[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Well, you're one of the only ones I've ever heard claim it who didn't work for the RIAA, so I kind of take it with a grain of salt...

I'm not the only one who asserts this definition of theft. The dictionary does too.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

So would you also agree that home taping kills music too? They seem like the same concept to me.

They're different.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

And then would you agree that deleting the MP3 files after you listen to them would be 'returning' the file?

Essentially, yes. If you downloaded music just to check it out and subsequently decided you didn't like it, then just delete the file. You don't share it on a P2P/torrent site, or keep it because you "would never have bought it anyway" - it's not yours to do these things with. On the other hand, if you ended up liking it and wanting to add it to your collection permanently, then go buy an official copy to keep.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I know that the physical medium is not the ONLY cost. I'm not sure why you keep pressing this point as it's pretty obvious.

Are you for real? Why do I keep pressing the point that the cost involved in creating music goes far beyond the medium it's presented in? Because you keep insisting that digital music files have "zero" value! Whether you're being charged for a CD or a digital file, your payment goes towards defraying the costs of production, marketing, distribution, and possibly even turning a profit. So once you've taken possession of copyrighted music that's being sold by it's creator/owner, you owe them money. If you don't pay them, then you have taken that money from them. It is no longer your money - it's theirs, and keeping it is theft.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Are you arguing that the 'theft' here is directly hurting this artist?

Yes.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Is 0 CD sales and 0 ticket sales somehow better than 0 CD sales and 1 ticket?

That's not the question. Of course the one ticket is a legitimate purchase that helps the artist out. But the stolen CD still doesn't. Why should artists be satisfied with only being paid a fraction of what's legally owed them? Because it's better than nothing? Bull ca-ca. Who else in the world would ever be expected to settle for that? Would you? If your employer only paid you for 2 days out of a 5 day work week and tried to justify it by saying "it's better than not getting paid at all", would you just respond with, "well that's true" and walk away, satisfied with the situation? After all, they haven't taken anything physical from you - only lines of code, or whatever you develop at the software company where you work. All they did was take your digital work without paying, so no one gets hurt, right? I doubt you would feel this argument was justified. Artists shouldn't be on the receiving end of such nonsense either.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Second point: pretty sure artists profit from their merchandise.

Yeah....if you take a second look, you'll see that I totally agreed the t-shirt sale gives the artist money. But that's a separate issue from the fact that they've been robbed of money for the concert. It's still denying the artist compensation that they're owed despite the t-shirt sale.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Third point: I still think you're kind of missing the point here. I AM AWARE that software has a cost. I'm a software developer for crying out loud.

Of course you didn't respond at all to the fundamental problem I raised that runs through all three of your hypothetical examples, which is what I said earlier: "...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

When you say these arguments don't hold up to any scrutiny, I suppose you mean in a legal debate, or maybe a moral debate...

Wait a second - you agree that it's legally wrong, and you agree that it's morally wrong? So then what are you fighting me on?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

...but if you're talking real world, I think this argument holds up very well.

The real world is dependent on a society that adheres to legal and moral standards to function effectively, so I fail to see how the legal and moral justifications for my arguments are somehow irrelevant.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

If illegal downloading is killing everything, what do you suggest we do about it? Outlaw the internet? Ban CD-Rs? Ban iPods? Sue poor college students for millions of dollars? Is there a solution?

"Killing everything"? Where exactly did I say that? Please quote me on it if you're going to assert it.

As for what we should do about it, how about reasonably enforcing copyright laws? How about exercising personal responsibility in the ways we obtain our music? How about showing some common respect for the artists who's work we enjoy? You know, crazy stuff like that...