[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Nov. 28 2006,3:51)]Should I be able to sell dirt-filled gelcaps as a cure for cancer?
Provided you provide details of the ingredients and honest scientific assessments of the efficacy, yes. I would have absolutely no problem with that. People have the right to buy them if they so choose. Maybe they will use them for something else; maybe they will serve some sort of religious purpose; maybe some new medical breakthrough will show that they really work and why. It's not my place to judge that.
Of course, you can already do this now without my aforementioned requirements; just call it 'alternative medicine'.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Nov. 28 2006,3:51)]Are you totally sure about that? I can see where you're coming from, but that conjecture is as much theory as the success of communism.
Well, morality, and to some degree ethics, is all based upon a subjective philosophical viewpoint. There is no objective way for me to prove that I am any more right than you on what is morally or ethically justified. However, the economic and social success rate of communism vs capitalism do speak to which may be preferable, regardless of underlying ethics. That was where I was coming from, though you are right that my comments are only valid in one specific moral paradigm.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Nov. 28 2006,3:51)]So, if I had any interest in stealing the music of Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys, I really wouldn't feel any remorse whatsoever, because most of those types haven't even taken the basic steps it takes to become a musician. If you ask me, they're just packaging for whatever spew the record companies think will sell this quarter.
I guess that's my point. The stuff DOES sell. If it was not providing more value to the customers than that same money spent elsewhere it would not be selling. Whether you, as a privileged elite, feel that an artist 'deserves' income due to their skill, experience, age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, personal hygiene, religious affiliation, eye color, choice of friends, family history, physical characteristics, or any of the other hundred things you could arbitrarily decide makes them worthy, you cannot change the fact that they have provided value to consumers.
I understand where you're coming from; I really do. I have very little in my music collection from bands like the ones you mentioned. Heck, for a while I wouldn't even listen to music unless both the lyrics were written by the lead singer and the lead singer actually played an instrument. However, using your debate tactic that any consumer can decide who is worthy of their money and who can be stolen from I can easily rationalize the theft of just about anything on some subjective basis. I know some of the items I listed in the first paragraph sound facetious, but I've had the displeasure of knowing real people who would feel the theft of Britney's music is morally justified because 'she's just a woman'. I am very sorry, but although your reasoning sounds better I cannot
objectively see any difference between "I am justified in theft because the item owner has not met the requisite skill levels I think they should have" and "I am justified in theft because the item owner is a Protestant/Mexican/Blonde/etc".
The job of Britney Spears is not to record high difficulty vocal tracks with unmatched grace and skill, it is simply to entertain. Actually, not even that is correct, most simply her job is the same as everyone else’s: to provide something of value to society. The fact that the CD produces adequate value for consumers to purchase it is proof that the production company deserves the income for that record. The fact that Britney was able to enter into a contract with the company has given her the right to her share of that income. None of this would happen if both sides weren't providing adequate value to the other; how could it? That she and the record label do not deserve your money because of her skill level is a viewpoint I can respect, and you can show them your dissatisfaction by not purchasing their product and encouraging others to do the same.
Out of curiosity, would you feel justified in stealing the music I have written (assuming I didn't make it available free)? I composed all the tracks but have my computer's midi synthesizer play them. I have spent my time honing my skill in composition, but am as unskilled as the artists you mentioned above in playing most of the instruments in my songs. Regardless of how they are written, if you enjoy them and gain value from them why would I be unjustified in asking for something of value in return?
Just to clarify, in case you didn't notice, I take this stance grudgingly; not because I think the current situation is optimal, but because I truly believe the downloading of music illegally is immoral. Perhaps I am wrong, and I will change my viewpoint if presented with a valid argument I had not considered, but I don't feel most of those presented so far are justified. Note I didn't debate your earlier post; I agree with your reasoning there in a way.
I did suggest earlier to download the music to sample it and send the artist a small donation directly if you like it and simply delete it if you don't. It costs the consumer less and the artist that actually worked to produce the music receives as much payment as they may have otherwise. This works to push the middle man (or men) out of the equation leveling the playing field for all artists to compete using only their own skill. Centralizing access through an online store that allows all artists to submit music and set their own pricing would also improve the entire situation greatly in my opinion.
So as you can see I'm not taking a completely hard set position here.