Quote:
Originally Posted by evil nickname
Not that I'm defending anything, but:
No, it's not. Moral issues aside, when you download music without paying, you're making a copy, with no loss to the owner of the music. When you break into a record store and take a CD, the store owner has one copy less of the album, which cost him money to stock, etc. etc.
It's rather like going into a public library, taking pictures of every page of a book, and then leaving. (Except that you don't get a perfect copy of the book, but close enough.)
|
It's an argument i've heard many times, and I still don't buy it (no pun intended).
One of the things many downloaders say to justify their actions is that CD's cost a matter of pence to produce, so how come they are £££ by the time they get to the shops.
Because the CD, the case, the booklet, they are not what you are paying for.
You are paying for the media.
That's where the art is, that's what cost thousands to produce, and that's what you are buying.
(note the lack of comic sans in this post
)
I agree with Evil Ernie that art should not be
done for money, but i'd argue that just because it's not done for money doesn't mean you can't charge for your art.
There have always been proffessional artists, and their art is no less great because they have the downright cheek to charge for what they spend so much time and effort creating
I doubt Michaelangelo would have done the ceiling of The Sistine Chappel if he was working in Burger King from 9 - 5
