Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property and Pirating

That's somewhat reasonable.

Do you think that if you come up with an idea and don't tell me, and I come up with the same idea 3 years from now, that if you beat me to the patent office, that means my idea is worthless and cannot be owned by me, even though it was created solely in my mind, without your influence?

 

Congrats on getting it bumped to a new page. Earth's post was at the top of page 2, and you have been engaged in a host of arguments since, but as usual, at least in my experience, you will do what you can to avoid an obvious question put in good faith and in my opinion you have posted a piece of late-action fluff to diffuse the heat and move everything to a new page.

I asked you something directly, and now that it is buried, I'll ask again.

A direct question - feel free to just report this to Rob, whatever: you have proclaimed yourself to be a strict constitutionalist, yet you deny the right to patent protection, as embodied in the above clause from the Constitution. So much, so, that you apparently are engaged in the buying of warez sites, a blacknet specialty of pirating copyrighted works. How can both exist in the same logical universe?

 

There is some truth to that, but it's better IMO to avoid the moral arguments if possible, and stay on what's realistic and reasonable. If I tell you my unique idea, do I own that thought in your mind? Do I own it if you write it in your diary? Are you prevented from telling someone else?

Middlemen have a place in the market, it's just that the internet is so competitive, it's driving out the gatekeepers. I'd say that we have more variety and price options in music now than ever before. That's the product of a freely competitive marketplace where the playing field has been leveled.

I mean, who would have thought that major label artists would have to give away music, not to compete with Napster et al, but with unsigned artists! Brilliant!

 

Yep, as I thought.

God, so much transparent crap. Preaching "principles matter" while saying "fuck the moral argument, let's just talk about realistic possibility." Strict constitutionalism, unless it ruins one's pathetic line. "Our society is valueless," while buying up warez sites - do nothing, add no value, rip it off from those who do. And groupies stay silent. Not surprising. Talk about sheeple.

 

I own a powerboat. I bought it to settle an argument. I'm not really into water skiing or any other that stuff. I never use the boat. The boat is in a storage facility. I never see it. If you stole it, I would not know it was missing.

And it would still be theft.

If you buy a piece of software and "share" it with your friends, that is a violation of a contract also.

Stop it with the moronic ad-hominem attacks.

Also, you are confusing Copyrights with Trademarks with Patents.

You're damaged his profitability.

I know your argument is "but if I give the software away to everyone, more people will buy it."

I will let pass the stupidity of that argument for the moment. Instead, let's focus on the fact that it is not your right to make business decisions for another person.

Another baseless ad-hominem attack.

I'm going to stop here for now. I do not currently see a lot of "fun" in trying to respond to more of your irrational arguments.

 

ok who here would download money right from the record companies bank account, if you could get away with it?

 

Personally, I wouldn't do it, Ferret, for many reasons. Firstly, I know I'm taking money from others I do care about - the artists who contribute to that company's bottom line; it means less, then, for others coming down the road who I actually do feel a kindredness for and a belief they are owed their worth. Secondly, it's wrong, regardless of who it hurts. Just not how I swing.

 

I don't understand this way of thinking. Morals are everything. I believe in freedom because it is moral to allow individuals to pursue their own lives. The reason you don't want to take the moral discussion because you know stealing is wrong.

You're a big fan of Mises, so let's sum up capitalism. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange (or private contract) between two parties, where both parties are better off for the exchange.

Please explain how downloading pirated music benefits both parties? How the hell can you call what you're shoveling capitalism, when you're giving looters the right to steal?

 

How is that relevant to the real issue, which is whether that action would be morally justifiable?

A persons willingness to do something isn't necessarily related to either the moral beliefs towards it or their intellectual understanding of it.

It's human nature to do what is right for ourselves -- often with a very short-term outlook.

It's just silly when people try to morally justify actions which are clearly wrong. It is much more honest to do something bad and admit -- even if just to yourself -- that it was wrong.

People who lie to justify their actions, especially if the lying is to themselves, are simply acting out of weakness.

BTW, good post. It's an angle no one had brought up yet.

 

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This really speaks to the philosophy of the law better than anyone else has. I see some making the argument that because they do not like the way these laws are applied we should do away with it altogether. Without respecting the rights of someone to their own ideas and inventions, how could you ever respect the right of someone to their own mind? What incentive does a scientist or artist have to share their work? Part of the academic spirit is the idea of freely sharing ones ideas, it is what moves science and technology forward, but to rage out against the theft of taxes and not the theft of ones creations seems really odd. Why shouldn't I be able to decide where my ideas are shared and how? Because you like cheaper music?

Like a lot of the other stuff I see people wanting to toss into the wind, the problem is not the law as much as it is the law being behind the reality. The media industries and the legal system are just now starting to catch up with new technologies, and it is going to be a bumpy ride. Hopefully no one gets their Ipod confiscated in the mean time.

 

EF, intellectual property rights don't actually make any sense.

If you write a pop song, and I hear it, then sing it, am I violating your rights? What if I sing it and someone else hears it? Am I distributing it?

What if I play your CD at a party. Am I diluting your brand?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how another person can own the bits and bytes downloaded from the torrent. Or better yet, how you can own the thoughts in my head once you share an idea, a letter, an article or a song with me.

 

Without a doubt, yes.

 

lol. Very clever.

Quod incepimus conficiemus

 

You would have to ask a musician but I am pretty sure as long as you sing it differently or do not charge or record it, its fine, although how much you change it, whether you claim you own it, and who owns the rights to the parts you use, all makes a difference. I also believe a certain amount of sampling, enough not to be considered a clone, is also acceptable. If the person hearing you records you and tries to distribute that, as in make copies then they would be infringing on you or anyone you paid for the rights to a song.

You bought the CD. so no, but if you make copies at a party that is different.

I haven't read up on it in a long time, but I do believe no one ever claims to own the bits or bytes, just all of them in the correct order, if you have not purchased a license (or licensed copy). I don't own the thoughts in your head. But just because you read something I wrote does not mean you own it. Reword it, expound on it, or argue against and the new product is yours. Just make sure if you quote me you give me a footnote.

 

That wasn't what I was getting at, but thanks. The last part of your post is reasonable. It is dishonest to claim someone else's work as your own.

 

Exactly what I'm doing. I've declared a personal war against government-sponsored cartels intent on passing increasingly harsh laws to sustain failed business models that rely on monopolistic market control. RIAA easily fits the definition of a cartel, theoretically liable for felony criminal charges. When the government steps in to protect the "rights" of the cartel, the economist in me knows it is because such a model could not work against a freer market with fewer media outlet restrictions.

I don't know, I thought we were talking about copyright law?

The sun rises, the sun sets. A good farmer doesn't need a government to legislate the seasons, he profits from what is.

This is not worthy of a response but to note the concept of authority as truth. If there was a law sponsored by PinkShoe Co. that required you to wear pink shoes on Tuesdays in spring, would you also equate wearing brown shoes to murder?

There's precious little choice involved. Radio and TV outlets have non-compete contracts, venues are only interested in booking acts on the radio. I'm starting to assume you've never worked in music unless it was as a non-artistic bureaucrat.

And this is why you won't hear the songs. This is why there are thousands of talented acts you'll never know about.

Is the cartel system working? Is the wholesale punishment of personal use producing better music yet?

Show me the current "legal" system works by demonstrating all the great music that has been produced in the last 10 or 20 years. The best acts today are probably the ones who were roped into lifelong contracts prior to that.

 

This is beautiful. Simple, true, honest. Thank you.

 

And at the same time the way one interprets that gets to how there can be a staunch disagreement among those to profess economic liberty.

The way it is today is five television corporations owning 80-90% of the radio outlets.

Those who accept authority as truth will turn a blind eye to the federally-imposed artificial scarcity of media and ask why we need to use government to change the laws.

 

I just find it so astounding that someone would argue on digg (which iirc, is built on Ruby on Rails, suitable for open source dev.) for IP.

Here we are on the internet, making use of Apache, PHP, MySQL (and I'm assuming) Linux, all open source, that no one will create anything worth having without patent protection.

We're not constantly applying or paying for licenses to use CSS or HTML.

And yet we're still here on a vBulletin forum because vB makes the class of forum software. It's a paid piece of software, with an anti-piracy firm trying to enforce licenses, but most if not nearly all vB users pay for the privilege of having the best platform for community discussion. vB offers great service, a network of admin/developer forums, and offers free server optimization tips for users. They add value to the software by constantly adding new features, quickly addressing vulnerabilities, offering extensibility and having a robust upgrade/translation software suite for migration.

There is a market for paid software. But the market is competitive. People want service, and quality, and low prices. The monopolizing of ideas is anti-market.

IP protects the bad farmers, who want to charge uncompetitive prices, offer lousy service etc. As stated, good farmers do not need government to legislate the seasons.

One day, people will get it. Even with the dumbed down education system and socialist brainwashing, I really believe that one people will get that interference raises costs. Regulation, raises costs. Taxes, raise costs. You think you're getting more (and maybe you are if you are an unproductive member of society), but net, the aggregate is producing less.

 

What if we created a system for IP like we already have for prescription drugs???

Patents are created for new drugs when they first come onto the market. The patent usually lasts about 7 years, and in that amount of time, only the original patent holder can sell the drug. Once the patent expires, generics start flooding the market, giving consumers a choice, other companies an opportunity to make money, etc. What if we created something similar for artists, etc.? It wouldn't necessarily involve patents, but if we made a way where they could have full control over their work for a certain amount of time, and after that time is up, then it can be distributed freely by anyone. Just a thought....

Also, this discussion reminds me of something I read a long time ago. Prince was trying to shut down a YouTube video because one of his songs was playing in the background. It was a video a mother made of her baby dancing to music. Just a mommy making a cute video of her baby and Prince/YouTube wanted to shut it down! Don't you think that's taking it a bit too far? Link to story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9807555-7.html