Is recording live performances morally wrong?
Is it Immoral to Download Music Illegally?
For several decades I've paid the music industry many times more than the average consumer, but in recent years I've got my recordings almost entirely through "illegal" use of P2P and torrents on the Internet.
I don't view my current behavior as immoral, nor do I think the fact that I've paid a lot in the past or that I've had no income (and dwindling savings) recently has any real impact on the moral issue Has.
Most professional musicians earn no big sums of money, but what they earn comes mostly from performing live. When I go to a gig, I'm grateful if I know someone from the band and can boast a free ticket - but that expect not me; I respect a person's right to get paid for working while I'm only there to enjoy myself.
There are always enough people in the world willing to pay for a first-class album, which covers the (relatively) low cost of recording and mastering. Distribution over the internet is almost free anyway, and if people still want the physical medium they obviously have to pay for it.
The people who lose to music piracy are primarily the ones in the music distribution business, not the musicians themselves. I would be happy if their entire business went away as I think they are dinosaurs at best and leeches at worst.
Returning to the moral question, just because a relatively small number of top entertainers (including some musicians) actually get amazingly rich, doesn't mean that an aspiring musician should feel like they are being "robbed" unless he is all the max Income gets its way through its upward journey (which in most cases it will never achieve). In particular, I see no moral justification for repeatedly paying musicians to re-sell a recording that does not require any further effort after completion.
Joseph Weissman ♦
Is it immoral to negatively affect someone's potential wealth?
This is actually a very good question when we replace "wealth" with "income".
The answer is as follows:
- In a free market economy, high profits (and thus income) can only be achieved by meeting the urgent demand for very scarce things. For example, while water is vital, its price is usually quite low (at least outside of deserts). In certain regions, water is actually a free commodity. OTOH, diamonds, and gold, while useless per se, or at least not necessary to sustain life, have high prices and those who dig and sell them make big profits.
- One way to "negatively influence" potentially high profits in a free market economy would therefore be to convince people not to demand what is in short supply. As long as this happens without violence or threats of violence, there is nothing against it.
- Another option would be to actually reduce the scarcity of the item in question. For example, in a city that is starving, one that sells grain will make big profits. These profits will drop dramatically once fresh grain supplies are brought in and sold from outside.
But (3) is actually the definition of increasing prosperity! By producing something that people need and want, you create wealth and inevitably reduce the future profits of all manufacturers of comparable products.
So the answer to your question is "no, it's not immoral".
If so, the following activities would be immoral: smoking cessation (reducing the income of the tobacco industry); build one house next to the other (if detached houses with better views fetch higher prices); bake your own bread (think of the poor baker, old man!); Invent, build, sell and use cars / computers / washing machines; do not use cars / computers / washing machines; ... you get the picture.
There is a certain caste of rent seekers who want us to believe that "their" future profits are indeed already there now are their property, so to take away is to "steal". They have a natural alley that helps them pursue their particular interests by force - the state.
I don't realize that the phrase "lost sales" is coherent. How is that supposed to be quantified? Even if we were forced to allocate a certain percentage of the downloads that almost certainly would have been purchased, it would have to be tiny - dwarfed by the amount of content shared in violation of what the copyright owner wanted in this regard.
As an aside, as I hinted at in my comments above, there is at least some disagreement over the idea that an illegal download is morally meaningful (at least when compared to implicitly supporting the arguably immoral behavior of for-profit music industry executives, the underlying capitalist framework with its tendency to relentlessly exploit artists, and so on.)
From a broader perspective, illegal downloads appear to be a relatively minor "problem" compared to the revolutionary changes we are seeing in the social and economic order today, due in part to the increasing connectivity of people on the internet and increasing numbers Effects of globalization on everyday life. I suggest that artists need to focus on creating products with inherent or intrinsic value and giving people a reason to buy. Fighting piracy is ultimately an enormous waste of time.
You can read about a recent presentation by the creator of Minecraft in which he more or less does this case. He emphasizes the difference between piracy and theft and the incoherence of the "lost sale" concept and the importance of giving people a reason to buy. From there:
Piracy is not theft. If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there will simply be more of it in the world ... There is no such thing as a "lost sale" ... Is a bad review a lost sale? What about a missed shipping date?
One concept that I thought worth mentioning comes from Judaism. The idea is that there is a separation between cases where "you enjoy and you have not lost" (זה נהנה וזה לא לא) and cases where "you enjoy and you have lost" (זה נהנה וזה חסר). If you are downloading copyrighted material, you can argue that it falls under the first category, as you are not making them actually lose something they already have, all you have to do is prevent them from receiving any additional payments that they may have To have a demand. In this case, it is often considered not immoral to do (or take) the thing, as we like it when people enjoy things. The original example is in the Baba Kama tract of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 20-21, which discusses whether a man who has slept on another man's property without the owner knowing (or actually losing something) is ), is obliged to pay in arrears and they conclude that in general it is not (I oversimplify it, it depends on the circumstances). On this basis, the rabbis would also sometimes say that the owner might be required to allow the action in cases where he does not lose anything, as they do not like it when people enforce their rights in a way that hurts someone (i.e. if you didn't want to rent this property out anyway, it seems unfair to prevent me from living there.
- What does authentic culture mean
- How deeply can an animal think
- Is it possible to eliminate wisdom?
- How can one get a sin
- What's the best book on SCRUM
- How much does e-commerce insurance cost
- What are massless particles in layman's terms
- Where are VCB and ACB used
- How are diesel engines cleaner these days?
- Where can you buy a wooden pallet
- Is Tikona WiFi good
- Security loan debts are viewed as bad debts
- Are hoverboards a fashion product
- What is meant by static
- How did you get rid of your ego easily
- Which lipoprotein is high in triglycerides
- What are medical schools
- Which artist do you have to see live
- Why does love deceive us?
- What does a film studio do
- Is your print real
- Did Pope Joan really exist
- What is the IQ of Nithyanandha
- Which country has the fewest dropouts?