Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Maybe I said this in a different thread. Two reasons..
1. Stealing is bad. For the victim, the perpetrator, and society. I hope I don't have to elaborate on this point.
2. If too many people either think stealing is good, or won't admit that stealing is stealing, then the rest of society has to respond. In this response everyone is going to lose something, privacy, access, convenience ,etc. This pisses me off.
And no I don't work for the RIAA or any entity or business that is affected in any way other than the 2 things above. I will admit that some of my comments might be somewhat over the top in terms of how much I really care about this issue, but that's because I hope people will think about the issue in terms of what it really is. I've heard too much rationalization and denial, which happens probably because most people don't like to admit they are hurting someone or society in general when they break the law.
I can remember as a kid I had a friend who went in the drugstore and stole some candy. I decided to do it too and stole some gum. At first I thought it was cool to get the gum free but the next time I bought some gum I felt better about it and enjoyed it more. Seriously. Of course this was 40 years ago and maybe times were different. I don't really believe that though, and man, I sure hope it isn't true.
That is what worries me. I get the impression that the number of people who feel fine about taking something for free that they are legally supposed to pay for, is growing.
Again, I think that a very important distinction should be made that's not being made. Taking copyrighted work through piracy is NOT legally stealing; ethically, it may be the same thing. Ethically, it's a matter of opinion, and my opinion happens to be that piracy is NOT stealing. You're entitled to your own opinion. Legally, you do not prosecute someone for "stealing" copyrighted works, but "pirating" them. There's a HUGE difference, really: pirating assumes that there is a definite loss that occurred due to stolen creative works.
Though, it's purely hypothetical, because no actual loss occurred. It's a "well, maybe if so and so bought it instead of getting it for free, we would've made money on them." The big assumption is that they would have bought the property, if they couldn't get it for free. This is a rather large assumption, and the courts will side in your favor if your prove that loss has indeed occurred.
I'm making this distinction, because some people use P2P for sampling - a lot of people, actually. They DO NOT have the convenience of listening to a wide variety of songs any other way; be they radio, TV, or the stores. You simply cannot get an idea of certain music - only the most popular. The music industry has, in reality, a very limited venue for sampling music. Do I want to support a good band? Yes. Do I necessarily want the crap that is "popular" at the moment? No. How do I know what's good without sampling? I have no idea. Yes, I DO still buy CDs and DVDs. Why? The quality IS better, the extras you get, plus paying someone for what they deserve. Honestly, half the media I buy I wouldn't buy, because I wouldn't be aware of it.
I do enjoy the creative arts, and I consider it a necessary part of any human being's enrichment. This is why the creative arts have existed since we practically started walking. Unfortunately, the RIAA and the MPAA control a large majority of the creative arts in the U.S. If I decided to boycott them entirely I lose access to a HUGE majoriy of creative works. I don't have money to protest legally, and peaceful protests have gone in vain (letters, campaigns, petitions, etc.). I need them to realize what I want, and they do not want to realize my needs. Any efficent business suits to the customer's needs, but the media giants make us suit to their needs.