You're made out of atoms that can be separated at the press of certain buttons. Or the pull of certain triggers. Or the action or inaction of a billion different things. Extending your argument, its ok for people to kill you.

Only if you overthink it.

It was a general comment on previous posters who'd play judge as to how much everyone else's work and properties should be valued at.

I think we (you & me) have a decent amount of agreement/overlapping views, but I'm interested in this particular sentence from your post:

If you would expand upon it, that'd be cool

How many singers get 5 million (assuming dollars) for a song?

clever companies gives student versions from their software free of charge.

if Russian dissidants had been stealing dell computers as opposewd to using pirated os's I doubt there would have been an outcry on cracking down on them, leading to blanket forgivness by the manufacturer. I think that says something.

It is perfectly ok, I mean why not pirate software if you wouldn't buy it anyway? Would I buy Visual Studio or 3dsmax?

Hell no..

On that point I have to disagree. I mean, strongly disagree as opposed to slightly disagree. You see, IMO it's one thing to pirate IE and surf the net and quite another to pirate Visual Studio. As a developer tool, you write public software and, as a result, make money off it.

That isn't personal use. Assuming I had Photoshop installed (which, if you work for any agency, I don't), I'd use it to correct color and exposure on my shots. Personal use. Should I decide to sell said photos, then I make money and, IMO, a part of that should go to Adobe.

Now, if I make 5$, it's an open discussion. Still, I think that developer tools, editing software, etc should be held to a higher standard. Personal view. I have purchased all my developer tools. And they were in excess of a thousand EUR. Borland Inprise Embarcadero Delphi is cool.

If God didn't want us entertained, He wouldn't have allowed that post.

Ambiguous, that one that is.

What I meant was this: Music isn't new. Neither is writing, painting, generally speaking all consecrated art forms. History of the what made a bunch of colors on a canvas be raised to art gives us insight.

Ever since out ancestors tapped a rhythm on an empty log with a dinosaur bone, anyone could tap the same beat, better or worse. The initial beater is the artist, and everyone else can try to be just like him, better or worse. Some way better, that's how talent is discovered. Never has the beat sequence reserved to the original player.

A painting is rare and expensive because the painting, itself, is a work of art. Subsequent printed copies of La Gioconda are 2 cents each.

Similarly, if a sculpture is great, I'm free to take pictures of it and review them as I like.

If a song is nice, I should be free to sing in the shower, and make a copy of it for replay. This isn't exactly infringement, as it's how it's been done for ages.

Note I'm not talking about reselling the copies, if I do I'm making money off someone else's work, and that's for a different discussion.

If I have a book, I can borrow it, resell it, make my own personal copies. Songs are different.

Actually, every other form of art allows copying, distribution, partial or complete, recording for review, etc, as applicable. The only ones that don't obey by this rule is music (and some software), which it's why I think this to be unnatural, as it's law-enforced, as opposed to expensive, impossible or hard.

As a result of these laws, a non-natural market is generated. That's what I meant when I said 5 mil. They are just about the only breed of artists that reach those sums.

It's monopoly/trust and cartel behavior to bundle a free Internet Explorer with Microsoft Windows, but it's fine for Sony Music to bundle 22 bad songs on my compilation.

It's fraud to price a full option car as much as the lower option model, because for the same money I get an inferior product. But it's fine to price an album and a single about the same.

And that's not even getting to the fact that most top singers and bands sign up with one of the major publishers, that push and maintain unreasonable margins.

I know it's an old argument, but there it is. It costs next to nothing to press and ship a CD.

I am aware that demand is high and, as a result, you sell as high as you can - it's the way the market works. Still, when gas prices goes up with no good reason, an authority intervenes and kicks them in the ... refineries. List expenses, profits, and toned down.

I know it's a long, long post with few clear points, that's why I try to keep it at a minimum.

But it's hard to make a crystal clear point. Because there are no crystal clear violations.

I is fair to sell a game, and then charge for additional levels? Are the levels not part of the game? No? Then how many levels before it's fraud? One? Is it actually a game if you can't play it? Where's the line? The loading screen?

Little by little it shifted. From stand alone games to games with additional content, then most content, the most content and all the cool stuff. Then games that allow online gaming but the people who pay for weapons and armor have twice the firepower and thrice the armor. And finally, games that you can't really play at all, like WoW.

Nice thing that was, charging for the disk. Not cheap, either. What exactly am I paying for? Doing them a favor by going out to buy 4Gb instead of loading their servers?

Where's the line? I'm pretty sure there should be one. Actually, I'm darned sure there should be one. It's illegal to purchase game tickets and sell them at a higher price, but it's fine to buy a composition/performance and sell it at a higher price.

And since there's a difference between right, moral, legal, etc, here's one to ponder. Is it moral to have a phone at a concert and record off the stage (a la Nokia commercial)? If so, why are they banned in concerts (we're not talking the fact that they can't really apply the rule). If it is fine, why not a theater? Is it not a performance? If it isn't, didn't I pay for a performance?

If I only paid the live performance, but not the recorded, then why are security cams legal? After all, what I do in public is free when live, not when recorded. Is my choreography not my own? (Yes, choreography is subject to copyright, you can't "do the Bart" as the song suggests)

Point being, the same situation has been altered to work one way but not the other. Based on the weight, in kilograms, of the legal department.

I know that's how the market works. But then again, the strong eat the weak, that's how life works, right? And we don't do that.

Mass marketing and all these new fangled replication and distribution systems are taking our eyes off the core issues.

Let's get down to the basic. It's much simpler when the buyer and seller are dealing directly and all the intents and motivations are put on the table:

- An artist, developer, writer, teacher, musician, prostitute, whomever can create/give something that you like. It may be a drawing, song, codes (apps/games), writings, teaching, whatever.

- You like what you see/hear/experience and you want to acquire it. You talk to the seller and ask if he/she wants to sell it to you and at what price. Both agree to a price, money exchanges hand and you get what you want.

Simple, clear.

No ethical or moral issues, because both parties come to the same agreement on the spot and the transaction was carried out to mutual satisfaction.

No legal issues (except for the whoring part, in certain states/countries) as goods/services exchange hand with mutual agreement.

-----

Now, when we introduce 'modern' replication, duplication and mass distribution systems into this 'transaction', then all sorts of process artifacts, kinks and loopholes may appear. These are against the wishes of the content creators and some of them may already be covered and protected by the legal system.

So if you're getting content for free through these loopholes, you may be doing one of two things (or both):

1. Something illegal, if said loophole is already protected by the laws and you're breaking it.
2. Something unethical, if said loophole is not protected by the laws (yet) but it's against the wishes of the creator for you to do so.

Of course its only for personal use, no money whatsoever involved, only the chinese pirate software for business.