrot Card reading or on cigarettes, books, or a haircut. Sure, I may not consider all of those things to be the most intelligent way that you could spend your money. But the point is, it's your money.
Companies exist because there are people who want a particular product or service, not the other way around. The fact that people listen to Britney Spears vs classical music is irrelevant. There will always be people willing to sell whatever music is popular to people who want to buy it.
Speaking of distribution methods... Is the USPS the most efficient way to have mail delivered? No. Private firms could likely do it cheaper and more efficiently. It is against the law to attempt to profit from delivering mail.
Is copper wire the most efficient way to obtain telephone (or, heaven forbid) internet access? No. But it is in use because it works and nobody has found an alternative that is superior enough across the board to replace it 100%. The same is true with CDs. OF course, why would you want to drive to the store and buy a piece of plastic when you could click and have the same thing nearly instantaneously appear on your PC? Well, not everyone has a PC or an MP3 player, and so CDs are still the primary mode of music distribution. That will change, and perhaps the RIAA's stance has slowed the process a bit for mainstream artists... but it doesn't justify piracy by any stretch of the imagination.
If there is anti-competetive behavior going on, there should be an investigation of that by the DOJ, just like with Microsoft. In any case, it doesn't justify fileswapping or insulate offenders from the consequences if they are caught.
You haven't cited any examples of pre-copyright-era creative works. Copyright protection has been around for ages. If you analyze the history of innovation, you will find that if you compare countries with different kinds of copyright laws and IP laws, finding the right balance is essential. In fact, this was the main reason that the US pulled ahead of Europe during the second industrial revolution.
I don't favor an unending license for a monopoly, but I think the facts speak for themselves that a better environment for innovation is fostered by some copyright and IP protection.
I haven't heard you sing, but suppose you were able to sing as well as Britney Spears. What is to stop you from publishing your recordings on P2P networks for free? Nothing! So why don't people do that? P2P is everywhere, and so the excuse that the Recording Industry has monopolized distribution networks is out the window.
I think your notion of dedicated artisans creating products out of love is rather idyllic, but not particularly well suited for today's economy. Today it takes more than one person to create many of the things that are protected by Copyright and IP. Some of these people are creative, some technical, and some play a support role. Without the unifying principle of money to align everyone's interests, it would be unlikely that such groups of people would be driven to collaborate. Sure, it might happen occasionally. Sure you can mention the Mozilla project or the GCC project, etc., but think of the countless other web browsers and compilers that have been written (long ago in many cases) by people who just wanted to make a few bucks. Of course, if you're smart you'll hire people who consider it their craft and take immense pride in their creation, but in order to be able to allow that person to feed his/her family and maybe spend a few hours on OSS every night, you have to figure out a way to pay his/her salary. That is why profit is essential.
I find it hard to believe that you support capitalism and yet consider profit (and profit-seeking/maximizing behavior) a dirty word. In fact, I think you are operating on conflicting premises, and eventually when the illogic of your opinions "clicks" you will be forced either to abandon your support of capitalism or abandon your disdain of profit as an end in and of itself.
I hope the RIAA comes up with better ways of distributing tunes. The RIAA failed to embrace a technology that might have made it a lot of money. Having said that, it doesn't excuse people from breaking the law today.
If you slander someone and hinder his/her capacity to make money, then that is equivalent to if you hadn't slandered them and just stole the money.
You can argue about the difference between IP and Property all you want, but the point is that stealing either one harms the owner... perhaps not proportionally, but who are you to decide.
You confuse pure capitalism with anarchy. Capitalism requires that there be rules and there be an umpire to enforce those rules.
The notion of copyright law is that the intellectual property is valuable to society, and therefore, by protecting it, we impose a scarcity that creates an incentive for others to produce intellectual property. Of course, this is a balance, and it wouldn't be a good idea to offer too much protection or too little. I agree that 70 years of protection is too long, but fileswapping is moving in the wrong direction too.
So now let's explore what would happen if the world worked the way you want it to:
The software industry, music industry, motion picture industry and publishing industry would cease to be profitable. Firms would exit those markets, and consumers would be left to rifle through the IP that had been created before the collapse. The image reminds me of those scenes of people looting after the L.A. riots.
Without firms producing and distributing literature, movies, newspapers, software, etc., alternatives that didn't rely on intellectual property protection would emerge. The GNU Public License, since it relies on the notion of intellectual property, would be of no use, and there would be an utter free-for-all where P2P networks distributed source code, music, movies, etc. Television stations would lose profitability, since someone would have engineered a PVR that would instantly capture every show, remove the commercials, and make it available to fileswappers.
To complete the picture, imagine a snapshot of a particular industry a few months before rampant piracy forced it out of business. Consider Britney Spears, NSync, etc. Consider Microsoft Office XP. Those would be the same musicians, software, etc., that people would be using 30 years from now without IP protection.
Sure, someone could write better software, but why would anyone want to do that, since anyone else could take the software and sell it as his own or give it away.
People are motivated by their desire to improve their own quality of life. IP rights encourage people to produce IP. The lack of IP rights encourages people to copy someone else's IP rather than creating their own.
So what if the owner of Britney Spears' recordings refuses to sell a CD for under $18. That means that there is plenty of room for someone else who is just as talented (or maybe, more talented) to sell CDs for $17 and make a killing.
It does deprive the owner of property, namely that which he would buy with the money he would have made had he been able to sell any of the copies that were distributed without his authorization.
All that can happen is that a lawsuit can be filed. Record companies have no power to enforce laws, they must use the courts just like anyone else. The defendents will be subjected to existing copyright law.
In my opinion, copyright infringement is equivalent to theft, since it is the intentional misuse of someone else's (intellectual) property. I know there is often a distinction drawn, but I don't see it.
I've heard a lot of amateur bands in local pubs, etc., and there is generally not the same diversity of styles available (at least in most areas) that there is at the record store or on the radio.
If you don't want your "life destroyed" by a lawsuit, then don't engage in the behavior.
You don't think shoplifting is a good analogy? Try this one: Fileswapping copyrighted music is equivalent to going into Best Buy, swiping a couple of CDs, bringing them home, ripping MP3s, putting new plastic wrap on them and smuggling them back to the store.
It's theft, period. Just the same as copying software that you licensed one copy of and giving it away to anyone who wants it. Just because you can copy it, doesn't mean that it is ethical, moral, legal, etc. You may not view it as harmful, but by eliminating potential sales you are stealing from the entity that created and owns the property.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok... i just guessed on the number, so you're probably right.
With 6 Billion people, a little bit of money saved on royalties will make a huge difference.
Plus, with other players wanting to enter the market, the Chinese will probably make some money on royalties as well.
The ideal interaction I described was ideal because it was based on purely voluntary participation and both parties entered into it freely and willingly, without coercion. The interaction maximized freedom and maximized utility (under the circumstances).
You misunderstood my example of the $18 CD transaction: When the price is $18, there are a lot of people who wish to voluntarily engage in a mutually-beneficial transaction with Record Companies. If the price were $5, there would arguably be more people wishing to engage in such a transaction, but it would not necessarily represent as much benefit to the Record Company. The key to these voluntary interactions is that they are market driven, not created by someone who "knows better" as you seem to. You have decided that CDs should cost $0. The problem is, Record companies are not willing to sell them at that price, even though there would be a lot of buyers.
I recommend that you read Marx, btw... You have strong collectivist leanings, and his ideas stem from the same kind of reasoning that you seem to be very certain about.
Regarding selfishness: Selfish behavior is any behavior that occurs when an individual acts in his/her self-interest. We all act selfishly most (if not all) of the time. Acts of bravery and valor are also somewhat selfish because of the glory and public admiration for "heroes".
One final point: You mention that anarchy is the "only system that truly espouses freedom". That is nonsense. That is a fallacy because with Anarchy others are free to infringe on your freedom. Laws increase the net freedom by preventing others from infringing on yours.
It seems that you have a few prejudices that are making it difficult for you to see this issue accurately. Those are:
Businesses are usually unethical
Selfishness is a bad aspect of human nature
People are smarter than markets
Consumers are suckers at the mercy of businesses
People would work in exchange for little or no pay
There is something very humane about socialism
Profit maximizing behavior is by definition unethical
Protection of intellectual property does foster increased innovation. To cite one example, the Chinese developed a fully working water clock a few thousand years BC. Why, then, did China remain on the sidelines of innovation for the next couple of milennia? Because they didn't have a system to that rewarded innovation.
If you really want to get into a lot of specific examples that prove my point, take a look at the excellent book The Lever of Riches. I was fortunate enough to read it before coming to an opinion on this issue.
The book traces the history of innovation throughout cultures, nations, and throughout history. It becomes very clear that systems that are overprotective or underprotective fail to foster substantial innovation.
I must admit that I borrowed Mokyr's assertion of the reason why the US pulled ahead of Europe during the second industrial revolution. The research and the scholarship is all there in the book...
My question is, if we like great music and great software, why would we want to make it harder for those whose intellect and determination creates those things for us to be able to earn a living doing exactly that? I don't want those people waiting tables to pay the bills. I want them producing what they are best at. Undermining copyright law will force these people to find other ways to pay their bills, which will inevitably force them to do less of what they are good at.
Why should we force the gifted programmer to give away the product of his efforts? Why should we force the singer to make money only from live shows when people are willing to pay for recorded versions of music?
In your recent post, you indict greed as well. Selfishness is an essential part of human nature and an essential part of capitalism. Why should anyone do anything for unselfish reasons?
If you desire an outcome, then accomplishing that outcome is a selfish act. This is true regardless of whether you desire to end homelessness or if you desire to retire at age 30 as a millionaire. People should not be ashamed about acting in their own self interest.
We have rules (laws) that govern what behavior is acceptable. People should feel free to act in any way they choose provided it is within the law to acheive whatever selfish motives they wich to acheive. That is called freedom.
When you start accusing people of greed and claiming that greed is a bad thing, you are missing the point.
An ideal interaction is one in which both parties are motivated purely by their individual desire for a particular outcome. That is called cooperation.
If one party does not desire the outcome but is forced or coerced into it, then the interaction is flawed. People do not pay $18 for Britney Spears albums because they are coerced into doing so. They do it voluntarily because they want to. For the same reason, record companies sell Britney Spears albums for $18. When a transaction occurs, it occurs because it was mutually beneficial.
I do not condone illegal behavior, but for a record company to focus on selling the most popular artists is not illegal or unethical. Neither is it illegal or unethical for a record company to attempt to obtain the highest price possible for the CDs.
It is illegal for people to steal pirated copies of songs via P2P networks. I do not condone that behavior. Record companies deserve to be able to make a profit off of their effort at recruiting talent, marketing it, and recording it.
I really think you need to reconsider your stance on selfishness.
I don't disagree with any of the points you make. I just don't think any of that stuff justifies stealing the music.
New and better distribution methods will win in the end.
Uh... when you break any law you risk that it will be enforced. This is not any different. The company whose profits are at stake will be the entity to initiate the enforcement proceedings. If people find this a deterrent and decide to stop engaging in behavior that they would be prosecuted for, then all the better, since the legal system was spared the burden of the trial. If someone who is prosecuted feels that he/she is innocent, then let the case go to trial and win.
I don't see how it's gangsterlike to publicize that a behvior is illegal and that it will be prosecuted... then to prosecute. It's not like everyone out there didn't know that fileswapping wasn't legal. The RIAA is just trying to protect its business from being eroded by people who don't care about the law.
I am not sure if it's exactly 50 songs... it may be more than that... but the thought process behind your math holds up. There is a straightforward way for artists to make more money from improved distribution methods.
I just wish more Slashdotters would realize that making money isn't evil.
He mentions that he considers C to be the best combination of expressiveness and efficiency. I wonder, fellow Slashdotters, what you think the most expressive language is (efficiency aside)?
You make a good point. But libraries maintain ownership of the property. They buy it legitimately from its copyright owner initially, and if you don't return it you need to pay to replace it.
You don't own a library book at any time during your check-out period.
In fact, there are already online music distribution systems that act much like a library... Instead of downloading a song for $1, as AppleMusic allows, you simply pay a subscription fee and are allowed to have any 50 songs downloaded at any given time onto your PC or portable player. DRM is used to prevent abuse, which is analogous to the way that Kinkos won't photocopy and bind a 100 copies of the book you just checked out from the library across the street.
I think the subscription model will work. People rarely listen to more than 50 different songs in one day, and people get tired of music very quickly. I personally rarely listen to most of my CDs.
Artists are not performers, they're recording artists. The product that is sold in stores is a compact disc, a leaflet containing promotional material for the "musician", and the digital copies of the music. There are so many people whose effort goes into marketing and promoting the "musician", that restricting the money-earning potential of this group only to performances would be to eliminate a very successful source of revenue.
We shouldn't worry about protecting consumers from themselves. If you are willing to pay $18 for a CD, that's fine with me. In the same way I don't care if you spend that $18 on a CD that I like or dislike, or if you spend it on a Tarrot Card reading or on cigarettes, books, or a haircut. Sure, I may not consider all of those things to be the most intelligent way that you could spend your money. But the point is, it's your money.
Companies exist because there are people who want a particular product or service, not the other way around. The fact that people listen to Britney Spears vs classical music is irrelevant. There will always be people willing to sell whatever music is popular to people who want to buy it.
Speaking of distribution methods... Is the USPS the most efficient way to have mail delivered? No. Private firms could likely do it cheaper and more efficiently. It is against the law to attempt to profit from delivering mail.
Is copper wire the most efficient way to obtain telephone (or, heaven forbid) internet access? No. But it is in use because it works and nobody has found an alternative that is superior enough across the board to replace it 100%. The same is true with CDs. OF course, why would you want to drive to the store and buy a piece of plastic when you could click and have the same thing nearly instantaneously appear on your PC? Well, not everyone has a PC or an MP3 player, and so CDs are still the primary mode of music distribution. That will change, and perhaps the RIAA's stance has slowed the process a bit for mainstream artists... but it doesn't justify piracy by any stretch of the imagination.
If there is anti-competetive behavior going on, there should be an investigation of that by the DOJ, just like with Microsoft. In any case, it doesn't justify fileswapping or insulate offenders from the consequences if they are caught.
You haven't cited any examples of pre-copyright-era creative works. Copyright protection has been around for ages. If you analyze the history of innovation, you will find that if you compare countries with different kinds of copyright laws and IP laws, finding the right balance is essential. In fact, this was the main reason that the US pulled ahead of Europe during the second industrial revolution.
I don't favor an unending license for a monopoly, but I think the facts speak for themselves that a better environment for innovation is fostered by some copyright and IP protection.
I haven't heard you sing, but suppose you were able to sing as well as Britney Spears. What is to stop you from publishing your recordings on P2P networks for free? Nothing! So why don't people do that? P2P is everywhere, and so the excuse that the Recording Industry has monopolized distribution networks is out the window.
I think your notion of dedicated artisans creating products out of love is rather idyllic, but not particularly well suited for today's economy. Today it takes more than one person to create many of the things that are protected by Copyright and IP. Some of these people are creative, some technical, and some play a support role. Without the unifying principle of money to align everyone's interests, it would be unlikely that such groups of people would be driven to collaborate. Sure, it might happen occasionally. Sure you can mention the Mozilla project or the GCC project, etc., but think of the countless other web browsers and compilers that have been written (long ago in many cases) by people who just wanted to make a few bucks. Of course, if you're smart you'll hire people who consider it their craft and take immense pride in their creation, but in order to be able to allow that person to feed his/her family and maybe spend a few hours on OSS every night, you have to figure out a way to pay his/her salary. That is why profit is essential.
I find it hard to believe that you support capitalism and yet consider profit (and profit-seeking/maximizing behavior) a dirty word. In fact, I think you are operating on conflicting premises, and eventually when the illogic of your opinions "clicks" you will be forced either to abandon your support of capitalism or abandon your disdain of profit as an end in and of itself.
By diminishing the profits P2P harms the rights of the owners.
BTW: your notion of property rights also invalidates the GPL.
So they shouldn't own the music if they can't afford it. Why should some people pay $18 for the music and others get it for free? That isn't fair.
It is theft. You're wrong about that. By the way, your notion of property also invalidates the GPL.
I hope the RIAA comes up with better ways of distributing tunes. The RIAA failed to embrace a technology that might have made it a lot of money. Having said that, it doesn't excuse people from breaking the law today.
Perhaps. But the real contrast is with the record store.
If you slander someone and hinder his/her capacity to make money, then that is equivalent to if you hadn't slandered them and just stole the money.
You can argue about the difference between IP and Property all you want, but the point is that stealing either one harms the owner... perhaps not proportionally, but who are you to decide.
You confuse pure capitalism with anarchy. Capitalism requires that there be rules and there be an umpire to enforce those rules.
The notion of copyright law is that the intellectual property is valuable to society, and therefore, by protecting it, we impose a scarcity that creates an incentive for others to produce intellectual property. Of course, this is a balance, and it wouldn't be a good idea to offer too much protection or too little. I agree that 70 years of protection is too long, but fileswapping is moving in the wrong direction too.
So now let's explore what would happen if the world worked the way you want it to:
The software industry, music industry, motion picture industry and publishing industry would cease to be profitable. Firms would exit those markets, and consumers would be left to rifle through the IP that had been created before the collapse. The image reminds me of those scenes of people looting after the L.A. riots.
Without firms producing and distributing literature, movies, newspapers, software, etc., alternatives that didn't rely on intellectual property protection would emerge. The GNU Public License, since it relies on the notion of intellectual property, would be of no use, and there would be an utter free-for-all where P2P networks distributed source code, music, movies, etc. Television stations would lose profitability, since someone would have engineered a PVR that would instantly capture every show, remove the commercials, and make it available to fileswappers.
To complete the picture, imagine a snapshot of a particular industry a few months before rampant piracy forced it out of business. Consider Britney Spears, NSync, etc. Consider Microsoft Office XP. Those would be the same musicians, software, etc., that people would be using 30 years from now without IP protection.
Sure, someone could write better software, but why would anyone want to do that, since anyone else could take the software and sell it as his own or give it away.
People are motivated by their desire to improve their own quality of life. IP rights encourage people to produce IP. The lack of IP rights encourages people to copy someone else's IP rather than creating their own.
So what if the owner of Britney Spears' recordings refuses to sell a CD for under $18. That means that there is plenty of room for someone else who is just as talented (or maybe, more talented) to sell CDs for $17 and make a killing.
It does deprive the owner of property, namely that which he would buy with the money he would have made had he been able to sell any of the copies that were distributed without his authorization.
All that can happen is that a lawsuit can be filed. Record companies have no power to enforce laws, they must use the courts just like anyone else. The defendents will be subjected to existing copyright law.
In my opinion, copyright infringement is equivalent to theft, since it is the intentional misuse of someone else's (intellectual) property. I know there is often a distinction drawn, but I don't see it.
I've heard a lot of amateur bands in local pubs, etc., and there is generally not the same diversity of styles available (at least in most areas) that there is at the record store or on the radio.
If you don't want your "life destroyed" by a lawsuit, then don't engage in the behavior.
You don't think shoplifting is a good analogy? Try this one: Fileswapping copyrighted music is equivalent to going into Best Buy, swiping a couple of CDs, bringing them home, ripping MP3s, putting new plastic wrap on them and smuggling them back to the store.
It's theft, period. Just the same as copying software that you licensed one copy of and giving it away to anyone who wants it. Just because you can copy it, doesn't mean that it is ethical, moral, legal, etc. You may not view it as harmful, but by eliminating potential sales you are stealing from the entity that created and owns the property.
This is truly a great comment.
hi hi