I think I met that judge in traffic court once! LOL!
You’re absolutely right. I don’t really have a problem with your view either. I mean, you believe in God and it only makes sense that you would believe that there is a higher standard of morals. My only problem is atheists who do so, I tend to argue rather strongly with them.
Okay, in response to the argument that its not the production cost but the resale value that determines theft. How do we respond then to the argument that ther are any number of songs thatI would download for free or copy from a friend for free that I would never plop down money for. So i download, or copy, and listen to it for a couple of weeks, and get over it and it takes up blocks on my hard drive space for a year till I get around to deleting it.
The converse would be if I DLed the track, and really liked it, then I might go out and buy the CD, or even more likely go see the artist in concert, and/or forward the track to my friends and encourage them to buy a CD or go see the artist live.
So the bottom line question of my argument (which is NOT BTW a hypothetical, this is how I fish for new music) Can it be considered “stealing” if the loss in revenue is at worst nothing (as I would not have spent money on the song any way) and at best, not a loss at all but a gain, as I might have discovered I really liked the band and become a devoted fan of music that without free access to, I’d never have discovered?
I disagree. He bought it. He sold the CD at a loss. There is no theft involved.
What if he bought a CD, then made 50 copies of it and sold them, pocketing the ill-gotten gains.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not the question. That’s going off-topic.
We’re talking about buying a CD, making a copy of one song for personal use, then selling the CD.
No hijacking allowed. tsk.