Uh, sure thing amigo. You bought a car, so that means you can just steal as many more as you like. Bzzzt! You just failed Common Sense 101. Stealing a car deprives the original owner of that car. Downloading an album doesn't deprive anyone of anything, especially if you've already paid for it. Come back when you understand the difference between information and physical property, OK?
Well, as long as you're considering homebrew part of the game library... the Wii can play GameCube homebrew apps, and by extension, it can play all the GB/GBC/GBA games. You just need to use an emulator instead of the hardware GB Player.
more realistically, it makes sense from SNL's / the network's standpoint to be against random copyright infringing posts of clips from their show but to put carfully selected teaser bits up that may encourage viewers to their television show, where they actually make money through advertising. How's that supposed to work? SNL, like most weekly network shows, is not repeated regularly.
If you see a "teaser bit" from a great sketch that aired last week, what are you supposed to do: watch next week's episode, which you know won't have that sketch because it's a different episode? Buy the DVD when it comes out a year later, if ever (SNL doesn't seem to do DVDs of each season)? Neither seems like an acceptable alternative.
A modded Xbox with XBMC installed is also incredibly slick, but costs 1/3 as much as an Apple TV, works with any display, supports many more media types, and plays from a CD/DVD or an SMB share - plus you can use it for games, emulators, YouTube, Sirius radio, etc. Apple TV only provides an advantage if you get your movies from iTunes, because no one else can decrypt Apple's DRM.
Though I'd hate to tell any developer of a GPL piece of software to just "get over it" when a commercial entity takes their code, sells a binary version for profit and never releases the source code again. Well, I think the lack of source code would be offset by the fact that anyone would be able to share that binary version for free, disassemble it, reverse-engineer any new features, and add them back into the open source version. It'd be a hassle, but not impossible... and I'm saying that as a GPL developer myself. (Yes, I have gone after people for GPL violations, but I'd happily give that up in exchange for an end to copyright.)
Nor would I want to tell a photographer "sorry mate, but you're in the wrong business" if he wants to sell prints, if everybody would just print / buy copies for next-to-free when he wants to make a living sell them at $10/print. No one wants to deliver the bad news, but it has to be done. If I want to make money at something that obviously won't work, I hope someone tells me I'm making a mistake before I've sunk too much time or money into it. Just because the photographer wants to sell copies doesn't mean selling copies makes any economic sense, or that our laws should be set up to facilitate it: some people want to make a living by running pyramid schemes, but I don't think we should indulge them either.
You've been modded down, but you're right. In most cases, the DVD doesn't cost more than $5 over Apple's price, and you get slightly higher video quality, bonus features and commentary, and you can play it anywhere. There's no PlayFair or QTFairUse for iTunes's video DRM, so the movies you buy there will only play on a computer, an iPod, or the stillborn Apple TV.
Re:I were one of the cracking groups...
on
AACS Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
More possible but still pretty much 'mission impossible' would be a physical theft. I dunno, I doubt the keys are actually hidden in a nuclear safe at the end of a corridor full of laser tripwires. If the Russian mob wanted to get those keys at all costs, they wouldn't need any Mission Impossible tactics, they could just send a couple vans full of guys with machine guns to break the doors down. Write some software beforehand to make sure the key works, bring along a laptop so you can verify it on site, and then just start shooting people until they turn over a key that works.
Hopefully it wouldn't come to that, but it's the ultimate Plan B.
However, there are many pharm labs that could quickly whip up their own batch of drug X and sell it with a tiny bit of the R&D required of Merck. Which is why it makes sense for the research to be funded separately from the manufacturing - and in the case of medical research, which is more beneficial than people realize (especially for contagious diseases), it might even make sense to have the government fund it. If an independent group discovers, tests, and describes a process to produce drug X, then Merck and every other manufacturer can compete on a level playing field to implement that process.
Why can't I start a computer company named "Apple", put a little apple on my artsy computers, load OS X on them, and sell them? I don't have to say that I'm the same company lead by Steve Jobs and headquartered in Cupertino, CA, in order to make people think I am. The same reason you can't advertise a Michael Jackson concert, sell thousands of tickets, and then put some homeless guy on stage whose name happens to be Michael Jackson: because what matters is the message you convey to potential customers, not the words you use to do it. Any judge or jury would say that a reasonable person would expect that logo and that company name to refer to Steve Jobs's company, not yours, and that you intentionally misled your customers.
And you're thinking only of the laborer, not the person investing the money. Or, the situation outside of corporate America where these are the same person. If I'm an author with a small publishing company, I no longer have a business model. Free-lance everything goes out the door. Sure you have a business model: if you're an author, you'll receive payments from the people who want to read your work (or use it some other way). If there aren't any such people, your job is to convince an audience that your work is worth paying for, perhaps by giving away a sample for free.
Yes, it will no longer be profitable to write something (for free) and shop it around to different publishers. Can't say I see the problem with that, though. It's a ridiculous model, one which we've become conditioned to accept in certain fields but would never tolerate in others.
If the average person isn't going to invest blood, sweat, and tears (and cash) in something where their best outcome is to break even, I don't understand how you think millions of people will. Well, you've got the outcome wrong. My best outcome when I pay for chip research is for faster CPUs to become available, which I can then use to do faster computations at home/work (benefitting directly), or to entice more people into my computer store (selling more computers, accessories, and support), or to increase demand for my application that eats a lot of CPU (making users more likely to pay me for development). How is that breaking even?
But the number of people who fall into that category is small enough to get lost in the shuffle. Maybe for CPUs, but for music, I think it's quite the opposite (and CPUs have the advantage that there are other entities besides individuals, including retailers, developers, and corporate data centers, who benefit from new technology).
If my favorite band sent out a newsletter tomorrow saying "we need money or else we'll never be able to release another album, please send $15", then I'd do it in a heartbeat, considering I'd already be willing to pay $15 for their next album the minute it hit the shelves - and I believe the vast majority of fans would too. Somebands have already financed their albums this way. The only tough part is becoming well-liked enough that you can do that, but if you can give away a few good tracks up front as your "portfolio", you're well on your way.
Regardless, as I said earlier, we have all of human history indicating that your ideas will not work in reality. Enough people are addicted to money and power to ruin any and every fair system. The only especially "fair" thing about what I've proposed is that we'd regain some freedom of speech - which is important, of course, but it's not as if I'm taking money out of the equation.
Whether it is to get or maintain a job, to attract other people to you (for friendship or sexual relations), or just to fit in, people pay $12 for a haircut because they see some benefit outside of having shorter hair. Yes, that's exactly my point. You don't have to have a monetary return in order for it to be worth spending money on something. Most of us here would be willing to pay for a faster CPU, whether that meant spending $100 on a chip that's already been produced, or contributing $75 to research that eventually produces a chip we can buy for $25.
So Dell and Best Buy will finance chip research now? Well, in the end it's the consumers who are really paying for the research anyway. That wouldn't change. Whether it's consumers directly paying for research that benefits them, or manufacturers and retailers paying in the hopes of stimulating their business with new products (where the research dollars have essentially the same effect as advertising dollars), or today's system of chip designers spending their own money in the hopes of making it back from manufacturers (who in turn recoup their costs from retailers, who get the money from consumers), the money all has the same ultimate source and destination.
And, they are perfectly happy when they make a big breakthrough, only to have the design copied and sold by TigerDirect with 5% of the cost? I'd love to see TigerDirect try to compete with Intel and AMD's chip manufacturing operations.
And Apple won't be harmed when Bob's Computer Shack can legally sell less dependable iBooks with an authentic-looking Apple logo on it.? If we can't own ideas, methods, thoughts, etc, we also can't own reputations so trademarks are gone. No, I don't see anything wrong with trademarks. Decorating your product with an Apple logo, when that logo is associated with Apple Inc. in the public eye, is equivalent to saying "this product was made by Apple Inc.", which is obviously false if it really wasn't. Trademark infringement is a form of fraud, and can justifiably be punished without having to pretend that the company "owns" a picture of an apple.
First, you are assuming that his effort has been paid for. It might take years to recoup the original investment. That's antiquated thinking. In a world where ideas can't be owned, you get someone to promise you money first, then you put forth the effort - just like any other service. You can't get cheated out of your labor unless you choose to give it away for free (or unless you get kidnapped and enslaved, but I think we can ignore that possibility).
Secondly, even if you could guarantee that the person did get paid for their work, the average person will not be willing to invest large sums of time and money in hopes of only breaking even. A single person, probably not. But a thousand people? A million people? The past few election cycles have proved that you can raise millions of dollars from individual contributions. And remember, they don't need a monetary return in order for it to be a good deal. If you're a computer enthusiast, you value the very existence of fast CPUs, and you'll be willing to contribute to the research just as you're willing to buy a CPU off the shelf.
They see $250, $400, $600, and think "Well, they're all NEW.. why pay double+ when I can get a NEW Nintendo for $250?" But in 2-3 years, about half the lifetime of a console generation, the Wii is going to look absolutely ancient. OK, so if/when that happens, Nintendo will introduce an upgraded console. $250 now and $250 in three years is still a better deal than $500 up front.
So the right to own something you create is now being compared to slavery? Only in that they both show that centuries of law and tradition can still be horribly wrong. There is no legitimate right to own an idea, just as there is no legitimate right to own a person, despite what the laws have said at various times throughout history.
And free speech has plenty of limitations on it... Stifling free speech in order to protect public safety (no shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) is one thing. Stifling it in order to make it slightly easier for someone to make a buck is something completely different.
Of course, I might point out here that copyright has plenty of limitations on it too. Does that mean it's OK to add more and more arbitrary limitations, because the first limitation justifies them all? Why should some dead guy's copyright be held in higher regard than everyone else's freedom of speech?
Perhaps in your utopian socialist state, but not in reality. How interesting that you'd call these ideas "socialist". I'd say they're libertarian.
Research funding is speculative - people are willing to invest money in the hopes they will make more money down the road. People are also willing to spend money on things that directly benefit them. When I spend $12 on a haircut, it's not because I think my sharp new look will entice others to pay me more than $12. It's because I like the look myself. Likewise, if I contribute to cancer research, it won't be because I want to get rich off of cancer patients, it'll be because I want there to be a cure if I get cancer.
But the profit motive will still be there. If I'm a computer retailer or manufacturer, then I'll be willing to invest in new chip designs. I want to keep selling new computers to people, and I can sell a lot more when this year's model is better than last year's.
Doing away with all patents, copyrights, and such will mean those who can quickly copy another's work will make the money with little upfront investment, which will eliminate all but the most high-risk investors. If the person who did the original work has already been paid for his effort, then why should he care who uses it?
You make it sound like this is some recent invention of Congress and lobbyists. Copyright law goes back five or six hundred years, with something similar to what is found in our Constitution existing since at least the early 1700s. Oh, I know it does. That doesn't mean it's any wiser than if it had been introduced yesterday, though. Plenty of ridiculous ideas have been around for far longer.
It is exactly false to claim that authors and musical artists have no legitimate right to control the distribution of their work; you are on the wrong side of at least 300 solid years of copyright law. Two hundred years ago, if I'd said "people have no legitimate right to own slaves", would that also be false because I'd be on the wrong side of who-knows-how-many years of law? Or would I just be talking about something more fundamental than statutes?
There's certainly plenty of room for criticism of the corporate-owned version of copyright that exists in the US today, but your suggestion flies in the face of private property rights, capitalism, and other holy American values Free speech is an American value too, far more important than any economic principles, and copyright is in direct opposition to it.
If an artist has no right of control over a song they create, a sculpture they make, or a book they write, then you cannot extend that protection to patents on more "practical" items. With no profit motive, most pharmaceutical research stops, technology innovation in IT and computing dies, etc. Nonsense. All you have to do is ask yourself, "Would anyone benefit from this research? Do those people have money?" If the answers are yes, there will be funding for research. It might not be collected in the same way, but the demand isn't going to disappear, and neither will the money.
A better comparison is the taylor designs the suit pattern and licenses it. It becomes popular, for every suit sold with that pattern, he gets a cut. Later, the suit comes back in style, if the license is still valid, he still gets a cut of each suit sold that used the same pattern. Sure, why not! Why should he ever have to work again? He designed one suit, he should be able to retire and live like a king!
Good luck, in life, with your economic model. It doesn't work in the real world, but if it makes you happy, more power to you. Actually, it does work quite well, and it's in use in nearly every industry except the few that are based on copyright.
You see, "my economic model" is one where people who aren't selling a physical product get paid for the work they do, not the work they did 70 years ago. If you want to write a book, find someone (or a big group of someones) who wants a book written and get him to pay you. If you want to design a suit, find someone who's looking for a new suit design and get him to hire you. If you want to get paid twice, design two suits.
Again, if you want to see this model in action, go talk to your local mechanic... or accountant... or barber... or teacher... or landscaper... or CEO...
You'll earn some cache with some in your community, maybe some recognition, but, son, the world operates on money, and you can be more effective, globally, with some cash backing you up. Thanks for the life lesson, gramps, but I already do have cash. Believe it or not, I get paid for writing code, and no one involved the process has to worry about selling copies or tracking down those dirty hippies out there who share information with each other. I'll leave it to you to figure out how I do it.
Try being a force for good and wealth in the world, rather than fighting it because you envy it...but, your father was probably right. Put down the bottle and look at yourself, old man. You aren't fit to lick my father's shoes.
If what they produced years ago is still selling, that only means it still has value, and people still want it. So, why not get paid for it? Hey, what brilliant logic. Let's apply it to something else! Say you're a tailor, and Mr. Jones comes in for a suit, for which he pays you $1200. The suit is so impressive-looking that it seals the deal at Mr. Jones's job interview that afternoon, and he ends up landing a $500,000/yr position. Clearly that suit had a lot more value than you thought at first, right? So tell me, how much of that $500,000 does Mr. Jones owe you each year? He might not have gotten the position at all if he hadn't worn it, so does he owe you his entire income?
You should try producing something of value that will be around for awhile. Bet you could do it. Been there, done that, wrote a sig about it. I'm just not a greedy bastard.
As I pointed out here, if you start with the premise that you're automatically entitled to the potential revenue that you might get from selling something, and that you're harmed when someone decides not to buy it from you, you'll reach some pretty ridiculous conclusions.
I was with you on the "when we download music, the musician isn't deprived of anything" point, but you appear to be acknowledging that musicians will have to find a new way to make money because of our actions. It's not because of our actions, it's because the march of technology has revealed the fundamental misconception that their business is based on. (Well, in a sense you're right: if everyone voluntarily chose not to download and share free copies when they could buy copies instead, there'd be no need for change. But in economics, you don't base your plans on the assumption that people will choose the more expensive route. You assume they'll act rationally in their own interest, which means getting the most benefit for the lowest price.)
Expecting to make money by selling copies of information to people, when anyone can easily make and distribute his own copies, is like expecting to make money by carrying water downhill, when the water naturally flows downhill by itself. Even if there's some freak wind pushing the stream uphill for a few years, you can't expect it to last forever, and you're in no position to complain when the wind stops after you've been extracting a profit for all those years. In fact, you should consider yourself lucky that you were able to make any money at all on such a ridiculous premise.
In this case, the "freak wind" was the difficulty of copying sound recordings. For a few years, it was hard, not because there's anything inherently hard about copying sound, but because the technology just wasn't there yet. Now it is, and sound can be copied as easily as poems or numbers or any other information.
Just like the guy carrying water downhill would've been wise to choose a different model from the beginning, so that he wouldn't have to rebuild his business when the wind stopped, so would musicians have been wise to choose a different model from the beginning. But they didn't, so here we are. They can either choose a different model now--like a service model that doesn't depend on information being something it isn't--or they can sit around and foolishly wonder why they aren't selling any copies anymore.
They don't legitimately have the right to control distribution of their work. You can't own an idea, and the childish attitude of "I invented it, so it's MINE and you can't use it", which has found its way into some of our laws, is not getting us anywhere as a society.
Chances are, however, I paid money for my car. So do I care if somebody comes along and makes a copy of my car without going through the same effort of paying for it? I just might.
What if it gets a little bit more intrigueing. I paid for the car in blood, sweat and tears - as I built it pretty much from the ground up. It's a one-of-a-kind car. I have no intention of selling it or giving it away, etc. Then somebody comes along and makes a copy of it. Would I care? Yes. In those examples, what you're experiencing is nothing more than jealousy. You're in essentially the same situation as if your girlfriend had left you for someone else, and now you're mad at the other guy for "stealing" her away from you - but in both cases, you don't really "own" what you've lost, so the problem is entirely in your head. You aren't entitled to be the only guy who dates her, depriving everyone else (and her), just like you aren't entitled to have the only copy of that car, depriving everyone else of that car when it would cost you nothing to let them use it. Your feelings are painful but ultimately cruel and irrational, and the sooner you get over them, the better.
Now let's say I have every intention of selling it - for $60,000 because the market is telling me that's what people would at least be paying for the thing. Now somebody comes along and makes a copy and puts it on sale for $4,000. Would I care? Hell yes. This time, you've made an obvious mistake.
Presumably you knew that you were living in a world where cars could be copied as easily as music files, so if you intended to make money by designing cars, why did you design the car for free, before anyone had agreed to pay you, hoping to make some money later by selling copies? You knew from the beginning that that scheme wouldn't work, because you knew that as soon as someone saw it, they'd be able to make their own copy! You have no one to blame but yourself for choosing an obviously unworkable business model.
Instead, what you should do is find a group of car enthusiasts and convince them to hire you to design a new car for them. Once you're done with that, it won't matter how many copies they make, because you will have already been paid for the time you spent designing.
Whether they grab the latest movie off of bittorrent 5 minutes after the class exits is then up to them, but if somebody were to then do much the same to them, I don't think they can cry foul. I agree. But there's a big difference between downloading a movie and putting your name on someone else's paper, and I think the latter is what students would be concerned about.
Unrealized income is almost the same and having income stolen but once again, there is an important but slight difference. [...] The RIAA is pushing too hard to convince people that every copied song is the same as theft, and the downloaders are trying to argue that every downloaded song probably wasn't money for them anyway. Not necessarily. In order for this to work as an argument against copying, you have to start with the premise that it's inherently wrong to prevent sales. But in fact, there are several other ways that potential future income can become "unrealized", and they aren't considered a problem.
For example, if you're a respected reviewer and you write a negative review of an album, it probably won't sell as many copies as if you had written a positive review. If your review influences 1000 people not to buy the album, that has exactly the same effect on sales as if you had shared the album online and 1000 people ended up getting it for free instead of buying it... in fact, it might have a worse effect, because in the latter case, all those people will still hear the album, and some might go on to buy a different one, a shirt, or a concert ticket.
So under the "opportunity cost" argument--I'm not sure if that term is being used correctly, but I'll go along with it--shouldn't reviewers be held responsible for everyone who fails to buy an album after reading their reviews?
If "piracy" were commonly associated with theft on the high seas these days, then I'd probably take a stand against it.. but the fact is, it isn't. When you say "piracy", the first thing that comes to everyone's mind is copyright infringement - unlike "theft", use of the term "piracy" doesn't have the effect (anymore) of associating the harmless act of copying with a forceful, universally despised crime. Hell, even high seas pirates are considered cool, like their mortal enemies the ninjas.
Legally, the definition of fraud usually involves some intent to harm or profit in some way. If you're putting your name on a paper in order to get funding or credibility, I'd consider that profit. In any case, I'm not opposed to broadening the legal definition of fraud to cover serious plagiarism.
And in at least one case, It would look as if the government tried to use fraud for copyright violations but couldn't. At a brief glance, that case looks like plain old copyright infringement, not plagiarism, so I don't see the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
You use a memory card (SD + GameCube adapter) and a boot disc, as described here. Datel sells everything you need for $50.
You're joking, right? The White Stripes and Modest Mouse are shining examples of lo-fi. There's nothing "audiophile" about them.
Well, as long as you're considering homebrew part of the game library... the Wii can play GameCube homebrew apps, and by extension, it can play all the GB/GBC/GBA games. You just need to use an emulator instead of the hardware GB Player.
If you see a "teaser bit" from a great sketch that aired last week, what are you supposed to do: watch next week's episode, which you know won't have that sketch because it's a different episode? Buy the DVD when it comes out a year later, if ever (SNL doesn't seem to do DVDs of each season)? Neither seems like an acceptable alternative.
A modded Xbox with XBMC installed is also incredibly slick, but costs 1/3 as much as an Apple TV, works with any display, supports many more media types, and plays from a CD/DVD or an SMB share - plus you can use it for games, emulators, YouTube, Sirius radio, etc. Apple TV only provides an advantage if you get your movies from iTunes, because no one else can decrypt Apple's DRM.
You've been modded down, but you're right. In most cases, the DVD doesn't cost more than $5 over Apple's price, and you get slightly higher video quality, bonus features and commentary, and you can play it anywhere. There's no PlayFair or QTFairUse for iTunes's video DRM, so the movies you buy there will only play on a computer, an iPod, or the stillborn Apple TV.
Hopefully it wouldn't come to that, but it's the ultimate Plan B.
Yes, it will no longer be profitable to write something (for free) and shop it around to different publishers. Can't say I see the problem with that, though. It's a ridiculous model, one which we've become conditioned to accept in certain fields but would never tolerate in others. If the average person isn't going to invest blood, sweat, and tears (and cash) in something where their best outcome is to break even, I don't understand how you think millions of people will. Well, you've got the outcome wrong. My best outcome when I pay for chip research is for faster CPUs to become available, which I can then use to do faster computations at home/work (benefitting directly), or to entice more people into my computer store (selling more computers, accessories, and support), or to increase demand for my application that eats a lot of CPU (making users more likely to pay me for development). How is that breaking even? But the number of people who fall into that category is small enough to get lost in the shuffle. Maybe for CPUs, but for music, I think it's quite the opposite (and CPUs have the advantage that there are other entities besides individuals, including retailers, developers, and corporate data centers, who benefit from new technology).
If my favorite band sent out a newsletter tomorrow saying "we need money or else we'll never be able to release another album, please send $15", then I'd do it in a heartbeat, considering I'd already be willing to pay $15 for their next album the minute it hit the shelves - and I believe the vast majority of fans would too. Some bands have already financed their albums this way. The only tough part is becoming well-liked enough that you can do that, but if you can give away a few good tracks up front as your "portfolio", you're well on your way.
Not really, but... come on, one event in the entire US, compared to three in Europe within 1000 km of each other? We don't even get one on each coast?
I paid $50 for my cell phone. An HDTV set would cost at least ten times that, so I'm going to be ten times as wary of buying one.
Of course, I might point out here that copyright has plenty of limitations on it too. Does that mean it's OK to add more and more arbitrary limitations, because the first limitation justifies them all? Why should some dead guy's copyright be held in higher regard than everyone else's freedom of speech? Perhaps in your utopian socialist state, but not in reality. How interesting that you'd call these ideas "socialist". I'd say they're libertarian. Research funding is speculative - people are willing to invest money in the hopes they will make more money down the road. People are also willing to spend money on things that directly benefit them. When I spend $12 on a haircut, it's not because I think my sharp new look will entice others to pay me more than $12. It's because I like the look myself. Likewise, if I contribute to cancer research, it won't be because I want to get rich off of cancer patients, it'll be because I want there to be a cure if I get cancer.
But the profit motive will still be there. If I'm a computer retailer or manufacturer, then I'll be willing to invest in new chip designs. I want to keep selling new computers to people, and I can sell a lot more when this year's model is better than last year's. Doing away with all patents, copyrights, and such will mean those who can quickly copy another's work will make the money with little upfront investment, which will eliminate all but the most high-risk investors. If the person who did the original work has already been paid for his effort, then why should he care who uses it?
You see, "my economic model" is one where people who aren't selling a physical product get paid for the work they do, not the work they did 70 years ago. If you want to write a book, find someone (or a big group of someones) who wants a book written and get him to pay you. If you want to design a suit, find someone who's looking for a new suit design and get him to hire you. If you want to get paid twice, design two suits.
Again, if you want to see this model in action, go talk to your local mechanic... or accountant... or barber... or teacher... or landscaper... or CEO... You'll earn some cache with some in your community, maybe some recognition, but, son, the world operates on money, and you can be more effective, globally, with some cash backing you up. Thanks for the life lesson, gramps, but I already do have cash. Believe it or not, I get paid for writing code, and no one involved the process has to worry about selling copies or tracking down those dirty hippies out there who share information with each other. I'll leave it to you to figure out how I do it. Try being a force for good and wealth in the world, rather than fighting it because you envy it...but, your father was probably right. Put down the bottle and look at yourself, old man. You aren't fit to lick my father's shoes.
As I pointed out here, if you start with the premise that you're automatically entitled to the potential revenue that you might get from selling something, and that you're harmed when someone decides not to buy it from you, you'll reach some pretty ridiculous conclusions.
Expecting to make money by selling copies of information to people, when anyone can easily make and distribute his own copies, is like expecting to make money by carrying water downhill, when the water naturally flows downhill by itself. Even if there's some freak wind pushing the stream uphill for a few years, you can't expect it to last forever, and you're in no position to complain when the wind stops after you've been extracting a profit for all those years. In fact, you should consider yourself lucky that you were able to make any money at all on such a ridiculous premise.
In this case, the "freak wind" was the difficulty of copying sound recordings. For a few years, it was hard, not because there's anything inherently hard about copying sound, but because the technology just wasn't there yet. Now it is, and sound can be copied as easily as poems or numbers or any other information.
Just like the guy carrying water downhill would've been wise to choose a different model from the beginning, so that he wouldn't have to rebuild his business when the wind stopped, so would musicians have been wise to choose a different model from the beginning. But they didn't, so here we are. They can either choose a different model now--like a service model that doesn't depend on information being something it isn't--or they can sit around and foolishly wonder why they aren't selling any copies anymore.
They don't legitimately have the right to control distribution of their work. You can't own an idea, and the childish attitude of "I invented it, so it's MINE and you can't use it", which has found its way into some of our laws, is not getting us anywhere as a society.
What if it gets a little bit more intrigueing. I paid for the car in blood, sweat and tears - as I built it pretty much from the ground up. It's a one-of-a-kind car. I have no intention of selling it or giving it away, etc. Then somebody comes along and makes a copy of it. Would I care? Yes. In those examples, what you're experiencing is nothing more than jealousy. You're in essentially the same situation as if your girlfriend had left you for someone else, and now you're mad at the other guy for "stealing" her away from you - but in both cases, you don't really "own" what you've lost, so the problem is entirely in your head. You aren't entitled to be the only guy who dates her, depriving everyone else (and her), just like you aren't entitled to have the only copy of that car, depriving everyone else of that car when it would cost you nothing to let them use it. Your feelings are painful but ultimately cruel and irrational, and the sooner you get over them, the better. Now let's say I have every intention of selling it - for $60,000 because the market is telling me that's what people would at least be paying for the thing. Now somebody comes along and makes a copy and puts it on sale for $4,000. Would I care? Hell yes. This time, you've made an obvious mistake.
Presumably you knew that you were living in a world where cars could be copied as easily as music files, so if you intended to make money by designing cars, why did you design the car for free, before anyone had agreed to pay you, hoping to make some money later by selling copies? You knew from the beginning that that scheme wouldn't work, because you knew that as soon as someone saw it, they'd be able to make their own copy! You have no one to blame but yourself for choosing an obviously unworkable business model.
Instead, what you should do is find a group of car enthusiasts and convince them to hire you to design a new car for them. Once you're done with that, it won't matter how many copies they make, because you will have already been paid for the time you spent designing. Whether they grab the latest movie off of bittorrent 5 minutes after the class exits is then up to them, but if somebody were to then do much the same to them, I don't think they can cry foul. I agree. But there's a big difference between downloading a movie and putting your name on someone else's paper, and I think the latter is what students would be concerned about.
For example, if you're a respected reviewer and you write a negative review of an album, it probably won't sell as many copies as if you had written a positive review. If your review influences 1000 people not to buy the album, that has exactly the same effect on sales as if you had shared the album online and 1000 people ended up getting it for free instead of buying it... in fact, it might have a worse effect, because in the latter case, all those people will still hear the album, and some might go on to buy a different one, a shirt, or a concert ticket.
So under the "opportunity cost" argument--I'm not sure if that term is being used correctly, but I'll go along with it--shouldn't reviewers be held responsible for everyone who fails to buy an album after reading their reviews?
If "piracy" were commonly associated with theft on the high seas these days, then I'd probably take a stand against it.. but the fact is, it isn't. When you say "piracy", the first thing that comes to everyone's mind is copyright infringement - unlike "theft", use of the term "piracy" doesn't have the effect (anymore) of associating the harmless act of copying with a forceful, universally despised crime. Hell, even high seas pirates are considered cool, like their mortal enemies the ninjas.