Filesharing: Inalienable right or punishable by death?

[Dingbats]

So RMS is *against* using bittorent for movies and TV shows then, as he considers the concept of copyright to be about morality, instead of just the law and what's good for society.

You know, some people don't actually think filesharing is immoral.

[HappySmileMan]

You know, some people don't actually think filesharing is immoral.

I will download a couple of songs from an album before I buy it to see if it's good, but if I don't like it I delete them so who cares if the company don't get money? And if I do like the songs I'll buy them, so if a band loses money from me it's their fault for making songs I don't think are worth the money.

I also don't see the problem with getting TV shows on the internet, since I could watch them for free anyway, I'm not taking money, I'm getting something for free that I could watch for free.

I will try a demo of a game if available, or play it at a friends house before I buy, but I won't buy a game unless I know I like it, and I have pirated games before, but then I either deleted them or bought them.

Does this make me an evil thief?

[EvanED]

I also don't see the problem with getting TV shows on the internet, since I could watch them for free anyway, I'm not taking money, I'm getting something for free that I could watch for free.

Is cable/satellite TV free where you live, or are you only talking network shows?

Anyway, my personal feeling is that, if you are the person getting the copy, there are a number of things that might keep in on the good side of the morality line. There are also ways in which this could be immoral, the main one is pirating something that you would otherwise buy. Giving people copies who are likely to stay on the good side of the morality line is okay. Giving to arbitrary people is not. The above only applies to things that are within a "natural" term from the work's creation; I vary on what this term should be, from something like the original 14+14 copyright to through the end of the author's life or an approximately equivalent term for corporate works.

This seems like a new thread to me...
Agreed.

[Dingbats]

You know, some people don't actually think filesharing is immoral.

*snip*
Does this make me an evil thief?

Whether this was directed at me or not, I just want to clarify that I agree with you completely. But I'm not going to argue about it anyway, since I know from experience that it's a useless debate in case anyone disagrees.

[zenten]

I do it. Any possible moral repercussions for what I (personally) do with file sharing are no worse from what I can see morally than from sometimes not giving money to a charity when I have it handy, and I deal with the guilt in much the same way.

[bigglesworth]

I do it. Any possible moral repercussions for what I (personally) do with file sharing are no worse from what I can see morally than from sometimes not giving money to a charity when I have it handy, and I deal with the guilt in much the same way.

Good call. I've been meditating for a while on how I reconcile file sharing and morality, and that seems like a workable solution that I can agree with. Thanks.

[trickster721]

I'm finished buying RIAA music. Me giving them money voluntarily and them suing money out of single mothers are mutually exclusive business plans. Making asses out of themselves with legal posturing is one thing, but now they're actually going to try and extract that quarter of a million dollars from Jammie Thomas, and it crosses the line. It's become perfectly fair at this point to say that no responsible artist would sign with one of these labels, so if they want the cash I owe them they can send somebody less evil to collect it.

My Netflix subscription pays for access to their entire catalog of films. There are all sorts of complications while they iron out the delivery process, but that's basically what's going on. As long as I'm still paying it for that access it doesn't matter what mechanism I use to watch the movies.

Television is insulated from all this; these are mostly things they're broadcasting from huge omnidirectional antennas. It was already decided in the VHS wars that we're not going to pay for time or location shifting. Maybe when Nielsen or the advertisiers start caring about torrents, things will change.

Of course, this is all assuming that you respect the idea of commodifying information to begin with. This here treasure map points the way to Fiddler's Green, mateys, where millions of seadogs can band together to finance a film or album without the need fer wasteful meatspace algorithms, and there be other wonders the likes o' which we can't even imagine yet, me heartys. Arrrrr.

[d3adf001]

i dont see why downloading music is a problem if you arent making a profit off of it. i was at a concert and the front man was in the bit before they were on and was talking to me and asked if i got the new album and i said i downloaded it. he didnt have a problem with it. i bought a shirt tho.

[HappySmileMan]

Whether this was directed at me or not, I just want to clarify that I agree with you completely. But I'm not going to argue about it anyway, since I know from experience that it's a useless debate in case anyone disagrees.

I wasn't really directing it at anyone, I quoted you because it was relevant to what you said.

Do you think anyone will care that the MPAA are violating the GPL by not providing access to source code for the this Xubuntu variant? Especially considering it's a toolkit to detect and stop copyright violations?

[Rysto]

Economically speaking, if filesharing were totally legal(and everybody was a rational actor), no music/video games/movies would be produced because nobody would pay for them. Copyright might be an artificial construct, but it's economically necessary to encourage production of music.

[waltwhitmanheadedbat]

I would not only say that filesharing is an inalienable right, I would say that it's also the duty of every citizen to rip the albums that he has, distribute to his friends, and distribute to the wider public.

The last CD I bought was a copy of Velvet Revolver's Contraband. I got the Sony rootkit. Yay. As a result, I'm never buying a Sony product again, which entails a lot of music. Sony's reach is considerable, I don't even bother to look at the label anymore before looking for a record I've heard of. I just torrent it.

The last album I really wanted to have a look at was Serj Tankian's Elect The Dead. The label is American Recordings, a subsidiary of, guess what? Sony Music. The Pirate Bay provides. I like the artist, but he's going to have to find an independent distributor before I throw money at him.

Since 2004ish, I've only bought books. For some reason, I feel the need to buy those, even though I've gotten used to PDFs. I guess it's because a book doesn't require a player or a console or whatever...it itself is more convenient than carrying around an aging laptop to view PDFs. Maybe I'm paying for the convenience and not the content. I notice that literary nerds will still want to have concept of ownership of books, music nerds will want to have a large library of music on their shelves, and so on. So even if filesharing were legalized, there will probably still be a lot of purchase of media. People will want to have a sense of physically possessing something.

This post bothers me. It took me four paragraphs to actually say something that almost contributes to the discussion.

[Rysto]

I would not only say that filesharing is an inalienable right, I would say that it's also the duty of every citizen to rip the albums that he has, distribute to his friends, and distribute to the wider public.

So basically you're saying that artists don't have the right to profit from their music? What is their incentive to produce music, then?

[waltwhitmanheadedbat]

I would not only say that filesharing is an inalienable right, I would say that it's also the duty of every citizen to rip the albums that he has, distribute to his friends, and distribute to the wider public.

So basically you're saying that artists don't have the right to profit from their music? What is their incentive to produce music, then?

A real artist would produce music for the sake of music. If they absolutely need recording contracts, they aren't artists. This is not to say that all people with recording contracts aren't artists.

That said, I'd have a hard time finding bands I liked if it weren't for the publicity of large commercial groups. Either way, I don't view music as having very much value. How many commercially distributed albums out of a hundred actually have some kind of notable social message?

[b.i.o]

I would not only say that filesharing is an inalienable right, I would say that it's also the duty of every citizen to rip the albums that he has, distribute to his friends, and distribute to the wider public.

So basically you're saying that artists don't have the right to profit from their music? What is their incentive to produce music, then?

A real artist would produce music for the sake of music. If they absolutely need recording contracts, they aren't artists. This is not to say that all people with recording contracts aren't artists.

That said, I'd have a hard time finding bands I liked if it weren't for the publicity of large commercial groups. Either way, I don't view music as having very much value. How many commercially distributed albums out of a hundred actually have some kind of notable social message?

And a lot of bands wouldn't exist or be nearly as good as they are if the artists playing in them weren't able to make money off of playing music.

[Beyondthewall]

A real artist would produce music for the sake of music. If they absolutely need recording contracts, they aren't artists.

Either way, I don't view music as having very much value. How many commercially distributed albums out of a hundred actually have some kind of notable social message?

First point: Or they're just poor, or have to pay for recording equipment.
Second point: Value is what people are willing to pay, regardless of content.



Anyway, I don't think it's morally wrong. If I like the music enough, I'll donate directly to the artists, who'll end up with far more than they would have if I had to pay via a middleman. If I don't like it that much, I don't give money, and have no responsibility to. I think it only becomes wrong if it is distributed without attribution, which is less convenient for me anyway - what if I want to hear more?

[Rysto]

A real artist would produce music for the sake of music. If they absolutely need recording contracts, they aren't artists. This is not to say that all people with recording contracts aren't artists.

That said, I'd have a hard time finding bands I liked if it weren't for the publicity of large commercial groups. Either way, I don't view music as having very much value. How many commercially distributed albums out of a hundred actually have some kind of notable social message?

Does this only apply to artists? What about programmers? Am I not a real programmer unless I work for free?

Seriously, what makes artists so unique that they're not "real" unless they work for free?

[Aglet]

Whether this was directed at me or not, I just want to clarify that I agree with you completely. But I'm not going to argue about it anyway, since I know from experience that it's a useless debate in case anyone disagrees.

I wasn't really directing it at anyone, I quoted you because it was relevant to what you said.

Do you think anyone will care that the MPAA are violating the GPL by not providing access to source code for the this Xubuntu variant? Especially considering it's a toolkit to detect and stop copyright violations?

Technically speaking, they're still within the bounds of the GPL if they send you the source code if you ask for it. They don't have to put it up online, but it does have to be available. Of course, if they refuse to give it to you... bring the red fury of the free software movement down upon them.

[EdgarJPublius]

I was 'file sharing' years before Napster ever existed, and will probably be doing so until years after bit-torrent dies (provided I live that long and it does not)
Me and my friends and family share more or less the same taste in music and movies, and never felt that we should all pay for the same albums or videos when we could share easily enough and far cheaper.

[Dingbats]

Do you think anyone will care that the MPAA are violating the GPL by not providing access to source code for the this Xubuntu variant? Especially considering it's a toolkit to detect and stop copyright violations?

Technically speaking, they're still within the bounds of the GPL if they send you the source code if you ask for it. They don't have to put it up online, but it does have to be available. Of course, if they refuse to give it to you... bring the red fury of the free software movement down upon them.

AFAIK, the GPL requires that you distribute the source in the same way that you distribute the binary, so it would have to be downloadable from the same site.

Anyway, off topic.

[Rysto]

AFAIK, the GPL requires that you distribute the source in the same way that you distribute the binary

That is not true. You must either distribute the source with the binary or distribute a transferable written offer to supply source.

[waltwhitmanheadedbat]

A real artist would produce music for the sake of music. If they absolutely need recording contracts, they aren't artists. This is not to say that all people with recording contracts aren't artists.

That said, I'd have a hard time finding bands I liked if it weren't for the publicity of large commercial groups. Either way, I don't view music as having very much value. How many commercially distributed albums out of a hundred actually have some kind of notable social message?

Does this only apply to artists? What about programmers? Am I not a real programmer unless I work for free?

Seriously, what makes artists so unique that they're not "real" unless they work for free?

The arts and programming don't really compare well. Programs are capable of aesthetic beauty and social impact like art is, but they have practical uses. They're tools. At least generally.

For something to be qualified to be called art, it needs to have aesthetic beauty and social impact, at least IMO. Metallica does not produce art. The Spice Girls do not produce art. What they do has very little social worth. A programmer produces something that can actually be used.

-Silver2Falcon:
That's okay. Maybe they'll produce something that somebody can actually use.

First point: Or they're just poor, or have to pay for recording equipment.
Second point: Value is what people are willing to pay, regardless of content.

You and I define value differently, then. My definition of value is purely utilitarian - value is determined by how useful a contribution to society is made, how greatly it improves efficiency or prevents suffering or similar.

I'm not saying that music should be free, or that free distribution should be mandated, just that I feel that music contributes little to society, and that any sane person should have a serious disrespect for copyright. My original statement ("I would not only say that filesharing is an inalienable right, I would say that it's also the duty of every citizen to rip the albums that he has, distribute to his friends, and distribute to the wider public.") was in a moment of religious fervor and it was poorly phrased.

All things considered, I love you guys for giving me the first intelligent conversation within a week.

EDIT: Whoops, accidentally had apostrophes where quotation marks should be in the bbcode.

[Rysto]

Why should your opinion of how much "social worth" art produces govern its prices? Why shouldn't the market be allowed to decide the worth of art and compensator the producers of art accordingly?

[Beyondthewall]

For something to be qualified to be called art, it needs to have aesthetic beauty and social impact, at least IMO. Metallica does not produce art. The Spice Girls do not produce art. What they do has very little social worth. A programmer produces something that can actually be used.

...

You and I define value differently, then. My definition of value is purely utilitarian - value is determined by how useful a contribution to society is made, how greatly it improves efficiency or prevents suffering or similar.

Aesthetic beauty is a personal opinion. That something does not have value to you means that you shouldn't be paying for it, yes, but that doesn't apply to anyone other than you. The "social impact" bit - pretty much all "art" doesn't qualify for your definition, then. Beethoven, van Gogh, Michelangelo, etc. rarely produced anything with any social impact, but their works are still considered art by most everyone. I think all the social impact that needs to occur is for someone to enjoy it.




... And I'm getting off topic. As religious wars go, this one needs more opposing side to actually work.

[xyzzy]

Economically speaking, if filesharing were totally legal(and everybody was a rational actor), no music/video games/movies would be produced because nobody would pay for them. Copyright might be an artificial construct, but it's economically necessary to encourage production of music.

No, because rational actors would realise that donating towards products that they enjoyed, or commissioning exactly what they wanted, would be worth the money. I can basically get anything I want for free. I don't, but only because I don't want it.

It's like a guy who plays a guitar on the street corner. Rationally speaking, I shouldn't bother to give him anything after enjoying his music, because I can legally listen to it anyway. However, if I enjoy it, I'll probably want him to produce more, or want to thank him, and I can do this easily by giving him what I feel it was worth.

[b.i.o]

-Silver2Falcon:
That's okay. Maybe they'll produce something that somebody can actually use.

You can use what they produce. Maybe not in the way you want, and maybe not in as many ways as you should be able to use it, but you can use it.

While I agree that current copyright laws are draconian there is no reason that you deserve automatic access to someone else's work. A professional musician will have put thousands of hours into perfecting their musical skills. Why are they obligated to let you hear their music for free? Why are they not allowed to make money off of it? While it would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where no one needs to worry about money that's simply not the reality.

It takes money to train musicians, it takes money to produce high quality recordings, it takes money to advertise and tell people about an artist or band. There has to be some kind of compensation somewhere along the line here and you can't expect it all to come out of the musician's pocket especially when you (the listener) is deriving pleasure (if you like the music, obviously) from hearing it.

For something to be qualified to be called art, it needs to have aesthetic beauty and social impact, at least IMO. Metallica does not produce art. The Spice Girls do not produce art. What they do has very little social worth. A programmer produces something that can actually be used.

Why does something have to have "social impact" to be art? Why can't art be beautiful for the sake of being beautiful? Why must everything have a 'message'? And how do you even define social impact? Any definition will be extremely subjective.

And while you (or I) may not enjoy listening to or appreciate Metallica or The Spice Girls doesn't mean other people don't.

You and I define value differently, then. My definition of value is purely utilitarian - value is determined by how useful a contribution to society is made, how greatly it improves efficiency or prevents suffering or similar.

The problem with defining value as purely a measure of how much something contributes to society is that we don't live in a society that's purely concerned with surviving. We live in a society where people buy things not only because they need them but because they want them as well. That argument might have been valid a few hundred years ago, but not now.

I also don't see the problem with getting TV shows on the internet, since I could watch them for free anyway, I'm not taking money, I'm getting something for free that I could watch for free.

You're also preventing television networks from getting ad revenue they would be getting if you watched the show. I think television networks need to realize what century they're in and start putting stuff online (what's not already) in an easy-to-access, convenient manner, but loss of ad revenue is the problem networks have with people getting their shows off the internet.

[bigglesworth]

Solution: Product placement!

[Metty]

I buy an awful lot of music. Especially when I can't find the album online.

Was pretty happy with Radiohead's latest idea. Got it for free and legally.

I don't have a problem with file sharing in general, I can't afford to buy a whole Office 2007 package, or fruity loops, or too much music.

-shrugs-

Filesharing has been around forever, since we recorded songs off the radio onto our cassettes and gave them to our friends. The industry isn't losing anything. If anything, they're becoming richer as they can gig more often due to advances in transport and people having more money to spend on gigs.

[zenten]

Economically speaking, if filesharing were totally legal(and everybody was a rational actor), no music/video games/movies would be produced because nobody would pay for them. Copyright might be an artificial construct, but it's economically necessary to encourage production of music.

Please explain how.

If everyone were a rational actor, and I knew that everyone was a rational actor, I would contribute to (and maybe even help start up) a pool of money that goes towards creating entertainment I would like.

Also, the music example does not work, as bands (especially small ones) make their money largely through concerts and merchandise, not so much from CD sales.

[Metty]

Economically speaking, if filesharing were totally legal(and everybody was a rational actor), no music/video games/movies would be produced because nobody would pay for them. Copyright might be an artificial construct, but it's economically necessary to encourage production of music.

Please explain how.

If everyone were a rational actor, and I knew that everyone was a rational actor, I would contribute to (and maybe even help start up) a pool of money that goes towards creating entertainment I would like.

Also, the music example does not work, as bands (especially small ones) make their money largely through concerts and merchandise, not so much from CD sales.

Also, if you download music you don't get a portable CD with high quality audio, album art, special album features, an excuse to leave the house to buy the CD, the social aspects of buying a CD... I'm sure there are other things, maybe.

[Rysto]

Please explain how.

If everyone were a rational actor, and I knew that everyone was a rational actor, I would contribute to (and maybe even help start up) a pool of money that goes towards creating entertainment I would like.

It's called the free rider problem. If music is distributed for free, individually you get the benefit of all music produced whether you contribute towards it or not. Therefore, as a rational actor you will choose not to contribute towards it, because contributing brings you no benefit. If everyone is a rational actor, then no one will contribute to the production of music and it will not be produced. This is a well-known problem with public goods and there are several solutions to it. One is to have the government produce the good and compel people to contribute: like they do with policing and firefighting services, for example. Another solution is to establish an enforceable property rights regime. For example, we could give artists the right to control copies of their work. It's needs a snappy name, though. Any suggestions?

Also, the music example does not work, as bands (especially small ones) make their money largely through concerts and merchandise, not so much from CD sales.

It absolutely does work. If no profit can be made from selling recordings of music, no one will produce them. So while bands would still have the incentive to do concerts and sell merchandise, they would have no incentive to produce recordings of their own music and then we'd be left with low-quality recordings from concerts made by fans

[zenten]

Please explain how.

If everyone were a rational actor, and I knew that everyone was a rational actor, I would contribute to (and maybe even help start up) a pool of money that goes towards creating entertainment I would like.

It's called the free rider problem. If music is distributed for free, individually you get the benefit of all music produced whether you contribute towards it or not. Therefore, as a rational actor you will choose not to contribute towards it, because contributing brings you no benefit. If everyone is a rational actor, then no one will contribute to the production of music and it will not be produced. This is a well-known problem with public goods and there are several solutions to it. One is to have the government produce the good and compel people to contribute: like they do with policing and firefighting services, for example. Another solution is to establish an enforceable property rights regime. For example, we could give artists the right to control copies of their work. It's needs a snappy name, though. Any suggestions?

I want a product. I'm paying for the product, because I want it. Why do I care if other people are paying for it?

Basically, it fails under a hypothetical rational actor world. I suspect it also fails in the real world, but to say that for sure I would need hard evidence of course. I would like to point out that most of the software I use (at home at least) I obtained for free, legally.

Also, the music example does not work, as bands (especially small ones) make their money largely through concerts and merchandise, not so much from CD sales.

It absolutely does work. If no profit can be made from selling recordings of music, no one will produce them. So while bands would still have the incentive to do concerts and sell merchandise, they would have no incentive to produce recordings of their own music and then we'd be left with low-quality recordings from concerts made by fans

Yes they do. CDs work as effective advertising. File sharing even more so. So any money you put into good recordings is an investment to increase the demand for your concerts.

[LikwidCirkel]

99.9% of what I "steal" is non-RIAA (or similar) anyway. The genres that I'm into thrive because of filesharing. There have been multiple times, when I paid $100 or more for a single ticket for an artist that I like, and it's well worth it.

I pay for music if it's really good, and then only if it has no ridiculous protection.

I quit stealing software when I switched to Linux, because I hardly have the need to. It becomes a problem for me, when DJ's play stolen music and charge for their services. The same goes for stolen software. Once the offender is using it for commercial reasons, it becomes a lot more of a crime, IMO.
I actually refused to go to a friend of mine's concert, because all of his music was produced using stolen software. You can actually get pretty decent open-source studio stuff now, so there is really no excuse for stealing.

I very often wish that I could get more quick, commercial downloads for movies, TV, and music. Since most of what I'm into is independant, foreign, or obscure, it's frustrating. I would GLADLY pay $5 for a guaranteed movie download in an open format, or $2 a song for high quality mp3. I steal primarily because it's the easiest way to obtain these things at all. Swaying me would be as simple as making the buying process simpler than the stealing process, with respect to selection, and ease of use.

It might take a while.

Anyone into psytrance, and want FTP access to my computer? Message me and we'll see what can be done.

[Rysto]

I want a product. I'm paying for the product, because I want it. Why do I care if other people are paying for it?

You have a choice. You can pay for the product and receive it, or not pay for the product but still receive it. Which do you choose?

[Karrion]

Artists absolutely deserve to be paid for their work. The vast majority of artists aer underpaid for what they do; there's only a small fraction who are vastly overpaid for it.

The megacorp recording label executives, on the other hand, can fuck right off.

It's called the free rider problem. If music is distributed for free, individually you get the benefit of all music produced whether you contribute towards it or not. Therefore, as a rational actor you will choose not to contribute towards it, because contributing brings you no benefit. If everyone is a rational actor, then no one will contribute to the production of music and it will not be produced. This is a well-known problem with public goods and there are several solutions to it. One is to have the government produce the good and compel people to contribute: like they do with policing and firefighting services, for example. Another solution is to establish an enforceable property rights regime. For example, we could give artists the right to control copies of their work. It's needs a snappy name, though. Any suggestions?

I want a product. I'm paying for the product, because I want it. Why do I care if other people are paying for it?

But the point is that the product you want is available for free. As an economically rational actor, you will pay the lowest price you can for a good. The lowest price is free. Therefore you will not pay for the product.

I would like to point out that most of the software I use (at home at least) I obtained for free, legally.

And how much money have you donated to open source project that you've liked? You may have, and people do, but they're not being rational actors when they do.

Yes they do. CDs work as effective advertising. File sharing even more so. So any money you put into good recordings is an investment to increase the demand for your concerts.

The advertising argument is probably the best one for music filesharing. It's a distribution mechanism which bypasses the studios, allowing artists to use their recordings (which are somewhat less prohibitavly expensive to produce these days with PC-based sound engineering programs) as advertising for their live performances. Because of infinite reproduction, the recordings are no longer an economic good, but the concert tickets and merchandise still are.

There's still a problem, though: finding music you actually like. If recordings are advertising, and cheap to produce and distribute, then there's suddenly a massive swarm of them all clamouring for attention. If you lose the studios, you lose the selection process - the people whose jobs are to sort of the good artists from the bad. It's quite possible, of course, to argue this job isn't done particularly well these days anyway, since studios go for reliable, marketable, commodity manufactured stuff for the most part, but since most people don't have time to trawl through the Internet looking for that few percent of music which actually appeals to them, there will have to emerge some kind of service to do it for them. And that service will have some kind of cost associated with it, either to the listener or to the artists - and we've pretty much just reinvented the studio model.

[photosinensis]

For those making the argument that performing artists are losing money on CD sales, I want you to stop right now. Here's why:

For all artists signed since 1990 (I don't know how much further back this goes), the labels work not as a production and promotion company, but more like very parasitic banks. They give the performing artist a loan with which the artist is to pay for the studio time (the studio is owned by the label) and advertising (again, through an agency contracted through the label, so the artist is paying the label again). All sales money then goes to the label, with the artist not seeing a dime from record sales. The artist gets paid from royalties (from covers of the song if they wrote it, from use in movies, TV shows, and commercials, and the like) and (here's the big one) and from tickets and merchandising live concerts. Radio royalties are split between the artist and studio.

This is why you see all sorts of new music acts clamoring to get airtime on TV, get themselves into movies, and selling clothing lines: such artists aren't making any money from their music, as the labels are taking it all.

In short, when you're sharing music from an artist signed after 1990, you're not stealing from the artist. You're short-changing the label, and that pisses the rich bastards at the top off.

Movies actually work in a similar manner: everybody got paid long before the movie was released. The studio is trying to recoup the money they spent on making the film. There's no way to say that you're stealing from anyone but the movie studios when you illegally download films.

So, given that illegal filesharing only hurts the business model of companies that are refusing to adapt to changing technologies, I say go for it. At best, the companies will eventually be forced to come up with a way to profit from filesharing. At worst, the assholes go under, and those making money from music and movies without using the studios will take over. Yes, the industry will collapse, but we will not be without films and music.

[EvanED]

Movies actually work in a similar manner: everybody got paid long before the movie was released. The studio is trying to recoup the money they spent on making the film. There's no way to say that you're stealing from anyone but the movie studios when you illegally download films.

At least big names often receive percentage of gross.

And even though I agree with you that labels are like parasites, you still can't quite say what you did. Artists do receive a minute part of the sales. Just for most of them, it doesn't really repay the "loans" the label puts out. If you buy a CD, you repay more of their loan, putting them closer to making money. It still sucks ass from the artist's perspective, and I could see boycotting labels and such for it, but the artists are getting something small.

[trickster721]

It takes money to train musicians, it takes money to produce high quality recordings, it takes money to advertise and tell people about an artist or band.

Not only is distribution free now, it's no longer possible to stop it from happening by itself.

[Vellyr]

I was thinking about this the other day, and I figure that someday soon, the concept of "intellectual property" will become antiquated and people will only produce art because (gasp) they want to share their creative expression. Because really, there's no way to reliably regulate something like the internet (unless you're China). I personally don't feel any guilt from downloading things illegally, although I only usually download fansubbed anime and the occasional absurdly overpriced software package.

[EvanED]

I was thinking about this the other day, and I figure that someday soon, the concept of "intellectual property" will become antiquated and people will only produce art because (gasp) they want to share their creative expression.

I really doubt that this will come to pass. I could equally say that the internet will result in more draconian IP laws as these rights become harder to protect. So far legal trends follow my opinion, unfortunately.

[Beyondthewall]

I was thinking about this the other day, and I figure that someday soon, the concept of "intellectual property" will become antiquated and people will only produce art because (gasp) they want to share their creative expression.

I really doubt that this will come to pass. I could equally say that the internet will result in more draconian IP laws as these rights become harder to protect. So far legal trends follow my opinion, unfortunately.

Laws and what people actually do, at least in relation to the internet, are almost entirely unrelated. These aren't mutually exclusive opinions.