Because it's "illegal" to acquire it by other means?
The law is not a moral authority by any means. At least it shouldn't be. Ideally, things are against the law because they are considered to be morally wrong. The other way 'round (something is morally wrong because it is against the law) is a similar fallacy as confusing correlation with causation. It just doesn't follow.
There's a quite nice saying in Germany, frequently attributed to Berthold Brecht, that roughly translates to "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes obligation.". That's essentially the current situation - injustice is law. Piracy is but one of many forms of resistance.
To calm our conscience?
I don't think downloading music is wrong. In fact, I don't think sharing anything can be considered wrong in any way, and I must actually commend the content industry for managing to twist and pervert the public's perception of morality to such a degree. It's the most natural action a human being can undertake. And digital data isn't scarce - there's absolutely no reason not to share it. It's the refusal to share (and the active battle against it) that should be considered highly unethical.
To support the artist?
There're better ways that don't involve dead and obsolete business models (distribution of information, which is virtually cost-free today), such as going to see a show, or maybe buying their merchandise. I know some people who frown on donations because they argue that would make artists beggars, but I prefer to liken donations to tip money. Crowd-funding is slowly becoming more accepted and might face wide-spread adoption in a few years. I like this approach because it's essentially a service based model - the artist gets paid once to create something, and it can be freely used by everyone when it's complete - there's no monopoly rent on something that's not inherently scarce.
And finally, accept the fact that not everyone is able to live off their art, and that's fine too. No one is entitled to succeed in a given job, and no one is entitled to protection of their business model if something comes along that makes it obsolete.
How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to download for free and get their permission to copy their art first? They created their work for your entertainment, it should be their decision to say weather you can have it for free, or for a price.
Why? Because you say so? I don't think so.
>It is just a way to get things for free with a (very small) chance of any repercussions. If some new magic technology was invented overnight, and the risk of being sued went up to 99% every time you tried to download something in violation of copyright I think this 'moral code' would disappear quite quickly. This is a cover up for 'I want free shit, and I am not going to get in trouble, so I do it'.
What I'm saying is that these repercussions are completely unjustified and morally wrong. Appeals to (imaginary, and quite frankly, impossible) force don't change that. You're essentially saying the same as "If being gay was against the law and we had the power to crack down on gay people, that would make being gay wrong".
>How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to download for free and get their permission to copy their art first?
I must present you with a counter-question instead: based on what moral authority should an artist (or anyone else) be allowed to forbid me to copy art?
Let me say it again: there's nothing more inherently good and natural than sharing. If you are opposed to sharing (of a truly non-scarce resource, at that), then it's you who's arguing against one of, if not the most universally accepted ethical practice of humanity.
Take note that nobody can be forced to share. The opposite, however, holds true as well: you can't force people to stop sharing. Or to put it in another, polemic way: if you don't want people to share your art, lock it up in your basement and never show it to anyone.
>They created their work for your entertainment, it should be their decision to say weather you can have it for free, or for a price.
I don't see why. Sure, they can charge people for distribution done by themselves if they so chose. That doesn't mean they have any authority to tell people who acquired a copy to further share said copy, with or without compensation.
Logical conclusion: We can consider whatever you do 9-5 to pay the bills also as your 'art'. I as your boss now decree that you are entitled to $0 compensation this month.
You are extremely happy now yes, because 'art wants to be free'?
But if you shovel a walkway the adjacent store gets to use it without paying a dime.
It seems the sentiment has become one of: since music and movies are easy enough to copy online without me getting in trouble, and for free, the price of art should also drop to zero as a whole. This doesn't look like something anyone in the music or movie industry would think is a good thing would it?
What matters is not what an industry thinks, but what is best for society. I personally think a couple decades of copyright is a good thing but it does not equate to employment.
Have a nice day.
by made I mean manufactured, or in this case, duplicated digitally. I'm not talking about the artist's efforts actually creating the music. I'd be happy to send them a 10 spot if I like their music and they asked for it.
If you want to give me money, send me some or come to one of my shows. I was involved with a label/mngt. company in the 90's and they just ripped me off. Don't give them any money by buying "official" records.
Kill Hollywood: Pirate...download and direct your dollars directly to the musicians. Ignore the agents and the middlemen. They're parasites.
Note the followup post will be: 'Just go to their concerts! All is well!'. Since Ticketmaster screws me out of about 30 bucks for each pair of tickets I buy, should we be trying to sneak into concerts for free because 'the man' is doing things we don't like even though the artist is receiving some of the profits from a legal sale?
I'd rather adapt.