[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Nobody ever died because someone else downloaded an MP3!

That actually has nothing to do with the legality/morality of stealing copywritten material. I guess it may serve as a diversion, if you are successful in derailing this discussion in that direction. You tried once, and it was immaterial to the discussion. Now let's throw some death in the mix, from a totaly unrelated activity, in a further effort to distract from the fact that "filesharing" is stealing. Period.

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Some things that are grossly neglected in a lot of the arguments against filesharing:

1) Is it "lost revenue" if the "perpetrator" would have never purchased the music in the first place? The RIAA, MPAA, et al seem to think so, but they have a vested interest in equating every download of one of their products as a lost sale. I call BS.

Well, um, yes - they have a vested interest in you stealing their stuff. And, dang it, they just might be upset about that. So you argue the details as to just how damaging your theft may be to them, claiming they have blown it out of proportion. So, effectively your argument is thus: my theft of their material does not hurt them as badly as they claim, so my theft is really o.k.

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

2) Actual "theft" can be turned to a benefit for the perpetrator by fencing the stolen goods. Please show me examples of filesharers who have turned a financial profit out of their downloaded music/video/whatever

You demand examples of the above, yet cannot provide examples of what you say below.

Many thieves keep what they steal. The mere fact that they do not turn all of it for profit does not lessen the crime. It should not take much imagination to come up with a few example all by yourself.

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

3) Some studies have shown that downloading actually leads to INCREASED purchasing of music. I know for a fact that this is true in some cases, though I do not have the numbers available to prove it on a large scale one way or the other.

Some artists realize this and allow it, or even encourage it. That is their prerogative. It is not a decision you can make for them, however, to justify stealing their material.

Originally Posted by svandamme

if i steal somebody's 911, he no longer has his 911. He owns everything he owned before, minus one 911.

if i copy mp3 from the Beatles, not one Beatle will own anything less compared to the moment right before the copy was made. (Unless Macca just happens to be divorcing again).

Hence, it's not stealing, that's just the propaganda machine trying to demonize the act of making a copy.

So, if your employer decides not to pay you for your work, that would not be "stealing" by your logic. After all, you have nothing less than you did beforehand. If you are a landlord, and a tenant does not pay, that is not stealing, either - again, you have nothing less than you had before - he took nothing from you.

We could go on all day with these easily refuted justifications for this kind of theft. Fact of the matter is, this material is produced for profit unless the artist says otherwise. Taking it from them, without paying them for it, is stealing. It's really pretty simple. No matter how many obtuse courses of justification you embark upon, you are taking someone's product for which you have not paid.