(07-25-2010 03:08 PM)cevor Wrote:  Bottom line is that it's illegal. Period. No rationale will make it right.

Legality doesn't equate to morality. Legality comes from morality (or should, in theory); it doesn't define it. In this particular case, changes in technology have changed the effects of laws to bring them out of step with morality; this is reason to adjust the laws, not the moral code.

(07-25-2010 03:08 PM)cevor Wrote:  You're taking the work of the artist without their permission and not paying for it. If they wanted to give it away, they would. There are plenty that do and that's fine. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it then you can't have it, that's the way it works.

I've been having this same argument on another forum recently, and I have yet to see a single reason why this should be the case that doesn't rely on an invalid comparison of copyright to property. If you can give me one, I'll gladly consider it and see if I agree.

(07-25-2010 03:08 PM)cevor Wrote:  Apply your rationales to your job, you work and expect to be paid for it, then your boss says she doesn't want to pay you or can't afford it. You down with that?

No, but that isn't a valid application of what I've said. In the case of published recorded works, artists don't make money for what they're doing, but for what they've done. A more accurate analogy would be losing one's job and then demanding royalties for work done over the period of employment.