just a thought (Score 1)

Referring to the post on http://isohunt.com/ Quote: File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types. A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing. B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased. C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector. D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away. And based on comments here and elsewhere, one I'm reminded I've heard before, I venture to add a 5th case: UPDATED wrote: E. Those who use sharing networks to download what they already bought in another digital form. Aka. format shifting, for various reasons including DRM or for backup purposes. Examples include: End Quote So, group B are also so called pirates because they copy copyrighted material without authorization. However, I doubt any company would complain about such essentially free advertising. Therefore, morally they are not doing anything wrong and nobody would really start a lawsuit against them. The right to sample before buying is important. Many times people buy songs, movies, games that they cannot preview or if they can preview they are not really given the true taste of the product but a false teaser. So they are hustled into paying for something that end of not liking. How much money have you spent on movies you did not like? Even going to cinema does not guarantee a good movie. Sure there are differences in taste but sometimes even cinemas show movies that 99% of the audience will agree are meaningless and provided no pleasure. Why let others con you into giving them your money for making something that is not worth the money? I know many people who first watch a movie and then pay for it. They first play a game and then pay for it. Is this illegal? Most definitely it is, but is it immoral? I would say most defintitely it is NOT because it gives you choice and disables con artists from making something that has no substance, flashing it around with marketing and then conning you into giving them over you hard earnt money so that they can get rich without really having any talents but being tricksters. Group C could really be divided into 2 groups - those who download content that is no longer available for sale and those who download because the purchase cost is too high. Again, if you download stuff no longer sold, there is no economic loss so you are not doing anything morally wrong, and nobody would sue you because they are not losing anything. Now, this for me is the interesting bit. There are people who download because the the purchase costs are too high. This is really not a joke. Look at how many poor countries there are in the world. If you lived in one of those, you would not expect 99% of the population to buy any legal game, song or whatever. They simply cannot waste a quarter of their salary on a pc game but they have scapred enough money for a pc and would like to enjoy an occasional game. Letting them so do is simply humane. It is not their fault they cannot afford commodities that sometimes spoilt western consumers can. Having said that, there are obviously those who copy illegally no matter what the material and no matter where they live. Those are in group A in my opinion. Now, to slightly expand on this point. When you want to buy a CD, DVD, download or whatnot, can you haggle? Can you negotiate a better deal for yourself? You have a rich person buying it, they ask no questions, but if you are a lower class o even a middle class in a western society, you could perhaps afford the copyrighted items, but the cost it too high and you would forego many other items you would have enojoyed instead. What do you do? you cannot go to a store and tell them you do not want to spend 50 dollars on something you think is worth 20 or 30. They will not decrease the price for you. So, the consumers have no power, they have lost their bargaining power to corporations with pricing policies that are non-negotiatable which in my view violates the basic principles of contract. The basic premise is that all contracts are negotiable in contract law but we know they are, but only if you have enough power which consumers almost never do. Today, you are so used to being ripped off that when you go to your local chinese market, you do not haggle. So, copying material in my view gives this power back to the consumer in a way, because they can say, well I do not think this person's latest album is worth 20 dollars but if I buy the single from the album for 10 dollars for example and download the rest of the items (albeit illegally), I will have paid what I think is a fair price. So, downloading content breaks monopilies, lowers prices, empowers consumers and distributes the income from the wealthy to the poor to a certain extent. I do understand the need to protect invetments but sometimes big cmpanies and people involved in them make insane amounts of money while the shareholders do nothing but simply put their money in the company and yet there are people starving elsewhere. All in all, banning all possibilities of downloading illegally is absolutely senseless but there needs to be a balance between giving too much power and money to the already rich and giving opportunities to those who are not rich but are creative, to break through in this harsh business environment. I do believe the society is moving towards this balance as it is so this balane is achieved through education and changing attituted instead of banning something outright and giving monopoly to lobyists. All in all, those who download because purchase costs are too high are not doing economic harm anyway because they would have never purchased anyway. They are however making society a better place because they are enjoying themselves and there is no price that can be put on a happier society. Now, going to group D, this is perfectly legal. And so is the added group E. Having put it all out there, it is in my view absolutely ridicilous to take all the incredibly immensely incredible benefits away from groups B, C, D and E (which are in all essence moral groups, even though sometime illegal without hurting anyone due to the legislation that did not take into account the circumstances that society members may find themselves in) solely because of group A. Preventing a great deal of good because of some deal of bad does not make an outright ban just. In my eyes, these groups definitely outwiegh a single group A. There is an increasing number of people who realise that they should support artists and they do pay for stuff they think is worth the money. Sometimes they think something is not worth the market price and there is no way to haggle so they buy one item and download the second so they get essentially buy 1 get 1 free which in their eyes is the true value. Seeing as there is no way to donate money to producer companies or developers instead of paying the full price for the product that you think is not worth it, this is the only way to feel you go your money's worth and yet you retained the morality by supporting the creativity that goes into these products. Thus, this is a societal change that needs to come about through a change of heart, not a legal action. After all, copies will always be available, you can never completely stop it, so instead of fighting the bushfire why not trying to extinguish it by peaceful means, and perhaps reduce it to a bonfire level that will give the people around it the satisfaction of getting warm and enjoying the cozyness of the fire of righteousness.