Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 1560559" data-attributes="member: 19675">My counterexample was apparently unclear:You're correct- there are actually very few people are making money from downloads.&nbsp; iTunes and the other pay-per-download are making money, largely off of the major acts.&nbsp; However, if someone steals your IP, almost any money he gets selling it is profit for him.In my counterexample, I wasn't referring to recoupables in the normal record company contract sense.I was assuming that you and your bandmates had a private label and spent $20k to make an album, and your band does not get Metallica-level airplay.&nbsp; Your music is stolen (either before pressing or after, it doesn't matter) and sold by the thief, not neccessarily in your core listening market.&nbsp; You have no way of recouping (recovering) the money you invested in the album short of finding the thief with your money.===This paragraph doesn't make sense to me.If you haven't bought anything from a major label in 15 years, you're NOT subsidizing any artists on their labels at all.If they haven't produced anything you want to hear, you have no &quot;reason&quot; to steal their product, so, as you say, you don't.But because you don't value their product, you don't think its criminal if someone else steals it?&nbsp; It is obviously of value to someone- the creator, the thief, and the intended market.This is a classic legal slippery slope problem- if a law is not enforced merely because you find that the victim of the crime is worthless, at some point, the law will become unenforceable.Or, to put it another way, if you refuse to act while someone is robbed your neighbor, your neigbor will not act when you are being robbed.&nbsp; If you (and others) refuse to convict someone of CRIME X on the grounds that you don't like the victim, eventually, the state will not bring charges of comitting CRIME X even if the victim is a saint.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 1560559, member: 19675"] My counterexample was apparently unclear: You're correct- there are actually very few people are making money from downloads. iTunes and the other pay-per-download are making money, largely off of the major acts. However, if someone steals your IP, almost any money he gets selling it is profit for him. In my counterexample, I wasn't referring to recoupables in the normal record company contract sense. I was assuming that you and your bandmates had a private label and spent $20k to make an album, and your band does not get Metallica-level airplay. Your music is stolen (either before pressing or after, it doesn't matter) and sold by the thief, not neccessarily in your core listening market. You have no way of recouping (recovering) the money you invested in the album short of finding the thief with your money. === This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. If you haven't bought anything from a major label in 15 years, you're NOT subsidizing any artists on their labels at all. If they haven't produced anything you want to hear, you have no "reason" to steal their product, so, as you say, you don't. But because you don't value their product, you don't think its criminal if someone else steals it? It is obviously of value to someone- the creator, the thief, and the intended market. This is a classic legal slippery slope problem- if a law is not enforced merely because you find that the victim of the crime is worthless, at some point, the law will become unenforceable. Or, to put it another way, if you refuse to act while someone is robbed your neighbor, your neigbor will not act when you are being robbed. If you (and others) refuse to convict someone of CRIME X on the grounds that you don't like the victim, eventually, the state will not bring charges of comitting CRIME X even if the victim is a saint. [/QUOTE]

Verification