Actions have a moral dimension and that’s what we’re talking about here and not economical theories.
Filesharing (as piracy) is an action that affects the person creating the art that is being shared and therefore it has a moral dimension.

With your argument shoplifting has no moral dimension since that’s just the consumer trying to get stuff for the cheapest possible price, which is free.
Most people think there is some kind of morality involved there, even to the degree that it’s been made a criminal offence.

My premise is not flawed. If we extend the action of piracy to the whole population, which is what most people here seem to call for, then it creates a situation (if piracy has an effect on the market, more on that below) where the creators of the stuff that is being shared do have to work for free producing it.

It is in fact your claim that study after study shows that piracy has no negative effect on the market that is bullshit.

MOST available studies say that piracy negatively affects the market.
Here’s another one:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1990153&rec=1&srcabs=1989240&alg=1&pos=2

Most people here seem to have somewhat of a brain, so I can’t understand how they suggest branding as some kind of solution to the problem with free downloading.
Branding can work with physical products, but imagine this dialog: “Dude! Check out this file! It’s a genuine iTunes file!” —–”??? Yeah, whatever”

With music it makes f*ck all of a difference what brand the file is.

Copyright is fair, because it’s the only thing that protects the creator and no one HAS to buy.

I’ve said this in a few posts already, but I’ll say it again.

The small sum (9.99 or so) that you pay for an album isn’t even close to covering the cost of production. That means you get no property rights to the content for that price. They stay with the creator.

The sale of records, movies and books is a remarkably democratic way of selling art. It spreads the cost out between everyone buying. Something popular will automatically be of higher value since more people are buying.

It’s crowd funding after the fact, with the creator and publisher taking all the risks.

The coffin is still open and above ground imo.

“filesharing in the form of piracy is immoral because it demands that a group of people should work for free to produce nice stuff for others.”

First off, economics cannot by nature be moral. There is no morality involved in commerce, either morally or immorally. If it were at all, then it would be moral for a producer to try to get the highest profit for his product, just as it would be moral for a consumer to try to get said product for the lowest available price. Free is, of course, the lowest available price, so filesharing cannot be immoral, under any consideration of economics and commerce.

Secondly, your premise is flawed, because nobody has ever made the demand of anyone working for free, nor has it had this effect in the real world. As study after study has shown (and I’m not going to link, you can do your own damn legwork), piracy does not harm the market, in fact studies have shown it is beneficial, as it can have a “try before you buy” effect and act as free advertising. So, your agreement or disagreement with that conclusion is null, void, and moot, because not only are you wrong, but your arguments are completely nonsensical.

“Changing the law would make a situation that is both unfair and oppressive legal.

I’m sorry, are you seriously arguing that copyright is fair? That we should not be able to give away, reproduce, or share that which we have paid for with our own money? Are you suggesting that property rights are unfair? Because copyright is a limitation on existing property rights, and that’s all it is. So, no. Changing the law would restore fairness. You’re wrong again.

“Oppression by the majority is still oppression.”

I love that.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oppression
oppression (countable and uncountable; plural oppressions)

The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

Yet you are clearly arguing that the current state of oppression, the suppresion of the people’s rights to property is completely just and reasonable, because you would not advocate a changing of the law.

“I also doubt that the majority of people feel that creators shouldn’t be compensated for their work, so changing the law isn’t justified from that point either.”

Your doubt notwithstanding, nobody thinks creators should not be compensated for their work. But it is the responsibility of creators to find ways to sell their product, not to strongarm people into behaving in irrational ways just so that the creator can get paid. That’s not my responsibility, to ensure he gets paid. Let him get paid on his own, by competing in the free market. Evian managers to do it, after all, and people are stealing their product right out of their fucking faucets.

“Societal norms used to think slavery was acceptable and that people with a certain skin color should sit at the back of the bus.
If societal norms changed on that, would it be more justifiable to change the law or to change the societal norms?”

Interestingly enough, we changed our societal norms and changed the law. Just as societal norms are becoming less and less tolerant of the restrictions on the flow of information in the information age. By your argument Rosa Parks should have been beaten with a rubber hose and thrown in jail for refusing to move. Way to nail your own coffin.

from the inside.

under 6 feet of dirt.

No, prohibition is a bad analogy because of the reasons I listed. If the author of the paper doesn’t realise that then that’s one problem.

The paper comes to the conclusion that the law on filesharing copyrighted material should be changed, because he claims that current societal norms demand it.

I don’t agree with that conclusion, because as I’ve pointed out filesharing in the form of piracy is immoral because it demands that a group of people should work for free to produce nice stuff for others.

Changing the law would make a situation that is both unfair and oppressive legal.

In this case it doesn’t matter if the majority would feel differently.
Oppression by the majority is still oppression.

I also doubt that the majority of people feel that creators shouldn’t be compensated for their work, so changing the law isn’t justified from that point either.

The only thing that has changed is that people seem to have a hard time seeing the connections and the consequences of their actions.

Societal norms used to think slavery was acceptable and that people with a certain skin color should sit at the back of the bus.
If societal norms changed on that, would it be more justifiable to change the law or to change the societal norms?

Creators having protection for their work is the new and improved situation. Going backwards is not an improvement.

Show me the new tech.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2095193