Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property and Pirating

the record companies have sued people for download stuff that is like 50 years old and the artists are long dead

they own the rights to music for like 100 years or something

 

So this means that writers and authors should be forced to sell their right to a third party cartel? "Limited time" also means "until Congress extends the time-frame again?"

IP protection lasts longer than any author or artist's life these days. This doesn't jive with the constitution at all. Its a level of protection that the pharmaceutical companies could only dream of...

Yet the enjoyment of free music is older than the radio because some purchasers will inevitably subsidize others' enjoyment. The record companies set themselves up as a middle-man to facilitate this series of exchanges, but the technology has made them virtually obsolete.

Rather than accept bankruptcy, they are hiding behind property rights of a grave robber. I'm pretty sure that Elvis doesn't care if you download his music or if his record sells another million copies.

 

korr:

If you are really interested, there is some fascinating history behind the 1906 copyright extension.

Of particular historical interest is Mark Twain's very influential testimony before Congress.

A brief excerpt:

I HAVE read this bill. At least I have read such portions as I could understand. Nobody but a practised legislator can read the bill and thoroughly understand it, and I am not a practised legislator.

I am interested particularly and especially in the part of the bill which concerns my trade. I like that extension of copyright life to the author's life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take care of his children. Let the grand-children take care of themselves. That would take care of my daughters, and after that I am not particular. I shall then have long been out of this struggle, independent of it, indifferent to it.

It isn't objectionable to me that all the trades and professions in the United States are protected by the bill. I like that. They are all important and worthy, and if we can take care of them under the Copyright law I should like to see it done. I should like to see oyster culture added, and anything else.

I am aware that copyright must have a limit, because that is required by the Constitution of the United States, which sets aside the earlier Constitution, which we call the decalogue. The decalogue says you shall not take away from any man his profit. I don't like to be obliged to use the harsh term. What the decalogue really says is, "Thou shalt not steal," but I am trying to use more polite language.

The laws of England and America do take it away, do select but one class, the people who create the literature of the land. They always talk handsomely about the literature of the land, always what a fine, great, monumental thing a great literature is, and in the midst of their enthusiasm they turn around and do what they can to discourage it.

I know we must have a limit, but forty-two years is too much of a limit. I am quite unable to guess why there should be a limit at all to the possession of the product of a man's labor. There is no limit to real estate.

Doctor Hale has suggested that a man might just as well, after discovering a coal-mine and working it forty-two years, have the Government step in and take it away.

...
​

 

This isn't legislating profits. lol. If someone steals the farmers crops, the government has already legislated that is wrong.

What? We're talking about STEALING here. The point made previous was that it wasn't efficient to stop STEALING, so we should legalize it. If it is not efficient to prosecute stealing, why don't we legalize murder too.

SO WHAT? Get a stick out and bang the pots and pans if you need another choice in music.

So what? Where do you get off telling people who to run their business? It is their's to run.

SO what? Am I owed a hearing of it?

Great. There's 1000's of foods I'll never eat. There's 1000's of computer monitors made, that never made it to market. There's 1000's of books I'll never read. So what? Am I owed it?

Seems to be working pretty damn good. I enjoy the music I listen too.

What? Who is being punished? Do radiostations OWE people air time or something? I guess I missed that memo.

I'm not really sure what you're asking me. My goal isn't better music. My goal is protecting rights.

 

See, you don't get it. You completely blew by the meaning of what he wrote, and took it literally.

That, is (pardon the pun) patently obvious.

Exactly. You're a statist. Your goal isn't a free market, it's regulation and protectionism. Your goal isn't freedom, it's slavery.

You're trying to defend (sic) property, that is not property at all.

 

I guess so.

Yes, I am. I don't think I've ever hid from the fact lol. Not everyone is an idealist anarchist lol.

If protection of individual rights is regulation and protectionism, than yes yes yes.

You're very melodramatic lol.

It is property. I defend property. Despite your "anarchocapitalist" dogma, all property is defended with violence. You'll never admit that, but you know it's true. That's where pure libertarianism crashes and burns.

-------------------

PS: you do realize that libertarianism is a philosophy built on individual rights, not free markets right?

 

The number of radio stations on your dial is set by an artificial limit. The scarcity is created by legislation. Private ownership is written down for bands of electro-magnetic frequency ranges.

Government seizes ownership of the frequency ranges and re-sells it to private enterprise with a significant cash barrier to entry - because of the artificially imposed scarcity.

The ability to generate electromagnetic waves of a certain frequency is not a private property right. The entire music industry is built on treating this as a property right and fighting off other potential means of distribution that would diminish the value of the supposed monopolistic right over frequencies.

Human rights are best served in the legal environment that promotes innovation and competition. Basically, this system is also known as a "free market" and it does not thrive when a system only exists through a dozen manipulations of the government. Price floors, barriers to entry, artificial scarcity, cartels, $100,000 fines for $20 movies...

If the industry doesn't collapse from its own dead-weight it will be largely replaced by cheaper foreign competition. Oh wait, it already has. American market-share in entertainment is in a nose-dive.

 

So you're a libertarian who became a statist? Did you have lobotomy?

But it isn't. So are you for individual rights, or are you for protectionism (which limits free trade)? The two aren't compatible.

As opposed to impure libertarianism? I'll agree that libertarianism has some rough patches, but this is definitely not one of them.

You asserted that firms need patents to support R&D expense. I disproved that by showing that (1) medicine and technology was created prior to patents and (2) that open source technologies have shown that software does not have to be driven by monetary gain.

You have not responded back to those points with a principled rebuttal.



You've also maintained that copying ideas is theft. But you will not address the fact that if I put the labor into copying your work, I own the copy, even if you are the author of the work. For example, you own the master disc for an album your band "Silly Supper and the Smarty Pants" recorded. You produce 1,000 copies of your CDs to distribute by mail order, at shows and local record stores. I get a copy of your CD and make 20 copies with CDs I bought at Walmart.

Do you own the 20 copies I made? If I rip it to my hard drive, do you own the hard drive, the whole computer or just the portion of the hard drive with your songs on it?

If I play your songs at a poker party that has a buy in, do I need to obtain your permission first? If I learn to play your songs on my guitar, am I copying your work?

Your position that it is property is irrational. It's inconsistent, it can't be policed, it's impractical and honestly, it's unfair. If someone in China comes up with an idea in isolation, and someone in America came up with it 5 years earlier and obtained international patent protection, the person in China cannot use his own idea. Not only that, but if the person in America refuses to license the idea, and the person in China wants to offer it to the world for free, the idea cannot be used by anyone.

The reason why ideas can't be property, is that different people can have the same idea at the same time, or at different times. And property, by definition is scarce. IP is only scarce when government makes it so by patent and copyright law.

 

That's because there is only so much in the way of frequencies to go around. You can compete in other ways. Start a radio station on your computer and broadcast it on the net. Go put a satellite up into space and make satellite radio, start a podcast. There's plenty of ways to compete. Hell, you could develop a digital type of radio signal that you could do on a thin band.

But I agree with you, this is a definitely something that should be left to the free market.

I don't agree.

I agree with this, but if you're in the business of stealing others hard work, than no. Stealing is wrong.

Are you xenophobic or something?

 

I'm for individual rights and the protection of property rights, even if it limits, slows down, or even stops free trade.

No I didn't. I believe I said intellectual property rights from looters and people that steal it. I said that these rights allowed them to profit from their work without fear of looters that would steal it.

You didn't disprove anything lol.

That's because it is theft. Seriously, just paste your most profitable url, and I'll do a demonstration.

LOL, hahaha. You're joking right? That's like saying "The robber worked hard to break into your home and is deserving of compensation." hahahahah OMG.

The copyright owner, owns the music. If you paid for the music, you can copy it as many times as you want. But, you're liable if those copies get into the hands of someone else or if you sell them.

It's not inconsistent. I've been consistent. Just because I don't have the same view as you doesn't make it wrong, irrational or inconsistent lol.

To whom?

No because as soon as they learn such a thing, they can benefit from the first owners work. Marketibility, branding, etc.

Damn right. It's really surprising seeing this argument, because it seems so left wing.

Would you hold the same position on physical property that contained the last oil in the world. That the property owner doesn't have the right to refuse to share?

Yes, they could. Better patent it. I doubt you'll hear anyone uniquely come up with a Britney spears song, magically on their own.

 

Alternatively, the anti-capitalists want to legalize theft.

They want the power of the state to be used to steal property from it's rightful owners.

Exactly. No one is forcing people to steal. They are stealing of their own volition.

Exactly. These folks not only want to tell people how to run their lives and their businesses -- they want the government to legislate that their wishes be followed.

Of course, none of them have any experience running those businesses successfully, but somehow they think they're smart enough to tell everyone else what to do.

Exactly. That's the mentality of kids these days. They think that the world owes them everything.

Exactly.

People who have never worked to create something successful do not understand the level of effort involved and therefore do not sympathize with the creator.

They don't give a damn about the creators rights, only about their own desires.

I am tired of all of the purely emotional arguments which attempt to make theft legitimate. I like it better when people are honest and just admit that they are stealing.

Of course they would, when it came right down to it. It's not about right or wrong, it's about using the power of the state to get what they want.

 

Supper, are you for perpetual rights (permanent and transferable) or expiring rights (temporary and transferable)?

 

You're talking about protecting the musician's property rights, but I'm saying the musician is at the bottom of a long food chain that only exists because the government stepped in and claimed property rights for the earth's ability to transfer radio waves. Some shortage exists naturally, but the government's off-limits share dwarfs the amount up for bid.

I agree with this, I'm not trying to defend anyone who makes a living solely off others' work without consent in a way that hurts their own profitability. Marginal value added? I'm not sure, there's some grey line in my mind of fair-use if they aren't actually charging people for someone else's stuff.

But I do think some of the penalties imposed for non-commercial 'theft' of IP are ridiculous. Someone shouldn't pay five figures for a song that is one of ten on a $15 CD. Students shouldn't lose college financial aid because they "stole" a song that is played 5 times an hour on the local radio anyway.

By this kind of logic our courts are operating under in regards to music, we shouldn't have VCRs or DVRs or even screen captures - or else television content creators should be suing people who buy these things.

Anyway, I don't own any of those and I haven't downloaded any songs in years - but its not for the principle of the matter, its a fear of retribution. I would have no moral or ethical problem downloading all the albums I have that are too scratched to enjoy, or rare tracks from bands I've funded (and marketed for) by wearing their tshirts or buying their concert tickets and CDs.

LOL, no. I just want America to be competitive. We could produce better music, cheaper, if the laws weren't in place to stifle development of the natural resources. I want the next generation of America musicians to have better opportunities, more choices, more freedom... Leave the scene better than I found it, ya know?

 

I agree with these sentiments, Korr.

Part of my ire here, to the extent there is, is that one of the most vociferous voices condemning the very notion of IP comes from a guy who apparently gets his jollies off of warez sites. To take that kind of mentality out a bit more broadly, I know what original artists generally live like, and the notion of just ripping them off, creating nothing new, and profiting by one's blacknet over doing anything useful or good for the world is abominable, in my opinion. But enough on that for now - I mentioned the poster was at that time busy reporting my posts to the "DP state" because his feelings apparently got hurt, I got twice dinged (by a mod with his own issues, apparently), and the dings were reversed by another with a "WTF?!," again.

So, I agree - it gets ridiculous. I'm open and receptive to a discussion of how to resolve the ridiculousness, without also just saying, take it all - books (my world), films, music, whatever - "copy it and give it to someone it," as the "warez" poster earlier said. No. It's the creator's work, and the license to enjoy that work is the price of the sale. I cannot agree but with the notion that all else - whether just "mass copying a book for pals" or making a great warezweb living - is thievery.

 

This is well worded. As a fellow musician (now retired), I figured out pretty early in the digital revolution that recording and selling an album was no longer going to do it. I and my bandmates would have to travel, play, do signings, etc and make promoting ourselves for profit a full time venture. I'm out of the game after making a few recordings that never got much traction, but I have family members who are still fighting the good fight on MySpace, trying to carve out a major label record deal.

Of course, when I suggest they should give away their music for free, they turn their noses up, perhaps not realizing that it might be the only way it gets listened to, but instead being ashamed at the notion that their self-funded recordings are essentially "worthless" and they should have been playing more gigs than running up their credit card with the dreams of being found off of a "killer" demo. They had all the IP in the world, and it didn't make them a success.

But I digress.

Even if someone truly believes that a download of a song is stolen property, it's simply not possible to enforce those property rights without taking away the internet, CD/DVD burners, MP3 players etc.

It comes back to my position on scarcity, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

@ anyone curious about my forays into the Warez game, lol. If you look at the warez post I have been oft quoted on in this thread, I was giving an acquaintance a DUMP with a B. I do some stuff that some people might not approve of on the net, but warez is not one of them. All mentally deranged conspiracy theories to the contrary.

 

Pretty ballsy to call me mentally deranged, Guerilla, when you seem to run off to the DP "state" whenever I post something substantive:



Which is met with, well, ultimately, kind of a yawn:



Much like calling me or anyone else "psychotic," as you have, calling me "mentally deranged" sure seems to be a personal attack, yeah? Anyway...

Now, forgive me, but your asking if a warez site is still available:

Coupled with your stated beliefs that it's cool to, oh, I don't know, take an author's book, mass copy it at will, and hand it out to all your pals, gratis, or any of the other statements you've made to the effect that creators don't have the right to a damn thing regarding their work, well, I draw my conclusions. Whatever.

Anyway, you say your a "strict constitutionalist," yet will not deal with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. You also say you "stand on principle." In between reporting my posts, any possibility you'll deal with what I would call your hypocratic cherry picking of the Constitution with respect to this issue?

 

I was doing such a good job of ignoring you but I can't keep it up.

Actually, I called your conspiracy deranged, not you.

Btw, tonight I had a second browser open and saw you spying on my profile, so I kept refreshing the report screen knowing it would drive you bonkers. It's sad, but it made me laugh.

I've taken my infractions and expired them for those. They were totally worth it. I got a lot of rep out of those posts.

You should have drawn a conclusion on how you could keep your dojo in Marquette open, instead of trying to play Inspector Clouseau with my posts. You got owned, you look foolish, and I will accept this as a half assed apology.

A strict Constitutionalist believes the Constitution should be amended if it needs to be changed, not reinterpreted as a living constitution, because if the intent and words can be reinterpreted, then there is no purpose in having a written law in the first place. It becomes at best a guideline.

Now, I am going to back to ignoring you. It was great to get your apology, but your screenshots really made my day. Boy oh boy. I really had you going with my forum location. Priceless.

Take care P.S. I'm not interested in derailing another thread with an endless back and forth. Feel free to PM me.

 

That's one thing I myself am very against 'amending' the constitution in almost all cases. In fact there are some 'amendments' that I believe should be tossed out the window.

 

Uh, somewhere in there is...a bunch of nothing, in my opinion.

When you seem to report my posts consistently, it isn't "ignoring." "Second browser." Right back at you, buddy - the ole "viewing user profile" thing is pretty funny, although the number of times you seem to be worried about what I (others, likely as well?) are up to is...



well, you get the pic.

Talking about something I did years ago, my Marquette dojo, as opposed to what is transpiring here and now, tonight, for instance, is uh, useless to the conversation? Want to talk about that cool double overhead southswell wave, Mexican flow, 1978, the Point, where I caught a curl for the first time as well? Any other trips down my particular memory lane make you feel better, tonight? I did recall the notion of mental derangement, somewhere?

Your stated principles on this thread square with those of a thief, in my opinion, and you inquired on AGS's warez thread on whether the warez site was available. I noticed you invited AGS to join us here, my guess would be to do...something for your attempt?...but he apparently bailed.

You talk about the abomination in "reinterpreting" the Constitution in the vein of a "Living Constitution" yet are doing precisely that when you say, to hell with it, original creators own nothing of their original works; yet, that Constitution literally states:

And you continue to keep a straight face?

I don't know whether any will say it, but we're laughing as well, buddy.

Oh - and by the way - feel free to cut and paste anything I've said here tonight, and sell it. Oh, crap - there is that damn DP thing about "its" content. Greedy bastards.

 

You are against amending the Constitution?