Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #17 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
What would happen if instead of copying music files you were copying dollar bills?
User avatar #18 to #17 - BlahDude (01/17/2013) [-]
then...we'd be copying dollar bills...I don't see your point...
User avatar #19 to #18 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
The value of the dollar drops...
User avatar #20 to #19 - BlahDude (01/17/2013) [-]
Thing is, the value of a song DOESN'T drop if it gets copied

Because I may download a whole bunch of songs, and copy them for my friends, we're still gonna enjoy the song the same as if we bought them

Plus we're still gonna be willing to pay to see the song live, something you can't really pirate
User avatar #24 to #20 - jakelguy (01/17/2013) [-]
hes got a semi point. The more people that download it the less demand there will be, which devalues it in a way.
User avatar #21 to #20 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
Economical value is the one that counts, not the sentimental value. It used to cost, say, 1 dollar, now it costs nothing to get it. Its value dropped.

This makes the music you like (the one you download) not worth producing, leaving the record companies with the only option of funding the music that will bring money in, like Justin Beiber and Nicki Minaj.

The problem is that the people that buy more music are the teenagers with a " ****** " taste on music, while the adults don't have time for that.
#28 to #21 - thematthaslem (01/17/2013) [-]
Yet all the rich ******* that already have music being produced are usually the ones that bitch about pirating music.
User avatar #25 to #21 - kingnarnode (01/17/2013) [-]
see the flaw in your logic is that fans still buy cd's, buy merchandise, and pay to go to concerts. The value hasn't dropped at all, more people now can just acquire copies of it illegally, which in reality doesn't affect things all too badly since they aren't physical copies, rather they are digital. If music that was pirated was "not worth producing" as you put it, then it wouldn't be produced.
User avatar #29 to #25 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
Flaw in your logic is that af all the people that hear the song, only a few fans buy it, buy the merchandise and go to the concerts. Yes, they are the fans, but there are people that just download it because it's free and it fills their ipods.
User avatar #31 to #29 - kingnarnode (01/17/2013) [-]
I know not everyone buys the song, but I'm having a hard time seeing where you're trying to go with this
User avatar #34 to #31 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
i guess if music was a completely pure art where you don't expect anything for your expression (like that graffitti post said a few days ago) then it would be ok to acquire it for free. But it's not. You are supposed to make a sacrifice for that acquisition, and you aren't supposed make a new product (by copying a file) because the only one that is allowed to create that file is the record company. By copying it you are creating a new one, out of the will of the artist (and the record company, by extension).
Did I get my point across?
User avatar #30 to #29 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
 Friends (0)