> What I say is that pirating (illegaly sharing) something that has a "no
share" license is wrong because we are not respecting the choice of the
person who created it in the first place.
I understand very well how you're thinking, but you make a false assumption.
First, you think every artist makes his choice. The truth is: big media
companies make this choice and the artists have to obey. Beside of a few
exception (real superstars) the artists don't benefit from the sell of cds
due to the immoral contracts with the label company.
The artist make money for example with concerts; the more people know about
them, the more money they get with their concerts.
Their popularity would spread much more if only the label company allows
people to share. More copies = increasing popularity = cash (I'm talking
about the artist, not about the big bosses).
People don't pay for the cds? Well, this wouldn't benefit the artists anyway.
Now a small comparison in order to show you another problem with your
argument:
Think of a console for video games (wii, xbox, whatever).
Some people buy them and install software which frees the device;
the developer of the machine don't want people to do this.
They made a choice: people should use the device only for playing normal
games.
The question is:
is every choice of every producer legitimate? Of course you can say: well,
the developer made this choice; if I don't want to obey, I don't buy it.
But: has the developer the right to dictate what I should be able to do in my
room with the device I bought for cash?
My answer is clearly no.
Perhaps some day it becomes everyday business to send a little picture of me
and my fingerprint to the author of book in order to read it.
Should I say: "well, bye bye books, the author made this decision" ?
No! I would say: shit, this is too much, I will not do it and read anyway.
