PRO-IP bill signed into law

[Ironside]

No, I would try to sneak in and steal their lousy food.
Seriously, since you noticed my analogy was bad, you could at least have tried to come up with a better one yourself here.

Nah, not really. The pirated stuff would be from a worse stylish resturant (but with better reputation), but with better prices, better food (no DRM) and within a 10 min walk. And it was also established earlier. The downside is that it has employed some illegal immigrants.

Had it only been about prices, then the development would've been quite different.

So the best way to deal with it is lynch-justice and breaking the laws?

A law that incriminates about the entire population is usually a stupid law, so in a way, it's better as it draws more attention. It's called civil dissent.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yeah, yeah this isn't really civil dissent (and it isn't their intention), but there's cases where going outside the law is better than following it.

Indeed, but how does piracy help with that?
It only adds a criminal component to a good cause. Kind of like the usual "the end justifies the means", the kind of excuse some really evil people in movies use.

Because it's by far the strongest means to do it. It is also depending on how you view it. This is more a consequence of a flawed market that gained some means to correct itself. Can you give a legal mean to keep the artists funded, while breaking the way the record companies keeps the market?

That depends, a lot of letters can make them change their minds if they know that customers will stop buying their products.
The real problem is that most customers are weaklings, they want to make a point but they want to the product anyway so they get it illegally or buy it despite the problems they have with it.
If they really had a problem with the product they should be hard and not get it at all, that way the publishers will also see that the will to fight their oppressive methods is stronger than the need to play a game or listen to that music. But as it is, people end up looking like crack addicts who hate drug lords but want their crack anyway.

That's just weak and not the right way.

If the world starves out the record companies druglords that controls the market to bring them down, how would the poor artists cocaine growers fare?

Yes, and this law is how a society works, if you break it, you will get fined/arrested or you adapt and live your life without breaking it, using legal means to shape your world. If that had been done by people, this law had never ever even been considered.

There's a point where adapting to the law is worse for society than breaking it.

And their "customers" are desperately trying to break the law and make a point that could easily be made without breaking the law.

And how is this point easily made legally, without hurting the artists?


Sure, todays market is unstable and not yet adapted to this new digital world, but what the record companies tries to do is to put the genie back into the bottle, so they can return to thier golden age, instead of adapting. And the effect becomes that it will prolong the time the buissness will stabilise and the costumer, artist (and distributor) will find a level that's acceptable.