"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:4a082f86$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5/10/2009 11:23 PM, somebody wrote:
> > "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
> >> A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
> >> The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
> >> should pay.  Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a
new
> >> business model that allows them to continue making money.
> >
> > So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new
business
> > model instead of seeking protection?
>
> Completely different.  A tomato is a tangible object, of which a farmer
> has a limited number.

Typical fallacy.

> It's not like Apple can only sell X downloads of any given song, and
> then it's gone.

Same difference. A tomato does not represent value to a farmer as a fruit
that he can eat. It's value is as a commodity that he can sell to make
income. Steal a tomato, a farmer has one less to sell. Steal a song, Apple
has one (OK, maybe 0.125 for you who say not all those would buy it anyway)
to sell. It's about stealing away legitimate business by illegal means.

> > It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding
businesses
> > to succumb to theieves.

> You know what's absurd?  Hiding your head in the sand.
>
> Whether you like it or not, music downloads are here to stay.
> Technologically, there's nothing you can do that would seriously prevent
> piracy.

Just as car thieves are here to stay. All protection schemes can be broken.
But both technologically and legally, there's much to be done to minimize
the damage.

> From a pragmatist's standpoint,

Switching gears now I see.

> it makes sense that businesses
> find a viable means of support rather than continuing to sue their own
> customers.

By definition, one who steals is not a customer.

Post a reply to this message