Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
Laukev7:
quote: The point I'm making is that you seem to be suggesting that someone is only entitled to listen to a piece of music if they've paid for the privilege, even though it would cost the artist nothing for the person's friend to give them a copy.
--- End quote ---
Capitalism is not based on whether or not there is a cost. The principle is an exchange of a product or a service for another, or for money. It has never been said that this does not apply when there is no cost for the producer. Therefore, even if it does not cost anything to the artist, he has appropriated something without giving anything in return, against the will of the artist.
quote: advertise themselves in other ways.
--- End quote ---
So why don't they just advertise themselves while charging for their songs?
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Laukev7:
Oh, and you are forgeting something, flap. So, the producer can produce an unlimited amount of music. So, if someone just copied a music file from someone else, he has not incurred a cost to the artist, right?
Wrong. If producing music is unlimited, then possession of music is also unlimited (and no DRM should attempt to change this). However, population is not unlimited. So, if someone does not pay for a song, then its price has been substracted from the total potential revenue (since unlimited production is a new concept, we will have to introduce new terms). Oh, and the road example cannot apply here, because there is no limit as to how many time you drive on the same road.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Fett101:
How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.
Laukev7:
Sorry, I posted the same message again. Mea culpa.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
While I'm at it:
quote: How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.
--- End quote ---
Like I have been saying above.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
flap:
quote:The principle is an exchange of a product or a service for another, or for money.
--- End quote ---
Exactly. And in the case of copying music, the artist hasn't provided a service. They produced the work in the first place but they have had no part in the copying transaction.
quote: How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.
--- End quote ---
quote: So, if someone does not pay for a song, then its price has been substracted from the total potential revenue
--- End quote ---
This is the point that you all keep making over and over, without realising that I'm insisting that artists shouldn't have the right to be paid for every copy of their work that is made. Just as someone who installs a door in a building doesn't implicitly have the right to be paid everytime someone walks through it. Artists need to earn a living and should be reimbursed, but there is no justifying their moral right to exact money from a person everytime a new copy of their work is distributed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version