[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

And why not? If indeed the choices are 5,000 sold or 10,000 sold and 10,000 taken for free, you'd honestly choose the 5,000? If you say no, then there IS some justification for filesharing. As illegal and immoral as you want to see it, it's not an obvious netgative.

I'm not even arguing that it doesn't have its consequences. Obviously it does. But it not as though I'm going to just download everything because I can. I realize that if I really do want some movie or album I should pay for it. At the same time I'm not feeling guilty if I d/l something that I never would have bought anyways as a means of gauging interest, as though I went into the guy's house and took some of his property.

Well then it's pretty unclear to me what you're arguing. In your above question, if I knew for a fact that I could have 10,000 sold as a result of 10,000 taken for free, sure I'd choose that. Who wouldn't? But there's no way of knowing that up front, and unfortunately, I've ONLY had the opposite actually happen to me and the musicians I've worked with directly. I've been hired to do remixes, the singles they were on were released, sales were low while the illegal filesharing the label tracked was high, and the label had to subsequently shut down because they were unable to pay the remixers they hired, their own employees, and themselves. How many of those shared files would have been legitimate sales as opposed to "sampling" style downloads? I have no way of knowing, but it's probably safe to assume that a decent percentage of them would have been. Say 10 or maybe 20%? Probably enough to at least pay the remixing fees to the people who created the intellectual property on the releases.

So again, as I've acknowledged all along, some people have benefitted from illegal file sharing. All I'm arguing is that others have been seriously hurt by it, and I personally don't feel it's right to gamble with other people's livelihoods by saying "downloading this illegally might very well hurt this artist, but it might help them too, so I'm willing to take that chance!" Take this kind of chance with your own career if you'd like, but not with someone else's. And I don't know exactly what you're trying to argue because you claim to pay for any music you have in order to support the artists you like. So why do you do that if you're so adamant about how awesome illegal downloading has been for so many artists, how the gray area makes it impossible to know if it's really hurting anyone, and even that illegal downloading "hurts no one"?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Yes, but the notion of property is entirely granted by the government. It looks like you're arguing on a legal standpoint as you never said anything about used CDs, which AFAIK 'hurt' the artist just as much as downloading.

Used CDs have their own specific issues to weigh, some legal, and some practical. Many CDs in used shops have been sold or traded to the store by the original owner, and from a legal standpoint, that's allowed under the first sale doctrine. First sale doctrine basically states that you have the freedom to do certain things with your particular copy of a CD once you've gained legal possession of it from the original copyright owner. Included in those rights is reselling it. You also frequently see "for promotional use only" stickers on many of the CDs in used shops. These copies are virtually guaranteed to have at least been in the hands of people who can effectively promote the intellectual property contained on the CD - DJs, radio stations, whoever - so by the time they've
hit the shelves of a used CD shop, they've probably already paid for themselves plus some. So there are a different set of issues to be discussed in the case of used CDs, although I do agree that abuse of these rights can obviously be capable of hurting some artists as well. Practically speaking though, I don't think it was ever as rampant an issue as illegal downloading is today.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I do think file sharing can hurt smaller artists. I really do. PROVING it is another obsticle altogether. Were the artists hurt because they didn't sell enough or did they feel bad because their copyrights were stomped on? If it's the former, how do you prove that filesharing caused the album to not sell as projected as opposed to poor marketing/general disinterest/lousy quality? Albums and movies flopped long before filesharing ever took place. I don't disagree that filesharing could be the reason. I am arguing that it may not be, or in fact could have led to bigger sales than you expected.

So in some strange way, we basically agree. It could help some people, yes, but it also hurts others. And as long as people continue perpetuating the attitude that there's nothing wrong with it, the potential for more people to get hurt increases.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Doesn't this just show the RIAA/MPAA's willingness to bend their definitions to fit their goals more than anything?

It doesn't just bend the definitions - they're flat out lying. That's part of why your similar stance on this confuses me. I'm not saying you're lying, but their stance doesn't stand up to any logic or scrutiny, and your stance takes a similar approach to the subject. Meanwhile, artists keep getting screwed out of money that should rightfully be theirs by both big businesses and individual consumers.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Well, jaywalking is a crime too. Should I stop trying to justify my jaywalking? Seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's the only way to walk. You're right, victims are not thankful for being on the receiving end of a crime. But when it comes to filesharing, some people are. Maybe this is an indication that there is some gray area?

I never said there was no gray area in the overall affects of illegal file sharing. I've only said that people need to realize it is undeniably hurting some smaller artists. I don't know how many times and ways I have to say that before it's clear. People shouldn't just download whatever they want for free thinking that it's somehow a victimless crime, or that they're even some kind of Robin Hood for sticking it to those rich labels and musicians - and a lot of people do that these days. Period. That's my argument.

.