wake wrote:My feeling is that there's something completely different about stealing the cost of a product versus the potential revenue of it. If you take a CD from a store, you're not only taking any revenue the store might've made from the sale of it, you're also making the store and manufacturer lose the money they paid for it. In the case of downloading music, the only loss would be the revenue the music company would've made if you bought the song instead. If you wouldn't have even bought the song anyway, then no one loses anything.
In both cases you are causing a loss of revenue. The store spent money to stock the item, the labels spend money to produce/promote the music.
File sharing is interesting because it seems to be the only type of this not-for-profit "revenue stealing" that is of questionable ethicality.
The library at my school has tons of copiers which I'm encouraged to use for copying parts of books for research assignments. However, if I copy part of a CD to use in my presentation, it's considered immoral.
It has nothing to do with morals, it is illegal. Books have a higher threshold of Fair Use, but going to the library and copying an entire book and taking it home to read is just as illegal as pirating a CD.
It's fine to copy an entire season of a show on my DVR, but it's wrong to get an episode from the computer.
It is a matter of distribution. The Betamax case that went to the Supreme Court was used to decide that time-shifting is legal Fair Use.
It's acceptable for a bar to profit over hiring a cover band that plays another artist's material. However, it's not okay to play a downloaded version of that song at your own party.
No, it is not acceptable for a bar to profit from hiring a cover band unless the permission for the use of those songs has been given. Bars can and have been sued over this.
Bury me a Royal.