RandomThoughts, you’re my favorite troll, you know that? Somehow, you always have the polar opposite of what I would consider a reasonable opinion.

Of course a certain percentage of the population wants the anti-DRM movement just to avoid having to pay (perhaps because they’re too poor, perhaps because they’re without morals). Those same people wouldn’t buy music regardless of the existence of DRM, so they don’t count. They are not lost sales. They are nonexistent sales.

The other (and I would wager, larger) portion of the population does not have any qualms about paying for music. Personally, I haven’t bought music in years, on account of being unsatisfied with the RIAA. I don’t need more music, I have enough, and the new stuff that comes out is utter crap. Voting with my dollar and all that.

Also, once a single copy makes it onto the Internet, the DRM is completely, and utterly defeated. DRM is a lock; the customers (who you want to access the safe) can’t open the lock; the pirates (who you don’t want to access the safe) can open it with ease. Is this really the ideal situation?

On top of DRM causing compatibility problems.

On top of DRM’s attack on fair use.

It’s getting rather difficult to believe you’re not shilling or trolling…

You use certain arguments time and again, conveniently forgetting they have been successfully countered in previous discussions (and don’t even get me started on straw men) especially since you market yourself as somebody who is knowledgeable and has a firm grasp of the subject matter, it’s quite surprising (if assuming you are not shilling/trolling) you would even use certain arguments…

I wonder if the music today would be a decent and reasonable price if the industry didn’t have to compensate for piracy? Just a thought.

Appearantly, you have to wonder*, but “we” don’t: remember the CD? and the industry’s promise to lower prices after the initial introduction? you know, way before the internet(piracy) became a problem? So let’s be very clear on this: there wouldn’t be a lower price if there was no piracy. (In fact, one could argue that if there would be a price difference, the price in a piracy free world might be higher, since the industry would have a de facto monopoly without the fear of being circumvented by piracy, so then they could set any price they want..)

As for your examples…again, it’s hard to believe (assuming you are somewhat intelligent) that you don’t realize they’re besides the point (and even just plain wrong to use)…it’s much more likely you do know and are using them anyway…which might convince the less intelligent portion of the populace, but really, can you take any joy in taking candy from babies?

So let’s start on your examples

First off, you are mixing 2 examples that are nothing alike. Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand why: you try to legitimize one with the other, trying to give them the appearance of being alike and hope by fabricating that alikeness, prevent people from questioning the faulty one (which, of your two examples, not surprisingly, is the one closest to what “the industry” is doing):

airport security benefits all the (“good”, law-abiding) customers, as letting somebody with a bomb (or whatever) on a plane would screw all the passengers (and possibly people on the ground as well), not just “the industry” (airline company). Actually one could even argue that we, the customer, are paying for an additional service (of security) with that higher airline ticket price.

However, with the grocery store example, the mentioned security (in the very, extremely vast majority of the time) is for the sole purpose of preventing people from stealing merchandise from the store, not for my (as a customer who pays for everything he acquires) security/safety.

In fact, the store having issues with (other) people stealing stuff, is not my problem at all.
It’s theirs and theirs ALONE (in contrast to it not being only the airline company’s, but also my problem if the plane I happen to be on crashes or explodes), and so the grocery store should end up paying for any measure they take, not me, who, again, does nothing illegal. In fact, I should not only not have to pay for any measure they take, I should not be inconvenienced in any way by any measure (receipt checking for example)

[Of course, I know that in reality, grocery stores do make all customers pay for their security measures, however,] just because they do does not mean it’s right or should be done.

So, in conclusion, we have:

the airline ticket example does not apply

the grocery store example does apply, very much so, the analogy is very fetching…the industry is implementing certain security measures (we won’t discuss the effectiveness of said measures) that ALL (“good”, law-abiding) customers are inconvenienced by and have to (additionally) pay for.

When I dissect your example like that, doesn’t it sound like much more like an argument against your case?

As other people have already said, in this thread and others: most, if not all, people here (and on other sites and in other discussions) do not justify, glorify or admire piracy (or stealing, if, and only if, we’re talking about physically removing a copy from a store)…

HOWEVER (this is another irrelevant point in your argumentation): even if we all would admire pirates to the point of wanting to bear their babies, that does NOT make any argument we use less, or more, valid…the same with whether some (or many) of us are arguing the case out of principle or opportunistically to defend our getting our hands (illegally) on free stuff…it does NOT change the WEIGHT, VALIDITY or ACCURACY of any argument used.

You are right that nobody (although the **MAFF**IAA** sure seem to try) can say how small the number of people sharing is and (even more difficult) how many sales don’t happen because of it. Unfortunately for you, those numbers aren’t relevant either…because:

I have read many arguments from pro-industry, pro-DRM, pro-whatever, many irrelevant, straw men, or just plainly not true, with which they try to justify whatever plan, tactic, opinion,… “the industry” has or is implementing.

But they never (although I’d welcome them to try) answer this:

Tell me, or more accurately convince me, why I (as a “good” customer, who pays for movies, music,… he wants/acquires) :

1) have to (pay or rather) finance the DRM and all other measures
2) have to be inconvenienced by DRM and all other measures
3) am limited in my fair use rights by DRM and all other measures

by “the industry” because some other people seem to be pirating and possibly are costing “the industry” some money…

oh, and btw: “if we don’t put a stop to piracy, people will stop making …, yadayadayada**” is not a valid argument, as has been proven many times, on here, on other sites and in the real world.

(And for the record, I don’t think the latter of the two assumptions in * is wrong.)

* which is quite surprising, unless of course either the assumption of shilling/trolling or that you’re somewhat intelligent/knowledgeable is wrong.

** © Seinfeld