[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Okay, in that case, buying a used album is also immoral and selfish, because I didn't pay the creator/owner. It's not as cut and dry as 'they do have value' or 'they don't'. The reason why I use the example of downloading some obscene amount of music is to show the way in which they DON'T have value. Say I make a song and decide to sell it for 99 cents. What is that file worth? 99 cents multiplied by what? The amount of people who want to buy it? Say I make 10,000 copies of that file, what's it worth now? We're not talking about commissioned works or anything like that. Downloading music doesn't take it away from them.

Well, you're clearly not willing to accept that there is an inherent debt owed to someone's who's work you have illegally obtained despite it's legal availability. The fact that we're discussing a digital file versus a physical product is fundamentally irrelevant, and I've given numerous reasons why. Repeating myself is getting extremely boring, so that's that.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

That analogy doesn't work at all. I'm on a salary. Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music.

What a cop-out. The analogy is appropriate enough to illustrate a valid point. Your contract (assuming you have one) stipulates that you get compensated with a certain amount of money in return for each week's work. It's not within your employer's rights to arbitrarily decide that they're only going to pay you for the work you did on Monday and Friday. Musicians have copyrights instead of contracts to guarantee that they get compensated for their work. Neither you or anyone else has the right to arbitrarily decide that you're only going to pay for two of the five files you're downloading from them.

And no, "they aren't entitled to money just because they made some music", but they are legally entitled to money if you've taken possession of that music once they've made it available for purchase.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Lets say the disc and the ticket are $10 each. Scenario 1: before filesharing, guy does not get burned disc and does not go to the show. Artist is owed $0. Artist gets $0. Scenario 2: after filesharing, guy gets disc and goes. Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $10.

You left out the final element of scenario 2: "Artist has been robbed of other $10", as well as "Scenario 3: Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $20." Imagine that. Interesting that scenario 3 didn't even make your list....

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Artist did the same amount of work both times. Yes, he was owed more, but he's getting something, and if not for this activity he would get nothing. Multiply this by a thousand and you can see how filesharing could be keeping artists alive.

I see. So then to paraphrase, "Hey music-man - you did 'x' amount of work, for which you are charging $20. Well, screw that - I've determined that $10 is sufficient, so take it and be thankful you got anything at all." Nice. On behalf of myself and all the other professional artists out there, I'd like to not thank you.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

"Of course you didn't respond"...are you trying to make a point or win an argument?

Just wanted a response to the central point I was making, because it appeared that you were dodging it.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Again my answer is that I don't really feel like I'm 'entitled' to it, but I don't feel it's stealing either. It does justify it in my mind to know that the artists directly profit from what I'm doing and would not profit at all if I had not.

Okay, so then you believe it's okay to steal one thing from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on. I'm not, and neither are those who are being hurt by having their work stolen from them. Thanks to folks with similar beliefs to yours that this is somehow "not stealing", artists will continue to be hurt by this behavior whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Would any artist be seriously upset if someone who had never heard of the band downloaded two albums and bought one??

Holy crap - that's what I've been saying has happened to musicians I personally know, not to mention to me directly! If it meant being robbed of the money they needed to keep their label running, or of being able to continue having a career in music, then abso-freakin'-lutely they (and I) would be (and are) upset! That you can actually sit there in the face of a professional musician who's telling you it specifically happened to them and to other professional musicians they know, and yet you still insist that there's no problem, is simply stunning!

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Of course, look I know I do MY part, but the thing is it's not going away. The public at large is gonna download because they're sick of being ripped off by the record companies, and of course the fact that many albums simply aren't available anymore. I remember asking for some obscure UW B-side on this very site a few years back, something way out of print, and instead what I got was an eBay link. Look, I understand not wanting to participate in filesharing on a forum like this, but the song isn't being sold, and probably won't in the future. Of course, you could argue that the song WILL be sold in the future and that's why I need to wait...fine, but why then direct me to a method that costs me money, lets someone else profit, and doesn't benefit the band at all?

Out of print stuff is another issue entirely. You're not hurting the artist if you're getting a free copy of something that's not even available to purchase. All I've been talking about is music that people choose to download for free despite it being readily available to legally purchase.

Think I'm done with this thread for a while. Not sure what more can be said than already has been. If people aren't getting it at this point, then it's probably not gonna be got.