Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master
Zan-beef
Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male |
Reply 15 of 50 (Originally posted on: 05-08-07 09:10:13 PM)
Edit Post
| Edit History
| Send PM
| Change Title
| Reply w/Quote
| Report Post
| Ignore
| Show All Posts
Quote:
I think you failed to read my post in full. I said that if you wanted to view the finished product, and did not pay the fee to do so, you have effectively cheated all of these people out of their compensation. I'm not talking about listening to a preview, I am talking about downloading, for free, an album which someone had no legal right to be distributing to other people.
I am also not talking about listening to a preview. Legalities aside, as they are relative, where is there a cheat when there's no opportunity cost that is lost for either party?
Quote:
And quite honestly, I don't understand how you expect to get a music album while not "buying" it unless you are otherwise stealing it.
That is not being questioned, the whole aspect of 'stealing it' is.
Quote:
This is totally irrelevant to the actual ethics of stealing over the Internet. It is just a rationalization of why it could be "okay" to steal. In fact, it follows the same line of reasoning that a poor person might use to justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family.
I was pointing out that the detrimental claims are just as equally refuted with beneficial claims to the point that they no longer matter. So yes, I suppose the point you originally made was irrelevant.
Quote:
That's all good and nice but you didn't answer the question: how would artists continue their art if they received no compensation from their work over the Internet, a medium which is quickly dominating the market of the future?
For one who pushes questions, you overlook the ones given to you, but I'll bite. Adapt. Change.
Quote:
If you didn't catch it I was setting up an analogy. According to wheezy's line of thought, as long as two different means result in the same end, then it is all good and fine. Basically, the ends do justify the means to them.
No according to wheezy's "line of thought", if he doesn't buy music and doesn't download it either, it's the same result as him downloading it. There's nothing more in-depth or on topic than that.
Quote:
In his case the two means were either not buying or stealing leading to the artist not being compensated. In my scenario, I was pointing out that even though the result may be the same (like in wheezy's example), the ends do not justify the means.
Chopping up starving Africans and recycling them may accomplish the same thing as getting people to donate food, but you shouldn't do the former as it is unethical...in the same way that stealing property or never taking the property accomplishes the same thing, but the former obviously isn't ethical and shouldn't be done.
The rest of this is just irrelevant, because he is not arguing about starving africans, he is arguing about downloading music. There is an acceptance that one way of viewing and justifying things (such as downloading music) would be different from how another thing is viewed and justified. I think - to be all honest - that's your major flaw when it comes to arguing. You seem to move towards derailed analogies and examples because you attempt to seek a coherent similarity within the chaotic and differential reasoning of an individual or group.
This reply was last edited on 05-08-07 09:23:13 PM by Sunn O))).
|
