Uechi-Ryu.com

I was giong to wait and make a post tomorrow, but I thought I'd post this now in order to forestall the impending derailment of the other thread. I'll follow-up on it tomorrow.

Here's how it went:

Bill Glasheen:

College kids in many institutions have a shocking lack of ethics. Somehow they don't think it a crime to pirate software or digital music. But have someone steal their bike or stereo... That was one good thing about the University of Virginia. The single sanction honor system* made that a very different environment.

My reply:

I believe the crime you're referring to is copyright infringement. As I'm sure you recognize, there are some important differences between copyright infringement and theft of material posessions. Maybe I'll start a new thread on this.

Panther's reply:

Being an engineer who holds patents, designs hardware and software for a living, and being a musician with a degree in classical and jazz composition and CDs pressed...

Copyright infringement IS theft of tangible material!

Don't want to pay (even once) for the SW or HW... write, design, do the research & development and pay the costs to produce or build your own.
Don't want to pay (even once) for some music... write, play, produce, record and listen to your own.

I knew about Napster-type sharing in a number of iterations... there are still programs and ways out there to do that. I also freely shared work with those who were willing to reciprocate. But if I want to hear a song, I'll go to the concert or buy the album... and if I want to see a movie, I'll go to the theatre or buy the DVD. The whole idea that there is a grey area between theft and stealing is based on a subjective morality that is lost on the vast majority of people. While there may be a grey area in some instances, we aren't talking about people who are taking something for pure survival of themselves or their family. I can relate to Bill... When I went through college for my degree in music, my food budget was three subs (grinders, whatever you want to call them) a week. I had 1/4 of one Mon-Thurs, 1/2 of one on Fri-Sat, and "treated" myself to a whole one on Sunday. I couldn't even afford the cafeteria food at the college... cost more than the local sub shop. I dropped to the weight I was in 6th grade. And I never thought of stealing anything to eat or of stealing my school books which were where my main budget went.

Aren't they making it now so that even if you buy the music you aren't allowed to make backups or copies for archival purposes? If I buy a CD I'd like to also be able to listen to the music on my computer without having to swap CDs all the time. The good old DMCA makes this illegal doesn't it? (I just might have my facts wrong though).

Unforunately, on the subject of its morality, you and I may be at an impasse, Panther. To oversimply, I believe that an act is only immoral if it causes harm. It's actually more complex than that, of course, but that's the basis for my argument that copyright infringement is not neccesarily wrong.

If you wish to simply dismiss my argument outright as an example of the evils of subjective morality then that's fine, but it may mean there's not much for you and I to talk about on this subject.

Copyright infringement IS theft of tangible material!

I disagree. Theft of tangible material requires that some physical object is taken from one person into another person's possession, without the former's consent. Copyright infringement is closer to theft of service. However, theft of service is usually applied to internet service, basic utilities and other such situations in which the service provider is directly burdened by the unauthorized use of that service.

Copyright infringement is simply a different animal, even if you believe that there is always a consequent financial loss to the copyright owner. There are many other crimes that result in financial losses but are not theft, such as vandalism.
Note that I am not saying that simply because copyright infringement is not theft that it is morally acceptable. The question of definition only tangentially addresses the morality of it.

While copyright infringement is a legal term, I'm sure you're also familiar with the concept of fair use. This is a firmly established legal doctrine which defines situations in which it is legally sanctioned to use another's intellectual property without their consent, or even with their disapproval. Therefore, if you agree with fair use, then you already accept that copyright infringement is acceptable in certain circumstances.

Before I get into the morality of copyright infringement, I would just like to note for anyone who doesn't know that gnutella, FastTrack, BitTorrent and the numerous other filesharing networks are not identical with copyright infringement. They are used for general-purpose file transfer and archiving as well as trading songs, which is what most people think of when they hear about them. I would also note that there are reasons to think that sharing of music, as a form of ad-hoc advertising, increases sales.

That said, I would argue that trading songs does not, in all cases, cause harm to any party. In some cases, yes. If you are a person that routinely buys albums, but stop doing so because you download them instead, then, it is reasonable to describe your action as having deprived the copyright holder of a sale. But if you are a person person who never bought music, even before filesharing came along, then I fail to see what harm is caused by your action. In fact, if you spend the same amount after you start downloading on filesharing networks as you did before it doesn't seem to me that anybody is harmed by your having downloaded music in addition to that.

jkolb:

Aren't they making it now so that even if you buy the music you aren't allowed to make backups or copies for archival purposes? If I buy a CD I'd like to also be able to listen to the music on my computer without having to swap CDs all the time. The good old DMCA makes this illegal doesn't it? (I just might have my facts wrong though).

Well fair use has always allowed you to make backups and copies and that theoretically still exists. However, what the DMCA does is make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection schemes. What record companies have begun doing is putting copy-protection on CDs. So while it is theoretically legal to make a backup, it is illegal to break the copy-protection in order to do so, effectively preventing it. The DMCA is really a terrible piece of legislation, even if you assume that what it attempts to do is the right thing, because it's worded so vaguely and inhibits unarguably legitimate practices.

True, but it's hard for them to make sure you can't copy something that you can listen to. If you can listen to it, you can copy it. The intent is there, thought it's to broad...that's why napster could keep the case going on for sucha long time.

Artists and computer programmers have as much right to make a living as do folks who make physical objects for a living.

There is plenty of legislation out there protecting proper copying of material. Furthermore, the unit price of music is pretty darned cheap considering the number of plays you can get out of a CD. Forget the law - just do the right thing. I don't need to tell you what that little voice in your head already is telling you.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote:Artists and computer programmers have as much right to make a living as do folks who make physical objects for a living.

As amatter of fact I am a computer programmer myself. I agree that it should be a viable option to make a living (or a fortune) on creating intellectual property. I don't see filesharing, even of copyrighted works as something that invalidates that principle. Yes, if everyone who would otherwise buy chooses not to, then your point is valid. But if people get for free what they wouldn't buy anyway, where is the harm?

There is plenty of legislation out there protecting proper copying of material. Furthermore, the unit price of music is pretty darned cheap considering the number of plays you can get out of a CD. Forget the law - just do the right thing.

The price of CDs, software and all that is irrelevant, in my opinion. Whether the prices on such things are reasonable doesn't impact the morality of sharing or downloading them.

I don't need to tell you what that little voice in your head already is telling you.

I'm trying to make a general point here, not a personal one. I'm not trying to advocate for trading files, by any means, nor am I saying that I do so. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's morally objectionable, depending on the circumstances.

But if people get for free what they wouldn't buy anyway, where is the harm?

It's a fantasy to think that people will pay for something when they can get it for free. Ask the music industry how much piracy has hurt artists today. They will tell you something different.

Furthermore, those who wouldn't normally get something without paying for it have no right to get a product for free, and should not get a product for free. To think otherwise takes incentive out of our whole "land of opportunity" philosophy.

You, sir, are talking and thinking like a Communist. I've been there. As the old saying goes, any young person who isn't a Communist has no heart. Any older person who still is a Communist has no mind. What you say sounds like you're helping "the little guy." But it makes no sense. It flies in the face of behavioral research. Where there is little incentive to strive for a better existence (which kept me poor in school for many, many years), there is little in the way of innovation and productivity.

Personally I want the artists' rights protected here. I want more artists to know that they can make a living creating. The VAST MAJORITY of artists, Justin, barely scrape a living. That's a fact. I personally know several artists who struggle to make a living. I even gave one of them (Tara Lane of in clover) $1000 out of my own pocket to help her cover tens of thousands of dollars that it cost to cut a CD. (The only string attached was that I wanted her still to talk to me after she became famous.) Most must have day jobs to keep going - hence the saying "Don't quit your day job." If intellectual property rights were better protected, perhaps more of this poor majority could focus 100% of their time doing what they love best, and creating more good work. How cool would that be for those of us who enjoy the fruits of their labor?

Yes, let's be creative and make it possible for people legally to copy and collect music. That's the philosophy behind iPod and all its copycats. It's a roaring success, isn't it? But nothing in life should be free. Yes, an artist has a right to give and share his creative work. But (s)he should not be obligated to allow others to take it for free except for reasonable (legally protected) situations, such as when material is part of teaching and otherwise is out of print.

- Bill

P.S. Central Virginia, BTW, is the birthplace of Dave Matthews Band. We know our music!

Do me a favor, one and all.

Rather than worry about getting music for free, why not help a struggling artist? Start one at a time.

Go to www.roddyhart.com I saw him while in Minneapolis on Septeber 28th at the Fine Line Music Cafe. He was backup to the Trashcan Sinatras. Heard of either one of them? Probably not. They are both Scottish bands. The latter was the band that everyone there came to see. They were alright, I guess. But Roddy was incredible, and the Trashcan Sinatra fans weren't able to recognize that on first view. Do this fine lad a favor and order his CD online. And tell me what you think. You will not regret it.

Many, many years ago, I went to see Savoy Brown in concert at Virginia Beach, VA. There were 2 backup bands then. The first was John Baldry, famous for his boogie woogie rock and roll piano music. And the backup to the backup was an unknown band by the name of Fleetwood Mac. Go figure...

Give a struggling artist a break.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote: It's a fantasy to think that people will pay for something when they can get it for free.

I disagree. I'm assuming you mean the that the foregoing is true in the absence of a moral opposition. There's two points here. One, as I said, it's not right to download what you would have bought. That's a moral stricture, just like saying "it's not right to download music for free" is a moral stricture. Two, many people have about the same stance I do, and do buy albums.

Ask the music industry how much piracy has hurt artists today.

The music industry has never shown conclusive proof that filesharing is to blame for their downturn over the past few years. Furthermore, they inflate their statistics beyond all reason. Claiming, for example, that each download on a filesharing system represents a lost sale, which it clearly does not. I would not trust the RIAA any further than I could throw them.

You, sir, are talking and thinking like a Communist. I've been there. As the old saying goes, any young person who isn't a Communist has no heart. Any older person who still is a Communist has no mind.

Either I am heartless or old, because I am not a communist. Sometimes I wonder how these boards have managed to retain such a thorough cache of McCarthyism. I don't believe the government should take posession of or redistribute wealth, and that's not what I'm arguing for. At all.

What you say sounds like you're helping "the little guy." But it makes no sense. It flies in the face of behavioral research. Where there is little incentive to strive for a better existence (which kept me poor in school for many, many years), there is little in the way of innovation and productivity.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. It's not about helping the little guy. As I see it there's two possible outcomes in the situation I'm talking about:

Person A doesn't download a song and doesn't buy a song
or
Person A does download a song and doesn't buy a song.

Either way, there's no benefit to anybody but Person A. And person A's incentives are not disrupted, because they didn't have any incentive (with regards this song) to begin with. If they care enough that you could legitimately say they had some incentive to innovate or be productive, then they were morally obligated to pay to begin with.

The VAST MAJORITY of artists, Justin, barely scrape a living. That's a fact.
...
If intellectual property rights were better protected, perhaps more of this poor majority could focus 100% of their time doing what they love best, and creating more good work. How cool would that be for those of us who enjoy the fruits of their labor?

The VAST MAJORITY of artists don't have songs that are shared to begin with, and that's a fact as well. Many lesser-known artists support sharing of their songs because they know that it gets their music out there, which will net them more money in the long run. The people who tend to make a fuss about filesharing are the ones who are already exceedingly wealthy. That is not to say that their wealth is why it's acceptable to share songs by them. But it makes the point that filesharing is not something done at the expense of the poor starving artists.

But nothing in life should be free.

This argument seems to simply be an argument for spite. Why would you want to deprive someone of pleasure when it does no harm to you? Just out of principle? This makes no sense to me.

I think everything should be free, it's just that the real world does not allow for that possibility. But in the land of dreams, robots do all the physical work and humans are free to do whatever they want.

I can see we are at an impasse, Justin. We'll have to agree to disagree. Visit this issue over time, and see how your opinions evolve. They may not be static.

Either I am heartless or old, because I am not a communist. Sometimes I wonder how these boards have managed to retain such a thorough cache of McCarthyism. I don't believe the government should take posession of or redistribute wealth, and that's not what I'm arguing for. At all.

This is not McCarthyism, Justin. If the shoe fits, wear it. It isn't a pejorative per se, and I'm still going to be your friend if your political beliefs differ from my own. I'm not going to backball you or deny you services entitled to you by law. I just happen to have political beliefs that are different from communism. It's a value-free assertion.

Scotty roots for the Yankees. I don't like the Yankees, but Scotty's still the best in my book.

Person A doesn't download a song and doesn't buy a song
or
Person A does download a song and doesn't buy a song.

Either way, there's no benefit to anybody but Person A. And person A's incentives are not disrupted, because they didn't have any incentive (with regards this song) to begin with.

Your logic falls apart right here. It takes labor to download that song. So Person A obviously placed a value on the acquisition of the song that was equal to or greater than the value of the labor that it took to get it.

Trust me - many folks go through a LOT of trouble to download songs illegally. Time and effort is money.

Why don't they just pay for it? Because they want it, but not at the price that it's offered. I want a VW Touareg with a V10 TDI and a pneumatic suspension, but I am not willing to pay ~ $60K to get one. Maybe $40K, but they aren't going to give me one at that price. Too bad for me. Too bad for them.

Songs are services that have value. There is value in the creative act. There is value in the recording and production. There is even value in the analog to digital services, storage of the digital medium, etc., etc. Trust me - these things add up. I know because I store and manipulate data for a living. It takes money to keep all my engines going. "Lights on, doors open" are more expensive than you make it out to be.

That downloaded service has value. If you don't think it's worth the asking price, then you don't get the product, and I don't get the sale. That's the principle of our free market economy.

The VAST MAJORITY of artists don't have songs that are shared to begin with, and that's a fact as well.

I'm with you so far.

Many lesser-known artists support sharing of their songs because they know that it gets their music out there, which will net them more money in the long run.

Absolutely. That is THEIR business decision to make. It is a smart business practice - providing your songs are worth listening to more and there is something else you haven't released that they now want to buy.

The people who tend to make a fuss about filesharing are the ones who are already exceedingly wealthy.

Maybe you are right, and maybe you are wrong. My reaction is "So..."

That is not to say that their wealth is why it's acceptable to share songs by them. But it makes the point that filesharing is not something done at the expense of the poor starving artists.

I happen to disagree with you, but that is neither here nor there.

It is our prerogative as consumers to try to persuade vendors of services to give us these samplers to grease the purchasing skids. But we do not have a right to compell them to do so.

We can always walk. I am doing so with a vendor now as I type. (A software vendor.) Maybe by walking I get the vendor to lower the price. That might be good for both of us. Or maybe I get the product dirt cheap and the vendor goes out of business. That would be bad for both of us. But at least it is all legal, and we each were able to make our own choices in the matter. We were both in control of our destinies, and neither of our rights were violated.

Why would you want to deprive someone of pleasure when it does no harm to you? Just out of principle?

No, not JUST out of principle. However, principle alone will do if you are not otherwise convinced. I happen to believe that living a principled existence is virtue.

This makes no sense to me.

Apparently. Maybe one day it will.

I think everything should be free, it's just that the real world does not allow for that possibility.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote: Visit this issue over time, and see how your opinions evolve. They may not be static.

Definitely true. I welcome you to visit the issue over time to see how your own opinion may evolve as well.

If the shoe fits, wear it. It isn't a pejorative per se, and I'm still going to be your friend if your political beliefs differ from my own.

Well I appreciate that, and am glad for it, but the fact is that I do not think this particular shoe fits very well at all. I know a couple people who really are communists or socialists and I'm always arguing against their ideas that I think are wrong.

It's a value-free assertion.

Is it really, though? You might say "you have brown hair" and that I would believe is a value-free assertion. I think you were saying the bit about communism to tell me that I believe what I do because I'm young and naive, but I'll grow out of it.

Your logic falls apart right here. It takes labor to download that song. So Person A obviously placed a value on the acquisition of the song that was equal to or greater than the value of the labor that it took to get it.

Trust me - many folks go through a LOT of trouble to download songs illegally. Time and effort is money.

I disagree that time and effort is money. I find it to be a truism that is not, in fact, true. Yes, it is true that time and effort can be convert to money under the proper circumstances. But realistically, there's a lot of time that is simply not going to be money-making time.

The labor it takes to download a song is more comparable to the labor it takes to pick up the remote and turn on the TV. It's not particularly comparable to the money you would have made if you had gone and worked for however long it took you to do download the songs.

Why don't they just pay for it? Because they want it, but not at the price that it's offered. I want a VW Touareg with a V10 TDI and a pneumatic suspension, but I am not willing to pay ~ $60K to get one. Maybe $40K, but they aren't going to give me one at that price. Too bad for me. Too bad for them.
...
If you don't think it's worth the asking price, then you don't get the product, and I don't get the sale. That's the principle of our free market economy.

The fundamental difference though is that the company making the car loses something if they give the car away for free, or for less profit. The music industry loses nothing for an electronic duplication transacted between independant parties that would not have made a purchase.

One of the basic principles of a free market economy is that it costs the producer something to produce. When it came into existance as a political or philosophical ideal, the possibility of (near) 0-cost creation of goods (digital copies) did not exist. It is a fundamentally different entity than the production and sale of physical goods.

Songs are services that have value. There is value in the creative act. There is value in the recording and production.

There is a value, but you made the point yourself (what is it you like to say "you argue best when you argue my point"?) that the value is not something objectively set by the universe, it's a matter of personal opinion.

It takes money to keep all my engines going. "Lights on, doors open" are more expensive than you make it out to be.
[/quotes]

Downloading music doesn't cost anything over and above what you would pay anyhow. Computer, electricity, internet connection. Those are the requirements, and anybody who downloads music is going to have those things already.

But at least it is all legal, and we each were able to make our own choices in the matter. We were both in control of our destinies, and neither of our rights were violated.

I'm not making a legal point, since I think that is irrelevant. Also note that in Canada it is legal to share music (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5182641.html). The rights issue is important, but I don't think it's a fundamental human right to have control over ideas that you have distributed in some way to the world.

No, not JUST out of principle. However, principle alone will do if you are not otherwise convinced. I happen to believe that living a principled existence is virtue.

I definitely agree that living a principled existance is a virtue. But I don't agree that prohibiting people from enjoyment simply because you feel like it is a virtue.

Principle tells me that if I can bring benefit to someone else simply by not prohibitting them harmless activities, that I should. Telling someone they can't take enjoyment out of something just because I want to make their life a little less satisfying and therefore make them work harder seems wrong.

This is fun, BTW...

It's a value-free assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is it really, though? You might say "you have brown hair" and that I would believe is a value-free assertion. I think you were saying the bit about communism to tell me that I believe what I do because I'm young and naive, but I'll grow out of it.

I acknowledge that throwing a "communism" label around is fraught with unintended consequences. You win. No labels.

I disagree with the philosophy of forced sharing.

I disagree that time and effort is money.

At least we are clear where we disagree.

Look at it this way, Justin. Roddy Hart spends lots of time and effort traveling around the WORLD trying to get people hooked on his music so they will buy it. Listen to the Jackson Browne "One more song" or Bob Seager's "Turn the page." This is not glamorous.

The time and effort they spend doing all the things that make it possible for you to know of the existence of their music is time and effort they can spend on something else that will give them economic return. That's what economists call "opportunity cost." It gives all those efforts a fair market value of a sort.

If you are not willing to pay for all that, then Jackson Browne and Bob Seager maybe can make a living painting or even teaching music lessons. That would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?

Roddy Hart is struggling, and he's making great music. He deserves every penny of the price of a CD. He's probably on the verge of giving it all up, and my friend Tara Lane did (for now). Or maybe a few more people will buy some CDs. Roddy will be able to afford one more Big Mac at Burger Biggie, and not run around in a bonked mental state from calorie deprivation. Maybe he'll stick with it, and make a career out of it.

I certainly hope so.

The labor it takes to download a song is more comparable to the labor it takes to pick up the remote and turn on the TV. It's not particularly comparable to the money you would have made if you had gone and worked for however long it took you to do download the songs.

You are right, Justin. Both situations speak to a value for the services. One situation implies the value may be higher than the other. Ultimately the consumer and the producer of services come to an agreement on the unit price of those services - or not.

Let's speak to our world of perfect enforcement. If only one out of ten people pirating music would buy something, then that's a substantial amount of money that goes to the vendor. The vendor then has the ability to lower the unit cost and still be profitable. Lower the price a bit and then even MORE people jump in. This is called economies of scale.

By cheating the system, those people who perpetuate the venue actually make the unit price of the services HIGHER than they would be if everyone either bought or did without. Whoa...wait a second. That means that the cheater is cheating BOTH the supplier AND the honest consumer.

The "five finger discount" in retail causes the price of all goods to go up. In grocery stores where the margin is a couple of percent, that means that the poor person such as me in grad school has to pay more for that 3 pound box of macaroni than I would if everyone was honest. That isn't fair, and that translates to fewer pounds on my already ectomorphic frame.

If the unit price of CDs were just a little bit lower when I was in school, maybe I could have afforded just a couple of more CDs when I was living hand-to-mouth, Justin. It isn't fair that the unit price is higher for me the poor but honest consumer because we are losing a small but significant number of potential customers.

The fundamental difference though is that the company making the car loses something if they give the car away for free, or for less profit. The music industry loses nothing for an electronic duplication transacted between independant parties that would not have made a purchase

Many hands touch the product, Justin. Many people are affected when one sale doesn't happen. Even the folks that store and distribute the digital media lose out because they had to provide all those electronic online services for illegal activity that they shouldn't have had to provide. MIPS and DASD and such cost big money.

And of course I already mentioned about the honest but poor consumer having to pay more.

the value is not something objectively set by the universe, it's a matter of personal opinion.

No. In a working free market economy where everyone is honest, the value of services are set by the free market. If A-Rod can get tens of millions for his serrvices as a Yankee, then that's what his services are worth. If not, then either he has to accept less money or practice a little harder.

Downloading music doesn't cost anything over and above what you would pay anyhow. Computer, electricity, internet connection. Those are the requirements, and anybody who downloads music is going to have those things already.

I already pointed out the fallicy of this. My company actually pays by the MIP, and by the unit of disc space. We lease all that BY THE MONTH. The costs on the server end of things are not trivial.

I'm not making a legal point, since I think that is irrelevant.

Law is not irrelevant. Just laws protect peoples' rights.

I don't think it's a fundamental human right to have control over ideas that you have distributed in some way to the world.

If that's the case, Justin, then one of the companies I work for fails and goes out of business. They pioneered and patented the concept of creating an episode of care with medical claims data. Other companies tried to copy it. It was a brilliant idea, but simple and easy to copy. Had they succeeded, they would have put tiny Symmetry Health out of business. Instead they won several lawsuits that allowed them to recover damages when mammouth companies (e.g. Medstat) tried to copy the idea for free.

One day a big company called Ingenix tried to copy the idea. Symmetry sued. Ingenix called up and asked what they could do to make the lawsuit go away. The rest is history.

Two people from Symmetry Health (both Yale grads in an MPH program) retired. Happily. I now work for a much larger Ingenix/Symmetry. And Ingenix protects its newly-purchased patent.

That's the way it should be, Justin. All those "makes no sense" cases that we defend on principle allow for a just case like this to happen.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote:This is fun, BTW...

Well I'm glad we agree. I think sometimes I get too focused and forget that the other conversers may not be enjoying themselves as much as I am.

I disagree with the philosophy of forced sharing.

The thing is, I don't think there's a proper word for what sharing of music represents. I don't think the word "sharing" really encompasses it properly.

Because I would say that I also think forced sharing is wrong. But part of the reason it's wrong is that it forces one person to give up something to another person. If I'm right, which I recognize you don't think I am, filesharing doesn't have the component of loss for the original posessor.

As far as broad philosophical points goes, I think one of our chief disagreements would be in regards to intellectual property as a concept. While I recognize that it does need to exist to encourage innovation, I also think that our present conception of it is almost (but not quite) as stifling as it is encouraging. Software patents particularly are out of control, or maybe I just know more about them since it's my field (more or less).

The time and effort they spend doing all the things that make it possible for you to know of the existence of their music is time and effort they can spend on something else that will give them economic return. That's what economists call "opportunity cost." It gives all those efforts a fair market value of a sort.

I am familiar with the concept of opportunity cost, and agree that it reflects a certain reality. I'm not disagreeing that there is a cost associated with the initial production of an idea. I'm pointing out that there is no additional cost if individuals then reproduce that idea.

If you are not willing to pay for all that, then Jackson Browne and Bob Seager maybe can make a living painting or even teaching music lessons. That would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?

Ah-ha! That's just the thing, nobody is obligated to be willing to pay a given price for it. It would be just as tragic if the designers of the car you mentioned went broke because nobody wants to pay $60k for it.

But that doesn't mean you should be forced to pay for something you don't want that much. I still have yet to hear you say what it costs the artist for someone to download and listen to a song for free.

Let's speak to our world of perfect enforcement. If only one out of ten people pirating music would buy something, then that's a substantial amount of money that goes to the vendor. The vendor then has the ability to lower the unit cost and still be profitable. Lower the price a bit and then even MORE people jump in. This is called economies of scale.

Are you making a practical or a moral argument here? When it comes to the practical issue of whether filesharing should be legal, I'm on the fence. I don't think it's universally immoral, but it's possible that it's a legal necessity because you can't always trust people to be moral.

But maybe I didn't read that econ textbook closely enough. Here's my analysis of the pricing issue. There's the curve that indicates the maximally profitable price-point. On the left the higher price is offset by fewer sales and to the right the higher sales is offset by the lower price. Basic stuff. So product X is maximally profitable at $10. Even if you then say that 1/10th of those customers become inethical downloaders, they still aren't going to make more of a profit by raising their price if they wouldn't have before. The same dynamic of higher price resulting in decreased sales will come into play.

The "five finger discount" in retail causes the price of all goods to go up

Totally different situation. Shoplifting raises overhead. The cost to the retailer goes up because it means they need more shelf-space per item. This is not a dynamic that exists for file-sharing.

No. In a working free market economy where everyone is honest, the value of services are set by the free market. If A-Rod can get tens of millions for his serrvices as a Yankee, then that's what his services are worth. If not, then either he has to accept less money or practice a little harder.

Heh, I knew you'd say that. My point is that "fair market value" is the aggregate personal opinion of the consumers. You were using value to describes aspects of the production process.

I already pointed out the fallicy of this. My company actually pays by the MIP, and by the unit of disc space. We lease all that BY THE MONTH. The costs on the server end of things are not trivial.

Yes, your company pays these costs, so maybe they shouldn't let employees share files on company machines, that's fine. I'm not saying anyone has an obligation to provide filesharing services. But a home user, which is what the overwhelming majority of the 5 million some-odd filesharers are, does not pay anything extra to download songs.

Law is not irrelevant. Just laws protect peoples' rights.

You're right. What I mean is that morality informs the law, not the other way around.

If that's the case, Justin, then one of the companies I work for fails and goes out of business. They pioneered and patented the concept of creating an episode of care with medical claims data. Other companies tried to copy it.

I said it's not a fundamental human right, I didn't say it's not a practically effective measure to take. Point being, I don't think it's a violation of human rights to have your idea copied. But patent law is very useful at encouraging innovation of the sort your company does, so we do (and should) keep it around on that basis.

So then the question is why is this different from sharing mp3s? First of all, the companies that would license your idea (if licenses are what your company sells as a products) are doing so for a competative advantage. This means that the idea loses value if everybody can use it. But obviously, this does not exist for music sharing. Secondly, you're talking about a company that was willing to pay but just didn't want to. That is the same as the downloader who has substituted CD-buying for file-sharing, something I've already said is wrong.