Why not talk about the definition of stealing?
To steal is to deprive an individual or group of property, in that they have one less of that item due to the fact that you stole it. Copying is not stealing. If downloading was to be considered stealing, you would have to actually delete the works from the computer you downloaded it from, without permission.
Theft is apparent when the owner of the property can show a demonstrated loss as a result of the theft. On one hand, you don't care about the profits that are reaped as a result of sales, yet on the other, you say that you are concerned about the ethical side of the argument. Yet the only way you can prove hat file sharing is unethical when talking about an ecomomic argument.
Let's put profits aside for a moment and simplify the economics to volume of sales. Any drop or increase in sales over the past 10 year has a direct corellation to the size and health of the economy. The reality is that with the advent of file-sharing, there has been a marked increase in total sales (whether there is a sales/filesharing corellation is a different argument). There is no evidence of lost sales, so the notion of sharing as theft is absolutely bogus.
The argument against file sharing is not one about the creative control that artists have over their work, it is about the losses they incur as a result of the sharing. File sharing has no impact on the control an artist has on their work.
I understand the ethical argument. But the argument against file sharing is not really that ethical at all because the "ethical" argument is not ethical at all. Ethics determine right and wrong, we all know that. But I still fail to see how sharing is an unethical practice - how is it wrong? No one seems to be able to say why it's wrong, only that it is (kind of like the terrorists) If it really was stealing, then there is room for debate.
I agree that it is wrong to deprive an individual of their property. I also agree that it is wrong to steal. But once again, this is not stealing.
By your logic, it would be wrong to photocopy a chapter from a book (equivalent to downloading one song from an album). Yet laws protect copiers from such penalties under fair use. Funnily enough, the same applies if you copy a CD or a Cassette or a Vinyl recording. Fair use protects all these kinds of activities.
I have a hard time believing that you have never recorded something from the radio, or listened to a recording from the radio. It's definitely unlikely that you have never recorded or accepted a recorded cassette for/from a friend in your entire life, or burnt or accepted a burnt CD. I also have a hard time believing that you have never photocopied pages from a book at the library, recorded a tv show or movie to video.
The reality is that file sharing is tantamount to any of the above activities. Anyone who shares files knows this. The files I share are not downloaded by millions of people. I couldn't afford that much bandwidth. The most downloaded file on my computer is actually my own work, and it's been downloaded a total of 10 times. This is no different for that mix-tape you made for your girlfriend back in 83 that she then copied and gave to her friends and so on.
My perspective is from someone working within the industry, i'm a creator and a promoter, and I really appreciate hearing your point of view. Sadly though, it conflicts with what artists I know and work with from around the world and in all spectrums of music feel about file sharing. The ones who really should be protected by the law (independents, upcomings and all the other poor bastards trying to make a dime) do not share the feelings of the big labels' law departments.
You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]