[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Well I'm sorry for being 'stunningly naive" but I'm sick of people saying that downloading = shoplifting.

Have you considered that maybe people keep saying it because it's true? If you illegally download and keep a product that's only been made available by it's copyright owners for purchase, then you have stolen it.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I know that some people will think that every download = one lost sale, but that's simply not true. A kid who has 10,000 albums and downloads 10,000 more that he never intends to listen to is not then causing the music industry $150,000 worth of damage.

I absolutely agree, and have said as much earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

The actual figure would probably be about $0.

On this, I disagree. It's fair to assume that a certain portion of the illegally downloaded files in most people's collections are indeed representative of lost sales.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I meant in terms of the artist, not the consumer. When I download an album that I didn't intend to purchase, how much money is the artist losing? Could they actually be making money from that? Hard to say isn't it?

Let's focus on the actual problem I have here, which is that there are tons of people out there who download albums for free simply because they can do it rather than having to pay. I listen to music in my office a lot, and I've had many people pop in to say "that sounds really cool - can you burn me a copy?" And when I tell them that I have kind of a rule about not doing that, they look at me confused, like they have no idea why someone wouldn't just make free copies of an album for all their friends. So my impression is that a huge percentage of people do this with far less consideration of the consequences than most people in these forums seem to have.

That being said, your questions above aren't really that hard to answer. One, there are many ways to be exposed to hearing music we would have otherwise never purchased, but none of them justify theft. Back when I used to frequent more record stores, I was constantly hearing them play something I had never heard of, and would find and buy it right there and then. That's how I came across some of my favorite groups as a matter of fact, like One Dove, Voices of Kwahn, and many others. But there's a crucial difference now with illegal downloads, which is that instead of hearing it being played in a store and then buying their own copy, people download something they've never heard of, like it, and then simply never pay for it. You mentioned earlier that you downloaded some Primal Scream albums which led you to attend one of their concerts. I assume that means you enjoyed the albums, yes? So then did you ever buy official copies of them?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Understood. But the fact of the matter is that Kid A NEVER would have hit #1 if not for illegal, immoral, and selfish theft. That makes this not such a black and white issue.

Not sure how you can assert this as fact.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Naaah, I'm actually pretty good about buying albums from bands I actually do like and supporting the artists that I'm a big fan of. If you want to argue that it's illegal or unethical, that's one thing. But that's not the logic I'm trying to use here. I'm just arguing that it's not as black and white as *actual* theft.

What does that mean, "*actual* theft"? The act of stealing is taking "another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it". Illegally downloading music is taking another person's intellectual property without permission or legal right, and many people do it without any intent to pay for it. What's not "*actual* theft" about that? And seriously, the fact that a digital file is non-physical and therefore as a format has no inherent value, does not in any way discount the fact that there is inherent value to the music itself, and that said music is legally owned by it's creator or whoever happens to possess the copyrights. So saying you've taken nothing of any value is false.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Consider these scenarios:

1. A guy who has never heard of your band is burned a copy of the CD by a friend, and then buys a ticket to a show.
2. Someone sneaks into a non-sold out concert, likes the music, and buys a T-shirt
3. Someone downloads a copy of a certain software, but likes it enough to buy the next version when it comes out.

Now, according to what you're saying, all three of these people are immoral, selfish, and acting outside the law.

In these instances, yes. They are behaving in immoral, selfish, and illegal ways.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

However in all three cases, the artist/band/software company has made money from this behavior at NO COST.

I disagree. In your first point, once again, you're only weighing the cost of the physical medium itself. You're ignoring the fact that the creation, distribution, and marketing of the music indeed constitutes a "cost" for the artist who's being ripped off, not just the medium it's released on.

In your second point, your hypothetical person has denied the artist return on their investment in booking the venue, paying the band members, lighting set-ups, roadies, transportation, live performance equipment, etc, etc. Buying a t-shirt helps defray the cost of designing and manufacturing merchandise, but not the concert.

Your third point about illegally downloading software was already addressed as well. When you buy software, you're helping pay for all the costs that have gone into developing and marketing that software. When you subsequently purchase upgrades, you're helping pay for all the additional research and development that's gone into improving the program.

So ultimately, in all three scenarios, you're bizarrely trying to justify stealing one thing by paying for another. That just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You're not the one who decides what you should pay for and what you should take for free - the people who own and provide the goods and services in question are. What in the world would make you feel like you're entitled to steal something from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on down the road?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm not saying downloading music is ethically sound. I know it would be bad if EVERYONE did it and nobody bought CDs. But that's just not what's happening now and probably not what's going to happen in the future

But it's happening enough that it's hurting artists - smaller independent artists in particular. And the attitudes towards illegal downloading seem to be getting more and more flippant, which doesn't bode well for future artists.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

You can be upset that your friends are no longer able to make music because they only sold 1,000 copies of a disc due to everyone downloading. But how do you know that the disc wouldn't have sold only 500 if nobody downloaded it?

I can't be certain exactly how much it cost them, but I do know that one of the singles in question actually charted in the UK, so it's popularity certainly wasn't reflected in it's sales (or lack thereof).