As far as deadweight loss goes, it's technically not deadweight loss because the money spent eventually makes it back into the broader economy. There are many other programs that have a much higher economic return rate per dollar spent, but those tend to be politically sensitive social programs.
The ability to project military force anywhere around the globe is a strategic objective of the united states armed forces and is instrumental in serving our interests. There's simply no faster way to get the economic deals and natural resources we want than being able to level a few distant cities to make a point.
I don't endorse this, but that's why we need weapons.
> What we won't pay for are fat pay packages for useless record company
So its OK to pirate music if you disagree with the contractual obligations that the artist consented to for its creation and distribution? Wow, good point.
The real reason is that people want some justification for their piracy. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but that doesn't justify piracy. If not for the RIAA the pirates would just come up with another reason.
> Seems you are implying that it isn't possible for musicians to make a living if everyone pirates.
I never implied such a thing, but its easy to rebut my arguments if you put words in my mouth, now isnt it? And it does not follow that "i should be allowed to pirate because musicians can still make a living" - i could garnish 20% of your wages and you could still make a living right? (and before you bring up the "lost sale" analogy - the point was to prove that just because you'll survive something doesnt make it right).
The funny thing is that on the one hand you say that you would pay for music to support the artists, if only the RIAA wouldnt take a cut, and on the other hand, "well artists dont really need money from selling songs anyways."
Your sig seems to imply you have never created any intellectual property of value - only to see it pirated without remuneration against your will. Maybe one day you'll understand.
> Copyright wasn't created to serve artists but to serve the PUBLIC
Correct, but wrong interpretation.
> Being able to write a song does NOT give you the right to dominate the decisions of everybody who ever wants to hear it. Not even ONE of those decisions.
Wrong.
Copyright serves the public interest by providing for a financial incentive to create artistic works. It does not mean that its purpose has not been served just because you don't like its restrictions.
> What is it with some people and their inability to imagine any issue having more than one side or possibly all sides being valid PARTS of a whole ?
The problem is that you keep thinking your "side" invalidates the legal right for an artist to control the distribution of his work. Itunes and amazon let you buy your songs online.
> The reality is that downloads have significantly more appeal
I never said anything about downloads being bad. You should just have to pay for them. But your straw man argument works great when you can't find any other rebuttal.
> The record companies didn't move into the online space in time
Amazon is drm free. Are you sure you aren't using an outdated argument to justify piracy?
your single example ignores the wider trend: people dont pay for music when THAT SAME MUSIC is available for free. There are plenty of online services where people can buy music RIGHT NOW, but sales are still massively down every year. Are people listening to less music? Are popular artists giving it away? No and no.
But nice try.
the problem with "downloading music for free" is that its NOT like hearing it on the radio to try for free, and this is a disingenuous analogy at best. If you can download and own it for free, what incentive would you have to pay for it?
This isn't about "exposure" or promotion - its simply about getting consumers to actually pay for the music they download and keep from artists, but you keep ignoring that maybe some artists dont want to give away their music for free. what then?
what incentive do i as a music consumer have to actually spend my money if all the music can be pirated for free?
pro-piracy supporters seem to all conveniently miss this point.
because you never make mistakes, right?
it's easy to call things obvious in hindsight -- after you already know the number of people that objected to the change, but hey, everyone does it and it makes you look smarter.
go you!
does that make you a sociopathic moron that has a problem with authority derived from your inability to see that cheating hurts honest students who get pushed down the grade curve and degrades the university's reputation, or are you just an idiot?
actually, no, they wouldnt. the pirates dont have any costs, they can always afford to undercut the legitimate sellers. You have failed to grasp this because you want to believe that there is a fair way for the mpaa to compete outside of the law and enforcement of their rights.
there isn't.
neutral is the middle ground by definition. you compromise when opinions differ. people who refuse to compromise -- their opinions are discounted entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability to project military force anywhere around the globe is a strategic objective of the united states armed forces and is instrumental in serving our interests. There's simply no faster way to get the economic deals and natural resources we want than being able to level a few distant cities to make a point.
I don't endorse this, but that's why we need weapons.
wait...what?
So its OK to pirate music if you disagree with the contractual obligations that the artist consented to for its creation and distribution? Wow, good point.
The real reason is that people want some justification for their piracy. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but that doesn't justify piracy. If not for the RIAA the pirates would just come up with another reason.
> Seems you are implying that it isn't possible for musicians to make a living if everyone pirates.
I never implied such a thing, but its easy to rebut my arguments if you put words in my mouth, now isnt it? And it does not follow that "i should be allowed to pirate because musicians can still make a living" - i could garnish 20% of your wages and you could still make a living right? (and before you bring up the "lost sale" analogy - the point was to prove that just because you'll survive something doesnt make it right).
The funny thing is that on the one hand you say that you would pay for music to support the artists, if only the RIAA wouldnt take a cut, and on the other hand, "well artists dont really need money from selling songs anyways."
Your sig seems to imply you have never created any intellectual property of value - only to see it pirated without remuneration against your will. Maybe one day you'll understand.
Correct, but wrong interpretation.
> Being able to write a song does NOT give you the right to dominate the decisions of everybody who ever wants to hear it. Not even ONE of those decisions.
Wrong.
Copyright serves the public interest by providing for a financial incentive to create artistic works. It does not mean that its purpose has not been served just because you don't like its restrictions.
> What is it with some people and their inability to imagine any issue having more than one side or possibly all sides being valid PARTS of a whole ?
The problem is that you keep thinking your "side" invalidates the legal right for an artist to control the distribution of his work. Itunes and amazon let you buy your songs online.
> The reality is that downloads have significantly more appeal
I never said anything about downloads being bad. You should just have to pay for them. But your straw man argument works great when you can't find any other rebuttal.
> The record companies didn't move into the online space in time
Amazon is drm free. Are you sure you aren't using an outdated argument to justify piracy?
your single example ignores the wider trend: people dont pay for music when THAT SAME MUSIC is available for free. There are plenty of online services where people can buy music RIGHT NOW, but sales are still massively down every year. Are people listening to less music? Are popular artists giving it away? No and no. But nice try.
the problem with "downloading music for free" is that its NOT like hearing it on the radio to try for free, and this is a disingenuous analogy at best. If you can download and own it for free, what incentive would you have to pay for it? This isn't about "exposure" or promotion - its simply about getting consumers to actually pay for the music they download and keep from artists, but you keep ignoring that maybe some artists dont want to give away their music for free. what then?
and what if they dont want to give it away for free? but i guess you'll just take it then.
what incentive do i as a music consumer have to actually spend my money if all the music can be pirated for free? pro-piracy supporters seem to all conveniently miss this point.
Perhaps because we have learned to distrust the news providers when we dont agree with their statements?
fixed.
from a business perspective, probably market segmentation to protect the server business. but technical -- i dont know.
because you never make mistakes, right? it's easy to call things obvious in hindsight -- after you already know the number of people that objected to the change, but hey, everyone does it and it makes you look smarter. go you!
does that make you a sociopathic moron that has a problem with authority derived from your inability to see that cheating hurts honest students who get pushed down the grade curve and degrades the university's reputation, or are you just an idiot?
False.
actually, no, they wouldnt. the pirates dont have any costs, they can always afford to undercut the legitimate sellers. You have failed to grasp this because you want to believe that there is a fair way for the mpaa to compete outside of the law and enforcement of their rights. there isn't.
neutral is the middle ground by definition. you compromise when opinions differ. people who refuse to compromise -- their opinions are discounted entirely.