6 ms·

While adaptation might be necessary, to say debating this topic can't change the future is inaccurate. I have this debate with plenty of people, and I know at

While adaptation might be necessary, to say debating this topic can't change the future is inaccurate. I have this debate with plenty of people, and I know at least a few who have changed their behavior as a result. Educating people about the consequences of their actions is important, even when it seems like it has little impact.

pdeuchler 14y ago
I'm not discouraging debate. I'm simply saying that arguing morality will fail to sway market forces, and the fact that record labels believe in the exact opposite is foolish, and bordering on ignorant. The record labels can stand on the side of "good" until they go bankrupt. Pyrrhic victories do nothing for the bottom line.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying "right and wrong don't matter, what matters is what you can get away with". In other words, "might makes right". Well then! In that case, I have very much chosen the wrong business model. Perhaps I should reconsider. A better business model might be: NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything! We'll just go ahead and find them. But don't ask how much they'll cost after we do find them. It'll... uh... depend. I often find myself feeling the same way in these kinds of discussions as I do about being a well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects. In other words, I feel like I'd probably be a lot better off personally if I just shrugged my shoulders and ignored what I thought was right and joined the other side of the argument. Free music! No capital gains taxes! Sounds awesome!
  - pdeuchler 14y ago
    I'm not saying that at all, in any way, shape or form. My argument is that people are failing to distinguish the moral argument from the economic one. Market forces don't have to be just or moral, they just have to be exactly that... market forces. There's no room for a "morality" variable in an economic formula, there's only concrete numbers that dictate price and demand. In this case the market has decided that they will not use the current business model offered by the record labels. This same market has shown exactly what they want, and given birth to many new, profitable business models (Spotify, for instance). For the record companies to BLATANTLY IGNORE these market forces, and instead rely upon moral arguments to sway consumer thinking is becoming a more and more untenable position. It has very clearly not worked[1]. Thus, for the record labels to continue to offer this business model is very clearly not in their best economic interests. Note that I am not passing judgement on either side. In my personal opinion pirating music without paying for it is clearly wrong. However my personal ethics have no effect on the fact that millions of people pirate millions of songs every day, and the fact that they will continue to do so until the current record companies (in their current form) will become extinct. If the record labels truly want to win this battle they will provide consumers with a legal alternative that suits the market's demands[2]. That will not only erase the issue of morality, but will allow them to continue to profit. Now, obviously, companies have the right to choose whatever business model they want. That does not mean that the market has the OBLIGATION to support said business model. A better business model might, in fact, be "NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything!". Doesn't mean it should be enacted, or that the market will decide to support it. I'm simply trying to couch the debate in purely economic terms for the purpose of clarifying the exact problem and solution. Now straying from the issue at hand, why are you bringing politics into this? What does you being a "well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects" have to do with the current music industry? Furthermore, what gives you the idea that the "other side" (I'm assuming you're talking about Republicans) support "Free music"? Even if that wasn't your intention, by introducing the political paradigm you open yourself up for that exact interpretation. But even beyond all of that, I would say that by bringing the us vs. them mentality ("the other side") into the discussion you've already cheapened the debate from an intellectual discussion to a personal soapbox. [1] To be frank, the average joe, and especially the average 21 and under individual doesn't give a rat's ass about the morality argument. [2] This might include investigating several new methods of revenue if the market continues to demand free music (endorsements, lifestyle brands, etc. not necessarily concerts and merchandise sales). Not saying this is "right" or "just", just merely stating possibilities.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      And to be sure, the labels and rightsholders are insisting on a morality that they themselves are not subject and do not follow. Note also that nobody is asking why the labels aren't being "reasonable" in adapting their business models. "Might makes right" indeed.

pdeuchler 14y ago

I'm not discouraging debate. I'm simply saying that arguing morality will fail to sway market forces, and the fact that record labels believe in the exact opposite is foolish, and bordering on ignorant. The record labels can stand on the side of "good" until they go bankrupt. Pyrrhic victories do nothing for the bottom line.

tptacek 14y ago
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying "right and wrong don't matter, what matters is what you can get away with". In other words, "might makes right". Well then! In that case, I have very much chosen the wrong business model. Perhaps I should reconsider. A better business model might be: NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything! We'll just go ahead and find them. But don't ask how much they'll cost after we do find them. It'll... uh... depend. I often find myself feeling the same way in these kinds of discussions as I do about being a well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects. In other words, I feel like I'd probably be a lot better off personally if I just shrugged my shoulders and ignored what I thought was right and joined the other side of the argument. Free music! No capital gains taxes! Sounds awesome!
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  I'm not saying that at all, in any way, shape or form. My argument is that people are failing to distinguish the moral argument from the economic one. Market forces don't have to be just or moral, they just have to be exactly that... market forces. There's no room for a "morality" variable in an economic formula, there's only concrete numbers that dictate price and demand. In this case the market has decided that they will not use the current business model offered by the record labels. This same market has shown exactly what they want, and given birth to many new, profitable business models (Spotify, for instance). For the record companies to BLATANTLY IGNORE these market forces, and instead rely upon moral arguments to sway consumer thinking is becoming a more and more untenable position. It has very clearly not worked[1]. Thus, for the record labels to continue to offer this business model is very clearly not in their best economic interests. Note that I am not passing judgement on either side. In my personal opinion pirating music without paying for it is clearly wrong. However my personal ethics have no effect on the fact that millions of people pirate millions of songs every day, and the fact that they will continue to do so until the current record companies (in their current form) will become extinct. If the record labels truly want to win this battle they will provide consumers with a legal alternative that suits the market's demands[2]. That will not only erase the issue of morality, but will allow them to continue to profit. Now, obviously, companies have the right to choose whatever business model they want. That does not mean that the market has the OBLIGATION to support said business model. A better business model might, in fact, be "NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything!". Doesn't mean it should be enacted, or that the market will decide to support it. I'm simply trying to couch the debate in purely economic terms for the purpose of clarifying the exact problem and solution. Now straying from the issue at hand, why are you bringing politics into this? What does you being a "well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects" have to do with the current music industry? Furthermore, what gives you the idea that the "other side" (I'm assuming you're talking about Republicans) support "Free music"? Even if that wasn't your intention, by introducing the political paradigm you open yourself up for that exact interpretation. But even beyond all of that, I would say that by bringing the us vs. them mentality ("the other side") into the discussion you've already cheapened the debate from an intellectual discussion to a personal soapbox. [1] To be frank, the average joe, and especially the average 21 and under individual doesn't give a rat's ass about the morality argument. [2] This might include investigating several new methods of revenue if the market continues to demand free music (endorsements, lifestyle brands, etc. not necessarily concerts and merchandise sales). Not saying this is "right" or "just", just merely stating possibilities.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    And to be sure, the labels and rightsholders are insisting on a morality that they themselves are not subject and do not follow. Note also that nobody is asking why the labels aren't being "reasonable" in adapting their business models. "Might makes right" indeed.