Reason 39 "Already paid" is the only one that seems valid to me. I've always thought that it was unfair to have paid full price when replacing my vinyl with CDs. I do feel that I should pay something more for the improved sound and durability, and I realize that manufacturing costs and profits should be covered, but the original purpose of the copyright to reward creators for their contributions was already achieved on the first purchase, so I should not have to pay that part of it again.

I totally support the concept that artists should be paid, and they should be paid like any other job based on the value of their work. In fact, reason 34 would seem legitimate if the ISPs collected an additional fee to be distributed among the artists based on what was downloaded.  

One argument I did not see above is: "It's not a physical asset, just a stream of bits, just information, just a copy, so I did not really steal anything because the original physical product is still there". I always thought a good counter to that argument would be to ask whether they think they would be successful using that argument with an attorney or doctor: "I not going to pay you for you advice because I'm not leaving here with anything physical - it's just information, just a copy from your physical brain, so I'm not stealing or cheating you because your brain is still there". 

Well, point 8 is valid too. We both know Majors get 95% of an album or just a single. The biggest problem in music are Majors.

Don't be silly, artists get 70% from iTunes...

The only problem is mainstream piracy, and mainstream piracy's going away now because of the internationally coordinated anti-theft measures we see popping up right now all over the place.

I would be careful about suggesting that Majors taking 95% is wrong. I can't say for sure how accurate this is, but here's a breakout showing where the money goes for each CD - seems the Majors only get small piece themselves:

http://futureofthemusicindustry.blogspot.com/2005/01/music-downloads-jupiter-research.html

"I did not really steal anything because the original physical product is still there"

Only a seriously stoned pirate would use that argument. :)

Printing your own money is not exactly legal either, is it...

Paul, you actually left out the only valid reason for illegal downloading.

Because they can.

"Three days after publication of my new book , The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, I was able to find electronic copies on a few websites that specialize in illegal content. These were high quality versions of the book, including the images of the cover, the references, and—my favorite part—the copyright notice.

I was flattered. On one of the sites, the book had been very popular, downloaded over 20,000 times in just a short period of time before my publisher shut it down.

Recently in a lecture on dishonesty in San Francisco I was explaining, as I always do, that dishonesty is largely founded on our ability to rationalize, and a young guy stood up and argued that downloading music was actually the right thing to do.

He said that the companies make lots of money while artists don’t (they make the music for the public, not for profit). And either way, he wouldn’t buy the music anyway so it wouldn’t make a difference. “My friend,” I said, “thank you for proving my point about rationalization.”

Then I asked him to imagine if the product in question represented several months or even years of his life. All that time he was creating, writing, editing, and marketing this thing in order to fund his next project. And then everyone downloaded it, illegally, for free. At which point he sat down."

Dan Arley, author, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/how-to-stop-illegal-downloads

I understand #39 too. A lot of people purchased music with DRM protection, and now those tracks are being deactivated unless you take extra steps to save it. They are supposed to burn it to a CD or lose it and buy it again. That's not fair. Quite a few people do not have a blank CD to burn the music to for example, and many modern computers don't even have disk drives. It is also a violation of DMCA. Music has gone up since then too. If I had to repurchase my collection at a higher price simply because artists forced me to use DRM which I didn't want to use in the first place, I would not be happy.

Why don't you show us a couple of lame piracy excuses you don't understand?

Hey, man. Your logic is a little f***** up. Maybe you'd like to tell Starbucks to give you your coffee for free. I mean, it's not really fair for them to expect you to pay again, is it? You already bought one, after all. Maybe you should just take a piss into a cup so you don't have to buy that coffee twice.

At Starbucks, you buy a physical product that is consumed. For music, you buy a license to use a copyrighted work. It has been made quite clear that we do not buy music, rather the right to listen to it. Why should that license or right be permantently tied to the medium it was purchased on? Is it no longer Starbucks coffee if we pour it out of the coffee cup into our own coffee mug?

Hi Sean,

Although I might not expect everyone to agree with me, I thought my logic was quite clear. Let me try again. Let's say I purchased a vinyl record in the early 60's. I paid for the physical vinyl record bank, the costs of manufacturing it, the cost of pressing it, the cost of recording and mastering the songs, marketing costs, distribution costs, etc., and, of course, the payment to the songwriters and the record label for their creative work (and, there are two copyrights involved here - one for the song, and one for the recording). 

At this point, the artist and the record label have been rewarded for their creative efforts, and they probably did not have any expectation of receiving additional income from me. The system worked to reward them as they expected. Of course, I could be wrong on this point - maybe they did know that CDs and internet and downloads were on the horizon and they greatly anticipated additional revenue from those future developments. 

Anyway, along comes CDs, and they are considered to be an improvement of the sound. The record labels re-master their tapes and make CDs. Now, I want the improved sound, and, as I said before, I believe I should pay for that improved sound by paying for the CD blank, the manufacturing costs, and all of the other costs. It is a new, physical product that was not free to make and I should therefore pay to cover the costs plus their profit. But, what I should NOT have to pay for again is the copyright portion because I already paid for that when I purchased the vinyl record - the songwriters and the record label were already paid for their creative contributions and had no expectation of receiving an additional payment for that (except, they certainly are entitled to all of the other licensing opportunities, such as performance rights, publishing, and covers by other artists). 

Now, I also realize that the amount paid for the copyright license is probably small in comparison to the cost of the CD, so maybe I should not worry about it. And, I would expect that the costs of a download are very small, in which case the portion for copyright woudl be comparatively larger. But, my main point was to show that there is something to the argument that once the copyright is paid for, one should not have to pay again. I think they should only have to pay the other costs. 

Your analogy with Starbucks is not logical. It does not reflect the same concept. I agree with you that I should pay for another cup of coffee. I could, however, use your Starbucks analogy by saying that I should not have to pay that portion of the price that covers the cost of materials, manufacturing, and inventory for the cardboard container in which I receive the coffee if and only if I ask them to refill that same cardboard container I paid for on the first cup. I should only have to pay for the coffee.

Creative efforts should be rewarded, not stolen.

so if someone pays to see you in concert once, they have paid for the right to see you in concert anywhere, anytime in the future, right? (oh sure, maybe they have to pay a little more for a newer seat, or improved sound system or whatever, but they've already paid for the right to hear your performance.)

Hi same as,

I'm puzzled by your question - please explain your position.

Songwriters expect to be paid performance rights when an artist performs their songs in concert, and I support that. Artists and everyone else involved in putting on a concert expect to be paid for their work, and I support that. People and organizations should be paid enough to cover costs and make a profit. Creative people should be rewarded for their creative work.

I fail to see how your analogy relates to my original argument, but perhaps I can use your scenario in a similar way: Suppose you pay to see a concert and you take your seats, and half way through you see a couple of seats that are empty and unsold and you want to sit there instead. If the empty seats are in the same section, should you pay full price to move to those seats? If they are in a better section, should you pay full price or should you pay for an upgrade? I would think you should not have to pay anything additional to move to the empty seats unless they are in a better section, in which case I think paying for an upgrade would be fair.

Hi Sean,

Although I might not expect everyone to agree with me, I thought my logic was quite clear. Let me try again. Let's say I purchased a vinyl record in the early 60's. I paid for the physical vinyl record bank, the costs of manufacturing it, the cost of pressing it, the cost of recording and mastering the songs, marketing costs, distribution costs, etc., and, of course, the payment to the songwriters and the record label for their creative work (and, there are two copyrights involved here - one for the song, and one for the recording). 

At this point, the artist and the record label have been rewarded for their creative efforts, and they probably did not have any expectation of receiving additional income from me. The system worked to reward them as they expected. Of course, I could be wrong on this point - maybe they did know that CDs and internet and downloads were on the horizon and they greatly anticipated additional revenue from those future developments. 

Anyway, along comes CDs, and they are considered to be an improvement of the sound. The record labels re-master their tapes and make CDs. Now, I want the improved sound, and, as I said before, I believe I should pay for that improved sound by paying for the CD blank, the manufacturing costs, and all of the other costs. It is a new, physical product that was not free to make and I should therefore pay to cover the costs plus their profit. But, what I should NOT have to pay for again is the copyright portion because I already paid for that when I purchased the vinyl record - the songwriters and the record label were already paid for their creative contributions and had no expectation of receiving an additional payment for that (except, they certainly are entitled to all of the other licensing opportunities, such as performance rights, publishing, and covers by other artists). 

Now, I also realize that the amount paid for the copyright license is probably small in comparison to the cost of the CD, so maybe I should not worry about it. And, I would expect that the costs of a download are very small, in which case the portion for copyright woudl be comparatively larger. But, my main point was to show that there is something to the argument that once the copyright is paid for, one should not have to pay again. I think they should only have to pay the other costs. 

Your analogy with Starbucks is not logical. It does not reflect the same concept. I agree with you that I should pay for another cup of coffee. I could, however, use your Starbucks analogy by saying that I should not have to pay that portion of the price that covers the cost of materials, manufacturing, and inventory for the cardboard container in which I receive the coffee if and only if I ask them to refill that same cardboard container I paid for on the first cup. I should only have to pay for the coffee.

Creative efforts should be rewarded, not stolen.

Who cares about their justifications... :)

Judges & juries don't.

A thief is a thief, and that's that.

There is only way to deal with pirates, and it involves a noose!

You forgot a very basic excuse that is often a precursor to the justifications provided above:

"I didn't know it was illegal" 

Many people think copyright law in general should be abandoned, but have no problem with this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2229878/Apple-patents-rectangle-Tech-giants-intellectual-property-wars-new-twist-granted-rights-iPad-shape.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Actually, I support #38. I have been in this situation before. I had to pay $50 for importing a sound track to a game last year, plus shipping. The album was worth probably $10, but very few places were willing to sell it outside Japan.

I don't blame the company for not selling it outside the US, as the sound track is out of the limited production entirely more than 10 years ago. But consumers not willing to pay that much or jump through the hoops shouldn't be blamed for pirating it either. If it can't be purchased in your country with reasonable effort, I will openly admit I don't blame those who pirate it. That's not to say I would do it, but at some point it seems to me that copyright does more harm than good. This would be one of those cases.

I have been in this situation also. Try to find Mahavishnu live in Cleveland. I would gladly pay for digital copy, but alas only available as boot

Another example; I had to pay $30 for a japanese import of an out of print cd by a more obscure jazz artist. However, it was originally released on Columbia in 1980 now owned by Sony I believe.

I differ from you in that I do the blame the company for not making obscure recordings available in digital format.

IMO the longtail market for these works would cover the minimal cost of distribution.

What a ridiculous argument...

There are literally tons of products you just can't buy unless you visit the producer's country, while other products are incredibly expensive to import.

Ever moved instruments and audio gear from the US to EU and back?

To and from Japan?

It's a free market, and the producer chooses where he wants to sell his products and at which price.

You have nothing to complain about...

In your example; how is moving instruments back and forth across international borders like uploading digital information to a server for distribution?

Why do I need to visit Japan to by a digital download?

I believe it is the distributor who can't complain if I am forced to buy his product on the blackmarket because they have chosen not to distribute in my market in any format.

A lot of American stores won't sell products such as music instruments to EU citizens.

That's pretty annoying if you're European. But it's a free market, and the seller is free to decide who he wants to sell to.

The same is of course true for stores that sell Intellectual Property products.

Oh, and nobody 'forces' you to be a criminal. :)

You alone is responsible if you steal other people's property, or if you buy stolen products! Any court will agree...

Actually if you steal music that was not sold in your country at all, I am not sure the court will agree. You would have an impossible time proving damages and a good lawyer could make the lawsuit nearly impossible to win. It would make for an interesting court case.

Pirates often make fun of CCI's education initiative, but your post shows why it's going to be a success.

Read about it here:

http://www.copyrightinformation.org/faq

Actually it doesn't in any way whatsoever. It has nothing to do with how a lawsuit would turn out.

Ever been involved in a copyright lawsuit? You have to prove damages. Is it possible to prove damages if it was virtually impossible to make the sale to begin with? It is not, hence is why it would be a fascinating lawsuit.

You don't always have to prove damages. If the work was timely registered with the Copyright Ofiice, statutory damages are available.

Also, the US supreme court just heard arguments concerning two clauses of copyright law that apply here first sale and importation of foreign made goods.

In other words, the law far fromw settled.

I agree that is a distributor decides to sell at different prices in different countries that is fine. However, if a distributor decides not to sell at all in a particular country, that distributor has no reason to complain about piracy.

Finally, musical equipment and music are different products and different markets. You can buy a different microphone if the one you want is too expensive or unavailable in your country. If you want to purchase a particular song or CD by one artist it is unique and another artist might not satisfy

Guys, you really want to understand this, believe me:

Nobody gives a damn why you steal!

Piracy is bad. We all know it, we all get it. But it's here to stay, unfortunately, so energy would much better be spent trying to figure out ways to entice more people to buy than steal instead of endlessly arguing about it.

My main grudge with the issue is it presumes way too much about the quality of the artist, the quality of the art, the value of the music, etc. You can certainly argue just simply even wanting to hear something means you should pay for, and that's valid, but there's just too much music out to consume. Everything is too easy and the simple act of writing a shitty song and sticking it on YouTube automatically makes you a "working artist" that can lament about all the injustices.

The more people making art, the better, in theory, so I'm not about some exclusivity idea, but there's a lot of people who really have no business complaining about piracy because their music would not sell anyway. Lack of talent is mistaken for institutionalized artist fucking way too much. 

I think it's very useful to talk about piracy.

We -- artists, labels -- have much of the blame because we never stood up against the abuse until very recently.

Well, yea, I mean the finding useful ways to work with it is a beneficial discussion to have.

A random article attempting to attack people that steal music isn't really. Though, I guess it could lead to it, but you get my point...hah

Yup, got your point.

My point, however, is that fighting the Music Biz Omerta may be as important as any other anti-piracy measure.

It becomes a little less acceptable to steal music each time an artist has the guts to tell her fans that pirates are useless parasites that should be sued to kingdom come...

Just out of curiosity, do you not agree that a ton of even marginally working artists are where they are because of piracy? I feel like a substantial part of the growth and rise of the indie music scene/market is due to piracy. The internet exposed all these niches, but people still weren't going to buy 20 albums even if they liked all of them. There was a chunk of years before everyone put every track on YouTube and before streaming was really around that it really was either steal this or never hear it.

Exposure, legitimate or otherwise, will always be good fun for the hobbyists & weekend warriors.

...who doesn't need to make his own money (from music) for a living....

See my new post below, didn't want to have the format fuck this up.

They covered your argument already.

"I don't judge this "art" worthy of my money."

You judge with your purchases. But your point is moot. Nobody is saying you should pay to sample and you're being disingenuous because iTunes lets you listen before you buy.

If you want to listen to it more than once, pay the $1 and shut your cake hole.

Murder is bad - We all know it is. But murder has been here since the beginning of time and isn't going to go away. We should all just stop wasting time money and energy trying to stop it legally and try to spend more time trying to entice and educate people to stop killing each other.

Yeah, that's how stupid your argument sounded. 

......And irregardless of the quality of what you are stealing, it doesn't change the fact that you have stolen it.

I suppose my crime should be considered: "Not as bad", if I stole a Yugo vs a BMW.

Reason 43: - I did not know what I was doing, and clicked on the wrong Hot Spot on the site screen view.

#17 is completely valid.

I download it and drag it straight to the Recycle Bin without even un-RARing the .RAR. The circle of life is complete as the album is returned to its natural state.

# 43 - I want to hurt that artist (for any reason, jealous, racist, don't like the tune, bad breath, smelly feet)

# 44 - this artist/label is stealing from people, and he should get punished by potential customers.

wonder why those two are not there explicitly...

45 - Sharing is caring!

Sharing culture is never wrong.   Even when it's illegal, it's never wrong.   The industry which brought us sex and drugs and rock'n'roll ought to know a thing or two about the difference between "illegal" and "wrong."

Please share your credit cart details.

I haven't heard these before. Anyone who would say that has some serious issues and needs to find professional psychological help.

If someone said that to me I might nod my head in polite agreement before I got on his/her list of artists that need to be punished then walk away and start talking to someone else.

well, it is more spread that you think...

and wouldn't it be the basic anti-major attitude ? and more globally, the whole piracy/hack attitude (they screw x and y, let's do them what they do to others). It happens everyday.

I'm not judging or saying it is always like that or that it is good, just pointing out that it exists, eventhough most of the time often covered by more "morally acceptable" arguments.

and remember that the "f... them all" attitude has also given birth to some music genres (punk for example, or may be metal with some bands etc etc).

Examples are plenty.

Number 5 is not a valid justification...but it is a fact nonetheless. You all will find that out when the pirates are eventually shut down. Sales wont go up.

I have always had one basic question about the piracy arguement: what makes you think these people will pay at all ?  Obviously, pirates already know people need to make a living if they are going to make more music.  If piracy went away today, do you really think they'd spend money ?  (if you just don't  want them stealing your work and don't expect a revenue increase... I could understand that)

I work with Open Source software everyday.  This software thats entirely free.  However, I still donate to projects, my clients still pay me, etc.  Because everyone realizes that people have to make a living if Open Source is to survive.

So if pirates don't care enough to buy a .99 cent download...

Will they really care if the music goes away ?  They seem like a pretty crappy clientele ?

I have always had one basic question about the piracy arguement: what makes you think these people will pay at all ?  Obviously, pirates already know people need to make a living if they are going to make more music.  If piracy went away today, do you really think they'd spend money ?  (if you just don't  want them stealing your work and don't expect a revenue increase... I could understand that)

I work with Open Source software everyday.  This software thats entirely free.  However, I still donate to projects, my clients still pay me, etc.  Because everyone realizes that people have to make a living if Open Source is to survive.

So if pirates don't care enough to buy a .99 cent download...

Will they really care if the music goes away ?  They seem like a pretty crappy clientele ?

Because the demand for music, movies and video games didnt decrease since 2000, the availability of the products fore free did.  Revenue for all of those industries, that had grown for decades is down since p2p.  BitTorrent grew by 40% since 2011, as all of those industries revenues decreased.  US Home video down 25%, US console and PC games down 13%, US recorded music down 50%. All citations at ethicalfan d0t c0m

You are missing my favorite one which is,  "even if all musicians never got paid, people would still make music."

That is of course, completely true.

Only problem is it would suck and nobody would listen to it. Ever.

Why would it suck ?

You're not serious, are you?

yes I am. I am trying to understand your assumption, more exactly why "music made by people who are not paid" would  suck.

I'd like you to explain the rationale behind such a definitive sentence.

To say that music made by people who don't get paid sucks is ludicrous, to say the least. Musical taste is 100% subjective. Just because someone gets paid, doesn't mean their music is great. I do not like Nickelback because I think they suck but they're getting paid handsomely. I know plenty of unsigned artists who make beautiful music that never see a dime for their work because they do it for the love of music.

#43:  I'm a giagantic douchebag who only cares about me me me me!  gimme gimme gimme!