>It is just a way to get things for free with a (very small) chance of any repercussions. If some new magic technology was invented overnight, and the risk of being sued went up to 99% every time you tried to download something in violation of copyright I think this 'moral code' would disappear quite quickly. This is a cover up for 'I want free shit, and I am not going to get in trouble, so I do it'.
What I'm saying is that these repercussions are completely unjustified and morally wrong. Appeals to (imaginary, and quite frankly, impossible) force don't change that. You're essentially saying the same as "If being gay was against the law and we had the power to crack down on gay people, that would make being gay wrong".
>How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to download for free and get their permission to copy their art first?
I must present you with a counter-question instead: based on what moral authority should an artist (or anyone else) be allowed to forbid me to copy art?
Let me say it again: there's nothing more inherently good and natural than sharing. If you are opposed to sharing (of a truly non-scarce resource, at that), then it's you who's arguing against one of, if not the most universally accepted ethical practice of humanity.
Take note that nobody can be forced to share. The opposite, however, holds true as well: you can't force people to stop sharing. Or to put it in another, polemic way: if you don't want people to share your art, lock it up in your basement and never show it to anyone.
>They created their work for your entertainment, it should be their decision to say weather you can have it for free, or for a price.
I don't see why. Sure, they can charge people for distribution done by themselves if they so chose. That doesn't mean they have any authority to tell people who acquired a copy to further share said copy, with or without compensation.
You believe it is your right to get someone elses hard earned work for free, just because it is only a few clicks away and without consequence, and also ignore their wishes if they ask to be compensated?
Logical conclusion: We can consider whatever you do 9-5 to pay the bills also as your 'art'. I as your boss now decree that you are entitled to $0 compensation this month.
You are extremely happy now yes, because 'art wants to be free'?
Don't be ridiculous. There is an employer/employee contract about getting paid what you were promised. Has nothing to do with what you did. They could have had you do absolutely nothing but sit in a chair and wait for a week because there was no job to do and you still get paid.
But if you shovel a walkway the adjacent store gets to use it without paying a dime.
The artist is promised a cut of a sale of an album when it is purchased, since it is being copied (which is still illegal if I'm not mistaken) and not purchased he isn't getting paid either. Hence he should be getting paid for his work.
It seems the sentiment has become one of: since music and movies are easy enough to copy online without me getting in trouble, and for free, the price of art should also drop to zero as a whole. This doesn't look like something anyone in the music or movie industry would think is a good thing would it?
But nobody at all promised to purchase the album. That's the difference. An employer agreed upfront to purchase your work. I could promise you a cut of just about any action, and you wouldn't ipso facto be morally owed people performing that action.
What matters is not what an industry thinks, but what is best for society. I personally think a couple decades of copyright is a good thing but it does not equate to employment.
I don't really equate the fact that music has become easy to copy that the expectation is you shouldn't have to pay for it anymore if you don't feel like it, and that is best for society.
I'm sorry, it's impossible to argue rationally with you. You make fallacious assumptions, jump to (illogical) conclusions and I feel that you are just one step short of accusing me to be a petty thief. You aren't even trying to understand what I am arguing.
Why? Because you say so? I don't think so.
>It is just a way to get things for free with a (very small) chance of any repercussions. If some new magic technology was invented overnight, and the risk of being sued went up to 99% every time you tried to download something in violation of copyright I think this 'moral code' would disappear quite quickly. This is a cover up for 'I want free shit, and I am not going to get in trouble, so I do it'.
What I'm saying is that these repercussions are completely unjustified and morally wrong. Appeals to (imaginary, and quite frankly, impossible) force don't change that. You're essentially saying the same as "If being gay was against the law and we had the power to crack down on gay people, that would make being gay wrong".
>How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to download for free and get their permission to copy their art first?
I must present you with a counter-question instead: based on what moral authority should an artist (or anyone else) be allowed to forbid me to copy art?
Let me say it again: there's nothing more inherently good and natural than sharing. If you are opposed to sharing (of a truly non-scarce resource, at that), then it's you who's arguing against one of, if not the most universally accepted ethical practice of humanity.
Take note that nobody can be forced to share. The opposite, however, holds true as well: you can't force people to stop sharing. Or to put it in another, polemic way: if you don't want people to share your art, lock it up in your basement and never show it to anyone.
>They created their work for your entertainment, it should be their decision to say weather you can have it for free, or for a price.
I don't see why. Sure, they can charge people for distribution done by themselves if they so chose. That doesn't mean they have any authority to tell people who acquired a copy to further share said copy, with or without compensation.