"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a060cba$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
> >> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
> >> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
> >> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.
> >
> > they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders.
Hence
> > the phrase " freeloaders that are ruining it for *everybody* ". It's the
> > same old story: Some break the law, everybody is made to pay the price
> > because they either protect the law breakers or are oblivious to it.
>
> I also, BTW, find it amusing that you invoke "free market" in one
> message on the issue, and then seem to think little of them using the
> government to get what they want.

Free market != lawlessness/stealing. On the contrary, free market works on
the principle that people speak with their money. If product X is deemed
unworthy of the price, people don't buy it, period. Or if a product Y is
good, people buy that product and the manufacturer gets its reward and is
infused with funds to further develop good products. With rampant
piracy/stealing, free market doesn't work as it is intended to. In the
extreme case that, say, all art is being pirated, you have the complete
antithesis of free market where government has to support all artists via
mandatory taxes from the population. Which is of course highly undesirable,
as then art will be subject to government politics and censoring. So, for
free market to work, both the manufacturer *and the consumer* have play by
the rules that create a fair environment. If the consumer is not, then
government compensates for it. Is it desirable for government to intervene
after the fact? Of course not. But it's the consumer that broke the fair
play.

Post a reply to this message