"That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied."
Since copying is okay, is it okay to copy currency? After all, it's just a bunch of paper and ink and only a perceived value. If you look at the damage this causes the economy, you can directly see the damage it causes a content creator.
"Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this."
Boo Hoo. They signed a contract that gives the record companies their souls and are now complaining about it. This argument is bullshit. The creators of the Pirate bay don't really give a shit about the rights of anyone. They freely admit that they believe in sharing of everything, just like when they were children.
I find it a little ironic that many of the same people that are pro-piracy get all in a tizzy when companies decide to sell their information, which is just a copy (you don't actually lose anything. It's not like stealing a physical copy of something).
"Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead."
Really? Create a full Metallica album from your house. How about Photoshop? If you can't, it means there is still a value for content creators. Copying us much different than creating. You seem to be equating them, which is just ridiculous.
Piracy pushes artists toward big corporations because they have no other way to make a living.
"Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there."
Right, because people that love art don't need to actually make a living.
It is my belief that piracy has made many markets stagnant. When you blur the line between losing sales due to piracy and losing sales due to a shitty product, content holders just increase copy protection rather than trying to innovate (because there is really no way to see the difference).
A real revolution would be creating a way for Indy artists to make a living and sell their music without a label.
There is a way, it's called the internet. They can put their music on their website and let paypal handle the transactions -- except people don't pay for it that way either and no one hears of the artist when they do...
"There is a way, it's called the internet. They can put their music on their website and let paypal handle the transactions -- except people don't pay for it that way either and no one hears of the artist when they do..."
Artists can still have clips of their own music on their site to give people a taste. They could even give out some songs for free (not all). There are multiple ways to get yourself out there without a label. The difference is that it's the artists' choice.
Without a major label, the Artist not only needs to make the music, but manage everything (including marketing). This is not an easy task and takes time away from what they really do best. Most people don't have the ability to run a successful business (which is what it is). This is why labels will always be around in some form.
You're making the point that paying for content is good because it enables the artist to eat while concentrating on creating the content -- rather than some other task to earn money.
And no, record labels may not always be around in some form if they can't make money doing what they do.
Since copying is okay, is it okay to copy currency? After all, it's just a bunch of paper and ink and only a perceived value. If you look at the damage this causes the economy, you can directly see the damage it causes a content creator.
"Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this."
Boo Hoo. They signed a contract that gives the record companies their souls and are now complaining about it. This argument is bullshit. The creators of the Pirate bay don't really give a shit about the rights of anyone. They freely admit that they believe in sharing of everything, just like when they were children.
I find it a little ironic that many of the same people that are pro-piracy get all in a tizzy when companies decide to sell their information, which is just a copy (you don't actually lose anything. It's not like stealing a physical copy of something).
"Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead."
Really? Create a full Metallica album from your house. How about Photoshop? If you can't, it means there is still a value for content creators. Copying us much different than creating. You seem to be equating them, which is just ridiculous.
Piracy pushes artists toward big corporations because they have no other way to make a living.
"Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there."
Right, because people that love art don't need to actually make a living.
It is my belief that piracy has made many markets stagnant. When you blur the line between losing sales due to piracy and losing sales due to a shitty product, content holders just increase copy protection rather than trying to innovate (because there is really no way to see the difference).
A real revolution would be creating a way for Indy artists to make a living and sell their music without a label.