I didn't read all the long posts before this one, so my reply isn't related to whatever discussion that was.

Anyways, I actually found out about Glass Hammer on Progarchives.com, which features free (although not illegal) downloads of full songs from prog bands at great quality. While back in school I used to download stuff, I never, ever do it anymore.

Mainly its because I've become obsessed with collecting CDs. When you pay for a CD, or listen to the album the way the artist intended, you get SO much more out of it.

So while online downloading is a great way to listen to new music, I always will shell out the measly $4-12 bucks for a copy of the album. A friend of mine years ago gave me King Crimson's Red album, ripped from his CD. I honestly didn't enjoy it until I bought it myself, now it is one of my favs from that band!

So if you live in the US but download from a country with no discernible laws on the subject (China, say) which set of laws do you go by?

Well, I sure do. And I'm glad the US government does too. That's why it rewards those ideas by granting the copyright holders the rights to make copies and control distribution - in order to promote more ideas from more people. Otherwise, what's the point ?

How many thousands of "ideas" went into designing the latest cutting edge sports car ? What if you told the guy who designed and built it that he could never profit from those ideas in the marketplace ? That if he made cars, he would have to allow people to take them off his lot for free ? How many more cars would he design before he decided to become a mailman or plumber ? Who would want to dedicate their life learning about how to engineer cars if there was no money to be made ? (Of course, if you're advocating Communism and the government mandate that you make cars for the people, that's a different story - but we don't have that here in the US ! )

Why should artists not be allowed to pursue the same ideal ? Isn't this what they call the "American Dream" ? Maybe my lifetime's worth of "ideas" went into the production of a CD. Is being a recording artist not as honorable and market-worthy as being an auto engineer ? I want the same rights and financial opportunities that guy has !




There's no *should* about it. You don't have to buy the new GH album or the latest sports car - no matter how much time went into creating them. Another great thing about this country !

The only answer I can give you comes from the personal experience of having my own work illegally copied and downloaded: It hurts. Try it sometime : putting years of blood, sweat and tears into something you fully intend to sell, then having people take it without permission. That, my friend is called stealing in my book, and at least our culture points to a moral absolute to say strealing is wrong.

It beats me why so many people think artists just wake up one day and these cds just fall out of our asses.

I don't like placing moral judgements on the law alone. The movie "Double Jepordy" was based on the idea that a woman was imprisoned for killing her husband. When it turned out that he was alive she went off to kill him, knowing that she couldn't be tried for the same crime twice. In practice I am not sure that this theory would hold up, but for the purposes of argument that is irrelevant. The point is that what the law says here is irrelevant, and that killing her husband is still immoral, even though the law allows it.

There are also many practical cases where the law has put away moral men for being moral. Nelson Mandela and Gandhi both worked outside the law of their country. The USA itself based many of its founding principles on defying unjust laws. My understanding of "The right to bare arms" is that it is there to ensure that people can rise in armed rebellion if the authorities overstepped their bounds of, um, authority.

So in short, "because it is the law" is not a sufficient argument in and of itself. Legal sanction is neither necessary nor sufficient for an act to be moral by any reasonable measure.

That is not to say that I would disregard the law altogether. The law is what helps society to function without destroying itself. If you wish to stick to the legal argument, I would suggest: "If an activity may be deemed by reasonable people to be either morally wrong or right (as is the case with downloading) then the laws of the land should be adhered to". That line could possibly be strengthened.

Is that the sort of argument you were thinking of Sam?

It costs Fred and I dearly in terms of time and money to pull of a GH album. Same for Shreddy and Matt and Carl. We could do music for car commercials in 1/100th of the time and make 100 times the cash back for our efforts. So, we do this for the love of doing it.
Don't steal Glass Hammer's music please. We pay to make it, please pay to listen. Fair enough?
Steve

First, let me say I agree with you in principle. The only reason I am arguing is because we have a pedantic college student here.

The tricky part of this argument, the grey area if you will, is the definition of stealing. Many people would argue that stealing implies that you deprive another person of it. Stealing your wallet is seen as a crime because you are deprived of it. Stealing your dance moves may break a social code, but is seen as stealing only in a metaphorical way.

If I download your music I am not necessarily depriving you of anything. It is impossible to prove that I would ever have bought the album had I not downloaded it.

I think perhaps your case could be made stronger by considering the downloader rather than the artist. Unless your latest album is going to save somebody's life (I am not ruling that out, but I would posit that in most cases it won't) that person has acquired something that is not essential to them by violating the conditions that it was made available by the person who created it. I think that actually crosses a moral line, and I don't believe that the reasoning can be faulted in the same way as the "stealing" argument.

So, enough from me. What does the philosophy student think? What would Neitzsche say? (He'd probably call musicians sheep, looking to the shephard of the law to protect them, but the wolf can get through top easily, downloading mutton until he is satiated)