The thing is, you probably have a psychopath's narcissistic view of the consequences - the punishment to you.
You probably don't mean the real consequences - the harm to our culture by the defunding of the creation of works (books, films, music, art are all theoretically at risk).
For the sake of argument:
Books? Not at all.
Films? More than half of movie profits come from the box office.
Music? How much do you think iTunes makes for Apple?
Art? What art?
The real question is whether you accept the "Defunding" argument, and you see, many people do not.
If you 'know it's wrong', you could not do it.
Now, do I have *some* sympathy for the 'poor person can't afford, and it doesn't cost them anything' argument?
Yes, in this way, this is different than physical goods. Not everyone can drive a mercedes - each mercedes costs money - but a film being downloaded *by someone who would not have paid to see it because they can't afford it* can be done. But there are a couple issues with that, too.
First, it's difficult at best to limit the unpaid downloads to those people - any method to do this includes many who should pay for it, as piracy does.
How many people are smart enough and savvy enough to do this? If you are poor & smart, you arguably have much greater potential to contribute to society. Especially if you are able to enrich yourself with "art". Stupid & poor? Lazy & poor? You'll be subscribing to Netflix and Blockbuster. No need to "limit" anything. People have a natural limit to their time as well as their money.
Second, even those people can afford *something*, but there's not any practical way to collect the 'smaller payments'.
Yes, they can afford *something*. That would be movies at a theatre and live concerts. Perhaps you can give a "sampler" and create a fan for life.
Third, a poor person who might buy $10 a month of product might buy zero instead if he can download large amounts for free.
Everyone does a cost/benefit analysis for just about every action they take. If the time it takes to find and download movies is not worth it, they will naturally pay $10 a month.
We're better off looking for ways to help the poor access the works and the creators to get paid something, than legalize piracy. Think the public library.
What's the difference between "Isohunt.com" & the "Public Library"? "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?
I've said for years that potentially, digital reproduction represents a threat to the creation of works never before seen in human history. We should all support protecting that culture.
You've said it, now you have to explain it and prove it. Evidence that piracy has an effect on the creation of music and film in the last decade has been basically none. Mp3s have arguably and will arguably save record companies millions in the long run in costs and revolutionized products like iPods and Smartphones that are in themselves, multi-million dollar industries. Sometimes, it takes revolution and a rebel to create positive change. A change to digital music is entirely to the consumer's benefit, but would have never happened/much slower if the record companies had it their way or the highway.
It might be full of crap as well - books by Sarah Palin, Jerry Springer and bad movies - but that's another issue.
That's a major issue that proponents will point to. Are 30 second previews of an album on iTunes enough? Why the hell can't we "return" digital products like movies and music if we use them, and they turn out be shit? IF you propose that piracy of digital music and film is absolutely akin to stealing, then you MUST give consumers the same protection, which we do NOT have.
Edit: I should also mention I think the extensions of copyright protection are wrong, exploiting profit for no valid reason.
As you say, you have cultural advancement's best interest in mind. However, look around you. How many people do you know have iPods and pay for $25 or $50 iTunes giftcards, or buy albums on iTunes? I'll tell you what I know, basically 90% of people around me. Do you have any evidence that creativity (or what passes for it these days) and art has been stunted at all by piracy? You underestimate the benefits of intellectual movements like BitTorrent and overestimate the plausible damage to artists.
The biggest problems are never mentioned or addressed, like:
1) Art for profit: When does it stop being true "art"?
2) Record labels vs artists, who truly deserves the majority of the proceeds?
3) Ownership of thoughts and ideas, should we revamp the way we perceive this?
Facebook
Twitter