Good points, but I still don't agree (Score 2, Interesting)

My point about the lopsided $20 Viper was that let's say perhaps (perhaps?) I'm just really not mentally sound, and to me, $20 is fair for a Viper. My saying it's worth only $20 doesn't make it so; just as someone saying "I'm only going to pay $4.50 for those 3 songs" isn't right. That may be fair to most people, but if the cd costs $15, it still costs $15. Stealing tracks is still stealing, however you justify it or whatever end you hope to see come about.

As far as leaving the original intact being justification, I'm not sure I agree. What would happen if this argument were used in other areas?

- Movies: (or even new albums). We've heard of people sneaking out digital copies of flicks/songs, and making them available on the net. In a perfect world of no-limit bandwidth, those songs could theoretically be available worldwide instantaneously. How long do you suppose people will keep putting out movies/songs if everyone had access to them before they even hit shelves/stores? If everyone thought $10 was too much for a movie, and felt they were 'harming nobody' by just downloading it...

- Drugs: Pfizer spends 10 years and $400 million finding the cure to AIDS. Your buddy works in the lab, takes home a copy of the magic formula, and soon everybody has it. Great, AIDS has been eradicated, but Pfizer soon goes out of business, and no further research is done, anywhere, because all companies have an 'information wants to be free!' guru.

- Software: Is $50 ridiculous for a game or program that took years and $millions to develop? See above movies argument. If lifting a program is made very easy and very quick; how much real advance will we see in the future? Not everyone can program fulltime just for fun and the knowledge that they are betting society from their efforts.

- How many other jobs/products/services could be lost under this justification? How many people would be out of work if everything were fair game?

I'm sure some will say that's the natural evolution of things, but I really don't think so. Someone has to spend their full time jobs creating, editing, performing, designing, programming, etc. When you, or anyone, lifts something by saying 'it's too expensive, PLUS it really isn't harming anything', I think the damage done is beyond estimation. How many people will just throw their hands in the air and say 'screw it' when they realize that they won't get paid for their work.

Would you work for free? At the end of the week, if your employer said, "well, chuck, you worked 40 hours, but I really only liked about 5 of them. Here's your check for five hours." Would you still work there? What if all companies did that? Their argument would still hold. "Hey, you're still intact! And you went bathroom SEVERAL times during the week, which we we're reimbursed for. So quit yer whining."

Mmmmm sacrilicious.