The other day I read a piece by John Mellencamp about internet piracy. He was discussing the fact that musicians are losing income due to illegal downloads.
What struck me was how poor the comments were that accompanied the article. I read about half of the 1,000 comments and about 90% were terrible! The arguments people were making were non-logical and non-transferable.
Here’s a few arguments summed up and exposed:
“Musicians should only be paid for live performances” – Okay, then what about all the actors in Hollywood working on TV shows? They should only be paid by the live studio audience, and then they should get no money when the show broadcasts?
“Mellencamp has enough money so he shouldn’t be upset if people pirate his music” – So if someone is a millionaire, then it should be okay for other people to steal their possessions and investments?
“People are pirating because music has been overpriced” – If something is overpriced, then consumers have a choice: don’t buy it! We’re not talking about someone stealing food to feed his family, we’re talking about songs.
“People should only have to pay for what they think something is worth” – Go to a deparment store and say, “This shirt costs $20, but I’m think it’s only worth $10, so that’s what I’m going to pay.” See how this works out for you.
“I support the right to pirate” – See how you feel when someone “pirates” your car, and then get back to me.
And on it goes. They were plently of other bogus arguments, but I just wanted to pick out a few to illustrate my point.
So why is the quality of these arguments so poor? I have some ideas I’ll put forward in the next post.