The best download tools.

Well it really is very bad if you can't see the simple logic here.

1. Person in question will never buy software, period.

2. Person in question pirates software.

3. Software company has made no loss since person in question would not have purchased under any circumstances.

Putting aside all the moral questions for a moment, the above argument is simple logic. Whether software should be pirated may be a complex moral issue, but the point still stands that in this scenario, the software company has not made a loss.

It's not an 'either/or' argument. It's simply a process of logical inevitability - if people are ripped off by artists/record companies for years, then they'll be more likely to avoid paying for music when the opportunity arises. Regardless of whether this is right or wrong, record companies and artists can not sidestep a degree of responsibility here.

Artists write albums which they pad out with 'filler' because record companies pressure them to produce almbums within a specified time period. That's simple economic fact.

That doesn't make sense. What are you talking about?

Like I said, make them available for purchase via download. Minimal overheads and maximum profits. Seems stupid not to, wouldn't you say? And it's not the artists stopping this in the majority of cases - it's the record companies.

Every time you breathe air you're getting 'something for nothing'. The debate is whether or not artists are truly damaged by file sharing and whether it's morally wrong. Saying "it's not fair for someone to get something for nothing" isn't an argument - it's a whine. If it's not fair, then you need to explain why it's not fair in order for it to qualify as an argument.

 

Let's take it from the bottom and work our way back.

As usual, you're making some pretty big assumptions. Can you point me to where I said it was 'legitimate' to 'download something for nothing'? I'm having a conversation about the ethics involved - not adopting a polarised opinion.

It doesn't, particularly. It's a flippant, facile comment. In the same way that saying 'downloading something for nothing is wrong' is a vacuous and meaningless statement. It may well be wrong for a plethora of reasons..... lost revenue for the companies involved, harder for small bands to survive etc etc.... but it's not wrong just because it's 'getting something for nothing'.

Once again, you're making pretty big assumptions. You're assuming that I download music. I don't. I prefer to own original copies. That doesn't stop me from considering the ethics from both perspectives though.

All the people I know who download music still buy music. They still spend the same money they would otherwise spend, so the net revenue flow to the record companies has not changed. They simply get more music than they otherwise would. It's exactly the same as home taping. How many people do you know who taped albums and therefore purchased less music?

We're talking about the other people elsewhere in this thread. In this specific example, nobody is making a loss. You accused me of not understanding economics in relation to this specific example. Please explain to me in relation to this specific example how the software company is making a loss?

Again, you're widening the debate. We're talking about one specific type of person. The issue here is that you made an insulting comment about me not understanding economics. Please explain to me how in this specific example the software company is making a loss (bearing in mind that I've not stated that in the grand scheme of things they're not making a loss), or else concede that your comment was misplaced.

My only 'point' is that like so many things in life, it's a complex issue with no neat black and white answers. There's a case to be made for why file sharing is wrong, but there's also a strong case to be made that it doesn't do any lasting harm. I think it's worth while looking at it from all sides rather than adopting extreme opinions at either end of the scale. After all, without seeing the balance books of the companies in question and some pretty hard analysis of the trends involved, nobody can really know for certain what effect downloading has, can they?

 

Can you two take this bickering to instant messenger or somewhere else? The point of the thread is to recognize the best download tools, not to argue over whether or not it is morally right to use p2p or other file sharing programs. Whoever brought up the objection should troll elsewhere. I highly doubt that your going to convince anyone not to share, distribute, or download. People are going to come to that conclusion on their own and I doubt anything you say is going to change that.