Don't be obtuse, the kind of electronic theft that you promote didn't exist in the 18th century. This is a standard martin distraction from the issue.
As often as you mention the lack of ability of professionals to "stay afloat" financially, there sure is a serious lack of examples for as much evidence as you demand of everyone else around here. I'm curious to learn of all of these professionals that have tanked because of file sharing (and not because of drugs or terrible life decisions).
please pay attention. the reason we didnt remove revenue from artists back then was because that revenue from recordings didnt yet exist. but the musicians still did fine, did they not? high quality music was still produced, correct? answer this question: what is wrong with a society where selling recorded music isnt that profitable?
Not taking anything away from the credibility of your sources, but the information just seems...impersonal. I could just as easily say that free anti-virus software is threatening my job stability and the ability to support myself because it's harder to hack computers. None of you would care, nor should you. Hypothetical, agendaless question: If Napster had not come around when it did, how long do you think (if ever) it would have taken for the music industry to take advantage of technology and start the e-commerce distribution of music? Do you think they would have even put forth the effort to innovate themselves if the threat was not there? Maybe I just can't muster any sympathy for people who complain about "having it rough" when they make enough to pay off my house 3 times in one check.
It's not a free market economy if stealing is permitted. You've already admitted that you're just trying to justify theft. Why go on?
iTunes was already designed and in late production but they had to take the time get royalty issues straightened out instead of just stealing like Napster. Yet you think cutting taxes for millionaires who make 1,000 times your salary is important. :insane:
Napster was around in '99. Apple didn't acquire the software that they turned into iTunes until 2000. They launched "iTunes" in 2001 as a media player for Macs. The actual "Store" part of it which is what we are talking about didn't go live until 2003. Try again. Do I? This is news to me. I'm glad you cleared that up for me. :insane:
one reason stealing is bad because it take something from one person and gives to another. but that doesnt happen when i copy your music. stealing isnt bad because god said it was. if stealing is a net gain for society, then it is no longer bad. you took philosophy, right? yunno, utilitarianism. i am proposing to you tht a society where file sharing is allowed is not a worse society. i am aware that a society that allows stealing of physical items that cannot be freely replicated woul dbe chaotic and terrible. but you cannot continiue to ignore that the game is changed when the item in question can be replicated infinitely for virtually zero cost. how does society not benefit from free exchange of information? exactly how are we as a whole better off when music exchange is restricted? artists wont create? wrong. of course they will. music will die out? wrong. musciaisn will perform live more? ok, sounds good. i wasnt serious. in the future, when piracy is far more rampant, and the music industry adapts, will we be worse off? of course not. and unless you can explain how we will be worse off, then i win. particularly given that piracy is inevitable.
In 1999, Apple purchased a software application called SoundJam MP from software makers Casady & Greene. Originally developed by Bill Kincaid and Jeff Robbin, Apple assigned a team of software engineers to begin modifying SoundJam MP into the first generation of iTunes.
