But there are lots of things we don't need.

That is a pretty weak argument.

Granted food is infinitely more tangible than digital information. But can I just demand at Dunkin Donuts to get my coffee for free? I don't need to drink coffee in particular for my survival. I could just find some water in nature I suppose.

Sigh. Music is not a "product". Music is art. A musical CD and jewel case is a product. The food analogy does not pass any simple test of logic.

i disagree with buff on the principle of music should not make $. methinks its based in his socialist thoughts though. i do agree in the sense that i don't necessarily like the subsidization of artists, but even on that i have trouble because i like pbs, so i'd really have to examine the issue a little more closely. i haven't looked closely enough at the issue to form a real opinion on it.

No, to YOU music is not a product and you use that to justify why you dont pay for it.

IF the artist doesnt want to charge for his or her product, more power to him... but if you take that product that he expects to be paid for, without his consent and without paying for it, you are doing nothing more than stealing.

If you dont like the food analogy, lets try this...
We all enjoy sex. Sex is something you shouldnt have to pay for... Everyone enjoys having sex, much like we all enjoy music... so if the girl WANTS you to have the sex, she will give the sex to you.... But if she doesnt want to give it to you, and you take it anyways, its rape.

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the food argument. I didn't really want to work with it myself but it was already brought up.

I just think the part of the argument that it is a luxury and shouldn't be paid for is incredibly flawed.

Think about this. tyler works at his job. Whether or not he loves it, the work he does has a natural monetary value because his employers pay him to do it. Bread has a natural monetary value because it takes resources to make it, and when you buy bread, it is expending those resources and they are no longer there.

Music, like all art, does not have a natural monetary value. Observing a piece of art is equivalent to consuming a loaf of bread, but you have not used any resources by observing art. Every person on this planet could listen to a piece of music broadcasted on worldwide loudspeakers and that doesn't consume any more resources than one person listening to that piece of music in private.

Art's monetary value comes from what people are willing to pay to observe it, just like tyler's job has value based on what his company is willing to pay for his work. The value of art itself has nothing to do with the value of a physical copy of that art. The only reason we are ingrained to think that physical copies of art naturally include the cost of some kind of intrinsic value is because of intellectual property laws. These are nothing more than legal constructs telling us art is worth such and such amount of money.

Thus, the cost of art is artificially supported by a legal construct. It just so happens that this legal construct is totally outdated and does not apply to our modern society. Art has a value of what people are willing to pay for it, and people are clearly not willing to pay as much as the establishment wants to be paid for it. And to this I say, too fucking bad.

The value of art has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is a luxury or not. There is nothing about that food argument that isn't flawed, really, and I don't think it's worth discussing further.

I agree.

No, you can't go into D&D and demand coffee. But you can grow your own coffee and brew it yourself. You're not paying for coffe at D&D, you're paying for their coffee. And D&D will allow you to sample their coffee for free before becoming a customer. That's kind of how I feel with the topic at hand. You should be able to listen for free, and you should support the musicians you enjoy. If you're a fan of the music, buy the album and tickets to the show if/when they come to your area. Half the albums I own on disc were illegally DL'ed first. Half the albums I've DL'ed have never been purchased. I think I've been fair.

You can go into D&D and demand free coffee... and they'll tell you to blow it out your ass. They may let you sample it.
A small cup.
Not the whole thing.
Not enough for you to take it home and never actually purchase the product....
And if the sample isnt enough for you?
Then you are free to NOT buy dunkin donuts coffee... and maybe even make it youself... but thats not what you want... If you wanted what you could make at home, you wouldnt have looked at dunkin donuts in the first place.

Might as well start a new thread to talk about all of these examples, because they have basically no relation to the topic of this thread or music piracy. As much as random analogies are fun, they have to be logically equivalent to make any sense, and if it is beyond your capability to create such appropriate analogies, it's best not to do it at all.

Is there any evidence to this or is it just personal experience?

I download music freely from the internet like everyone else. But anyone who says it isn't stealing is fooling themselves. I steal music.

I download music daily. If I like it I'm going to buy it, if I don't buy it I'm going to trash it. The albums I buy, I wouldn't have bought them if I hadn't been able to listen to them. How's that stealing?

You dont know if a candy bar is good, so the 1st one you steal to try. If you like it, you will buy more of it, but doesnt change that fact that you stole the 1st.

Because you took something that you're supposed to pay for, and didn't pay for it.

You can't go into a movie theatre for free and then decide if you want to pay on the way out.

What a terrible analogy, again.

You got the point. I dont have any problem about downloading musc either, but i dont try to doublethink myself.

Well, actually, downloading music in some cases is stealing. It depends on the label or who published the music. So I should clarify my position.

Downloading is morally wrong insofar as it is stealing, but downloading music should not be considered stealing. It is only stealing because of intellectual property laws that allow people to "own" art. Theoretically speaking, you can't steal art any more than you can steal words or images. Now if you use them and give credit to yourself you are plagiarising, but plagiarising is not the same as stealing. Plagiarising is morally wrong and it applies to art, but downloading music is not plagiarising.

Sorry but there was no point to get at all. There is no 1st candy and more candy, it's the same fucking candy all the way and it's still there even after I supposedly "stole" it.

If we're going to resort to analogies to make our points, I'll say the internet is like a good friend who owns an awesome music store. When I come to visit him he lets me listen to anything I want as much as I want and then I'll buy what I like.

ANALOGY BATTLE!