NationStates Jolt Archive

...or how ridiculous they are. Some background; Intellectual Property is a monopoly on artistic creations, such as music, films, etc. Since the rise of the digital age piracy has been considered a problem by the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, and they've accordingly targetted people they've considered so, often leveraging courts into making defendants pay insane amounts for relatively innocuous amounts of "stolen" (never mind that defition doesn't fit with digital replication).

Focusing on music and movies, what does General think about the enforcement of these (civil) laws in court by the RIAA and MPAA?

Some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#Efforts_against_copyright_infringement
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-america/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245235.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

These laws should be rewritten.
they should only target those making money off the illegla copies not the down loaders or possessors.

Intellectual property is a sacred natural right that is a corollary of one's right to self-ownership.

What you are advocating is slavery and murder of the human spirit. Utterly despicable.

These laws should be rewritten.
they should only target those making money off the illegla copies not the down loaders or possessors.

Very unlikely with the RIAA lobbying hard for their own benefit. Part of the reason I'll never buy Sony/Sony-Erricson again.

These laws should be rewritten.
they should only target those making money off the illegla copies not the down loaders or possessors.

Wrong.

Merely possessing it illegitimately is a violation of the rightsholder's sacred natural right to control the distribution of that which he owns.

Intellectual property is a sacred natural right that is a corollary of one's right to self-ownership.

What you are advocating is slavery and murder of the human spirit. Utterly despicable.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/33/Futurama_Fry_Looking_Squint.jpg

You ARE joking, right?

Wrong.

Merely possessing it illegitimately is a violation of the rightsholder's sacred natural right to control the distribution of that which he owns.

Sacred natural right? Benefits of cultural material should balance societal and personal benefits. If society is losing out because of artificial monopolies, then the monopoly should be broken.

...or how ridiculous they are. Some background; Intellectual Property is a monopoly on artistic creations, such as music, films, etc. Since the rise of the digital age piracy has been considered a problem by the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, and they've accordingly targetted people they've considered so, often leveraging courts into making defendants pay insane amounts for relatively innocuous amounts of "stolen" (never mind that defition doesn't fit with digital replication).

Focusing on music and movies, what does General think about the enforcement of these (civil) laws in court by the RIAA and MPAA?

Some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#Efforts_against_copyright_infringement
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-america/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245235.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

All patent laws, copyright laws, and other such intellectual property laws should be abolished. The concept of intellectual property is incompatible with free enterprise.

Sacred natural right? Benefits of cultural material should balance societal and personal benefits.
Incorrect. The sacred natural rights of the individual are always the only relevant concern.

If society is losing out because of artificial monopolies, then the monopoly should be broken.
Incorrect. The sacred natural rights of the individual are always more important than everything else.

All patent laws, copyright laws, and other such intellectual property laws should be abolished. The concept of intellectual property is incompatible with the free enterprise.

How do you propose musicians make a living, other than live performances?

All patent laws, copyright laws, and other such intellectual property laws should be abolished. The concept of intellectual property is incompatible with free enterprise.

Incorrect.

If I own my body, I own my mind. If I own my mind, then I own the products of my mind. If I own the products of my mind, then I am entitled to attach whatever conditions I like to the distribution of those products.

Incorrect. The sacred natural rights of the individual are always the only relevant concern.

Incorrect. The sacred natural rights of the individual are always more important than everything else.

Quite final, obviously on an ideological base, how do you justify this?

All patent laws, copyright laws, and other such intellectual property laws should be abolished. The concept of intellectual property is incompatible with the free enterprise.

Protecting the lawful ownership of one's own product is practically the very foundation of free enterprise.

Perhaps instead of "free enterprise" you meant to say "psychotic, totalitarian Marxism?"

How do you propose musicians make a living, other than live performances?

Live performances and sales of music. A musician can sell his own music, but does not have the right to prevent others from copying, modifying, and distributing his or her music.

Incorrect. The sacred natural rights of the individual are always the only relevant concern.


Incorrect. The sacred natural rights of the individual are always more important than everything else.

As a nonreligious person, I reject the notion that the sacred exists. Demonstrate to me otherwise, and then demonstrate that IP laws fall into this category.

Yes, we know that A=A, but derive from this your claims, or I'm calling troll.

Incorrect.

If I own my body, I own my mind. If I own my mind, then I own the products of my mind. If I own the products of my mind, then I am entitled to attach whatever conditions I like to the distribution of those products.

That's completely false. You don't understand the nature and moral purpose of property rights. Property rights arise naturally to allocate scarce and limited resources among human individuals. But ideas are not scarce since they can be copied infinitely. Using force to prevent other people from appropriating and profiting from one's ideas is called an unlawful monopoly, which destroys innovation and interferes with the natural mechanisms of the free market.

Sometimes I'm inclined to wonder how meaningful the concept of intellectual "property" really is; after all, when someone is working on an idea, someone else may happen to be working on a very similar idea, both unaware of each other's work. Isn't that pretty much what happened with Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace? Isn't it more of a consequence of circumstance, then, that someone just so happened to be the first to be able to claim the idea as their intellectual property?

Granted, the rampant pirating of commercial software is wrong, if only for how much programming would've had to be done to put those ideas into practice, but sometimes I can't help but think society's notions of "property" go a bit too far...

Live performances and sales of music. A musician can sell his own music, but does not have the right to prevent others from copying, modifying, and distributing his or her music.
Sure he does.

If he wants to only offer his recordings to the public as part of a contract under which they agree not to redistribute or do anything else he doesn't like with the contents, why shouldn't he?

Why do you reject freedom of contract?

I love how everyone pretends that the CD was the product and not what was on it in order to justify what they do.

That's completely false. You don't understand the nature and moral purpose of property rights. Property rights arise naturally to allocate scarce and limited resources among human individuals.
You're the one who fails to understand the proper moral basis for property rights. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Granted, the rampant pirating of commercial software is wrong, if only for how much programming would've had to be done to put those ideas into practice, but sometimes I can't help but think society's notions of "property" go a bit too far...

Is it wrong if someone can't pay for it? The creators lose nothing then, do they?

Ignoring the Ayn Rand troll, and acknowledging that RIAA and the other major media groups and corporations are bloodsucking bastards who beat down the arts every chance they get, I would still like to ask:

Why do so many of you seem to think that artists exist to entertain you for free?

So Bluth/Trilateral, are you arguing between your two alts in order to convince others that you're not the same person?

I love how everyone pretends that the CD was the product and not what was on it in order to justify what they do.

They are? Wait, I fail to understand this comment, who are you talking about?

Is it wrong if someone can't pay for it? The creators lose nothing then, do they?

Irrelevant.

It's still a violation of the creator's (or whoever he has chosen to transfer the rights to) right to control the distribution of his property. That's what's sacredly important here: control.

Protecting the lawful ownership of one's own product is practically the very foundation of free enterprise.

Perhaps instead of "free enterprise" you meant to say "psychotic, totalitarian Marxism?"

How completely and thoroughly false. Ideas one produces are not property. Ideas are infinite. Property is scarce. The concept and moral purpose of property rights is to allocate scarce resources. Ideas don't need to be allocated by property rights because an idea is not scarce and an idea can be reproduced limitlessly. You cannot reproduce property, like a parcel of land, infinitely.

Intellectual property laws are distortionary and socialistic because they utilize state force to prevent the mechanisms of the voluntaryist free market from working.

Sometimes I'm inclined to wonder how meaningful the concept of intellectual "property" really is; after all, when someone is working on an idea, someone else may happen to be working on a very similar idea, both unaware of each other's work. Isn't that pretty much what happened with Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace? Isn't it more of a consequence of circumstance, then, that someone just so happened to be the first to be able to claim the idea as their intellectual property?

Granted, the rampant pirating of commercial software is wrong, if only for how much programming would've had to be done to put those ideas into practice, but sometimes I can't help but think society's notions of "property" go a bit too far...

Actually, as I recall (it's been some time since I've studied the circumstances here, I may be misremembering) Wallace sent a letter to Darwin with his findings, which were a rather good addition to Darwin's own. Darwin, at the time, was a rather more eminent scientist, so he was a better choice to publish much of the findings. They both went on to promote the theory and contribute to the scientific community rather well.

A great example of why scientific information should not be a commodity, but something for the good of mankind. What if Wallace would have been so concerned with "ownership" of his ideas that he never sent that letter to Darwin? Science would not have progressed quite as quickly, a net loss for humanity.

EDIT: I should note that I think the law should probably distinguish between cases like this and cases of art, because restricting any particular scientific knowledge is much worse than restricting any particular piece of art.

Why do so many of you seem to think that artists exist to entertain you for free?

A-fucking-men.

Ignoring the Ayn Rand troll, and acknowledging that RIAA and the other major media groups and corporations are bloodsucking bastards who beat down the arts every chance they get, I would still like to ask:

Why do so many of you seem to think that artists exist to entertain you for free?

No one has said that so far. However in reference to artists, what about if I downloaded some Leadbelly who died in '49, but the record company who owns the copyright (another fallacy in the law is transferal) sues me for infringement?

So Bluth/Trilateral, are you arguing between your two alts in order to convince others that you're not the same person?

...what?

You're the one who fails to understand the proper moral basis for property rights. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
What if someone is familiar with her and doesn't agree with her?

Sure he does.

If he wants to only offer his recordings to the public as part of a contract under which they agree not to redistribute or do anything else he doesn't like with the contents, why shouldn't he?

Why do you reject freedom of contract?

Anyone who agrees to a contract with the musician would be bound by the contract, but all other people (who are not involved with this contract) are not bound by the contract and can dispose of the music as they please.

(another fallacy in the law is transferal)

Disregarding the specific case of intellectual property rights for the moment, let me just ask something more general:

If something is in fact mine, why should I not be able to transfer it?

Anyone who agrees to a contract with the musician would be bound by the contract, but all other people (who are not involved with this contract) are not bound by the contract and can dispose of the music as they please.

If the only way the music is distributed initially is under this contract, and if this contract expressly forbids redistribution, then there is no possible way someone can come into possession of this music legitimately without being bound by the contract himself.

You're the one who fails to understand the proper moral basis for property rights. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

First of all, Ayn Rand's "objectivist" philosophy rests on the fallacious assumption of objectivity of value. That is clearly wrong because all value is subjective. Ayn Rand was at best a Jacobin. You would do well to familiarize yourself with capitalist philosophers such as Murray Rothbard or Samuel Konkin.

Disregarding property rights for the moment, let me just ask something more general:

If something is in fact mine, why should I not be able to transfer it?

...that is property rights.

...that is property rights.

I realized that already and edited the post, but apparently it was after you clicked "Quote" but before you hit "Submit Reply".

Sorry for the confusion.

Actually, as I recall (it's been some time since I've studied the circumstances here, I may be misremembering) Wallace sent a letter to Darwin with his findings, which were a rather good addition to Darwin's own. Darwin, at the time, was a rather more eminent scientist, so he was a better choice to publish much of the findings. They both went on to promote the theory and contribute to the scientific community rather well.

A great example of why scientific information should not be a commodity, but something for the good of mankind. What if Wallace would have been so concerned with "ownership" of his ideas that he never sent that letter to Darwin? Science would not have progressed quite as quickly, a net loss for humanity.
Actually the point I was making was that Darwin and Wallace each came up with similar theories on their own before they even contacted each other about them; wouldn't this suggest that the idea's emergence isn't just a consequence of Darwin's/Wallace's mind but partly one of the time period in which they lived?

But yeah, science is something the rest of society could learn from. You don't see much of this "this idea is MINE and you can't have it" mentality in science.

We can exist without intellectual property laws, or with diluted ones, but really, some of them preserve the incentives that allow artists to exist and prosper, which is a policy I think most people would be behind. Laws that allow McDonald's to sue the local burger joint because they have the same color tables and chairs don't do much for me, though. A better standard than "arbitrary and fanciful" might be good.

How completely and thoroughly false. Ideas one produces are not property. Ideas are infinite.

No, ideas are not infinite. Products created based on ideas are not infinite. People who think of ideas are not infinite. The time they have to come up with ideas is not infinite.

Even if they were, this wouldn't justify legalized theft.

Property is scarce. The concept and moral purpose of property rights is to allocate scarce resources.

Nonsense.

What are you, a Marxist trying to make free market advocates look stupid?

Ideas don't need to be allocated by property rights because an idea is not scarce and an idea can be reproduced limitlessly.

This argument would work if humans were omnipotent and immortal.

Intellectual property laws are distortionary and socialistic because they utilize state force to prevent the mechanisms of the voluntaryist

Here's a hint, Karl. "Free market" doesn't mean "free to steal."

First of all, Ayn Rand's "objectivist" philosophy rests on the fallacious assumption of objectivity of value.
No, it rests on the objectivity of reality. Please do not argue against what you do not understand.

That is clearly wrong because all value is subjective.
Economic value is subjective.

Moral value is most assuredly objective.

The two are separate concepts, and you would do well not to conflate them.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with capitalist philosophers such as Murray Rothbard or Samuel Konkin.
They were economists, not philosophers. The two are separate disciplines, and you would do well not to conflate them.

If the only way the music is distributed initially is under this contract, and if this contract expressly forbids redistribution, then there is no possible way someone can come into possession of this music legitimately without being bound by the contract himself.

Even if redistribution was forbidden in the contract, the state apparatus cannot legitimately enforce the contract. Furthermore, in a free market without state interference, such contracts would not be accepted and therefore these contracts would quickly disappear due to economic competition. The concept of intellectual property is completely at odds with the normal operations of a voluntaryist free market, and therefore would be selected against via normal economic competition.

No, ideas are not infinite. Products created based on ideas are not infinite. People who think of ideas are not infinite. The time they have to come up with ideas is not infinite.

Even if they were, this wouldn't justify legalized theft.


Replication is NOT theft. Theft is taking something physical, by the only stretch of the imagination, the only thing possibly stolen is "future earnings". Of course, if you're on a contract with the RIAA you only break even, and the only place you earn your money is concerts and merchandise sold there. Therefore, the only money you make is from that you'd be making anyway.

Ideas are infinite.

Then come up with your own.

Then come up with your own.

Infinite as in it can be replicated infinitly. As in, you're not stealing physical property.

No, ideas are not infinite. Products created based on ideas are not infinite. People who think of ideas are not infinite. The time they have to come up with ideas is not infinite.

Even if they were, this wouldn't justify legalized theft.

Perhaps this will be easier for you to understand: all property is capital and ideas are not capital.



Nonsense.

What are you, a Marxist trying to make free market advocates look stupid?



This argument would work if humans were omnipotent and immortal.



Here's a hint, Karl. "Free market" doesn't mean "free to steal."

It's impossible to steal ideas. Ideas aren't property.

We used to patron the artists, now that it's a profitable exercise, we make shorter, simpler, easily distributed art for money alone.

It's the same for many things.

I am slowly turning into Cameroi, just need to lose the capitalisation and spelling.

Replication is NOT theft. Theft is taking something physical, by the only stretch of the imagination, the only thing possibly stolen is "future earnings". Of course, if you're on a contract with the RIAA you only break even, and the only place you earn your money is concerts and merchandise sold there. Therefore, the only money you make is from that you'd be making anyway.

Dude, get over it. You're not Robin Hood. You're just another self righteous internet thief pretending that the product isn't the music/film/etc to justify not paying the artist for what s/he created or acknowledging that the artist didn't create it in a vacuum, that in fact a lot of other people put sweat into creating what you enjoy but based on your twisted logic have justified not paying for.

No one has said that so far. However in reference to artists, what about if I downloaded some Leadbelly who died in '49, but the record company who owns the copyright (another fallacy in the law is transferal) sues me for infringement?
Well, you have a problem then, don't you? Because the law is the law. However, that problem should be overcome by improving copyright law, not by denouncing intellectual property as an evil in and of itself.

Let me disclose my bias on this: I am an artist and make my living by control of my copyright of my own works, so I have a bias in favor of copyright. I also have a more generalized bias in favor of people being able to make a living off the products of their work. So that further entrenches my position on this.

THAT SAID, HOWEVER, I do not believe that parties other than the artists and their immediate, personal heirs should be able to claim the same level of copyright control that the artist him/herself can.

I do absolutely support the granting of copyright control to the creator of the work for the creator's life plus 50 years. I also absolutely support the right of an artist to transfer their copyright ownership to their heirs so those heirs may gain the benefit of the posthumous +50 years of copyright.

However, I do not believe that any buyer of the rights to a creative work -- such as a recording company or publisher -- should be able to buy the same level of control as would naturally belong to the original creator. They did not do the creative work, so I don't see why they should get as much benefit out of it. If an artist sells (as opposed to licenses) the rights to their works, the buyer should only get a flat number of years and those rights should not be renewable so that they cannot clamp down on works and keep them out of the public domain forever.

Mind you, even with all that said, there is nothing whatsoever to stop an artist from exercising LESS control over their work, if they want to let it go more freely. I'm just saying that I think the law should recognize that an artist has that much control over their own creative work, and that buyers of the rights (as opposed to designated heirs of the artist) get less control.

Even if redistribution was forbidden in the contract, the state apparatus cannot legitimately enforce the contract.
Why not? That is one of the (very very few) proper functions of government, after all.

Furthermore, in a free market without state interference, such contracts would not be accepted
That's not the issue; the issue is whether or not they're legitimate.

Infinite as in it can be replicated infinitly. As in, you're not stealing physical property.

Why do I have to carry you around like a barnacle, leeching off my ideas or the work I put into realizing it with not so much as your gratitude for lifting your weight?

No, it rests on the objectivity of reality. Please do not argue against what you do not understand.

Economic value is subjective.

Moral value is most assuredly objective.

The two are separate concepts, and you would do well not to conflate them.

Reality is not objective either. If reality were objective everyone would assign the same objective value to any given component of reality, which is patently false.

They were economists, not philosophers. The two are separate disciplines, and you would do well not to conflate them.

There is no dichotomy between economics and philosophy. Rothbard and Konkin were greater philosophers and Ayn Rand was a lesser philosopher.

Infinite as in it can be replicated infinitly. As in, you're not stealing physical property.
No, you're stealing intellectual property. Hence the term "intellectual property."

Dude, get over it. You're not Robin Hood. You're just another self righteous internet thief pretending that the product isn't the music/film/etc to justify not paying the artist for what s/he created or acknowledging that the artist didn't create it in a vacuum, that in fact a lot of other people put sweat into creating what you enjoy but based on your twisted logic have justified not paying for.

I'm not taking from the rich to give to the poor, and I'm fairly sure I never implied I was.

Wiktionary defines a thief as: "One who carries out theft; a robber; a pickpocket"

I never said the artist never deserved renumeration for their works (though I do have admirations for those that realise under the Creative Commons license). I just think that the copyright laws in which companies "representing" the artist make millions from private citizens for downloading some songs is unjust.

Perhaps this will be easier for you to understand: all property is capital and ideas are not capital.

Yes, they are.

Capital is a resource that is used to create wealth. Ideas have utility and are therefore resources.

So unless you want to argue that ideas are irrelevant in the creation of wealth, and that all wealth is due to brute force...which, I have to agree, is in line with your other decidedly Marxist positions.

It's impossible to steal ideas. Ideas aren't property.

Things can have value which don't have physical existence. You can recover damages for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc., even though those things don't exist in a physical sense.

No, you're stealing intellectual property. Hence the term "intellectual property."

Hence my use of the word physical.

Then come up with your own.

Perhaps the grammar was confusing. An idea is infinite.

Why do I have to carry you around like a barnacle, leeching off my ideas or the work I put into realizing it with not so much as your gratitude for lifting your weight?

Gratitude isn't limited to monetary rewards.

Well, you have a problem then, don't you? Because the law is the law. However, that problem should be overcome by improving copyright law, not by denouncing intellectual property as an evil in and of itself.

Let me disclose my bias on this: I am an artist and make my living by control of my copyright of my own works, so I have a bias in favor of copyright. I also have a more generalized bias in favor of people being able to make a living off the products of their work. So that further entrenches my position on this.

THAT SAID, HOWEVER, I do not believe that parties other than the artists and their immediate, personal heirs should be able to claim the same level of copyright control that the artist him/herself can.

I do absolutely support the granting of copyright control to the creator of the work for the creator's life plus 50 years. I also absolutely support the right of an artist to transfer their copyright ownership to their heirs so those heirs may gain the benefit of the posthumous +50 years of copyright.

However, I do not believe that any buyer of the rights to a creative work -- such as a recording company or publisher -- should be able to buy the same level of control as would naturally belong to the original creator. They did not do the creative work, so I don't see why they should get as much benefit out of it. If an artist sells (as opposed to licenses) the rights to their works, the buyer should only get a flat number of years and those rights should not be renewable so that they cannot clamp down on works and keep them out of the public domain forever.

Mind you, even with all that said, there is nothing whatsoever to stop an artist from exercising LESS control over their work, if they want to let it go more freely. I'm just saying that I think the law should recognize that an artist has that much control over their own creative work, and that buyers of the rights (as opposed to designated heirs of the artist) get less control.

I totally agree with you, aside from the length of copyright. But I guess that's just abitrary, itself.

Gratitude isn't limited to monetary rewards.

Thank you doesn't pay my rent.

If reality were objective everyone would assign the same objective value to any given component of reality,
Arguments of the form "If A Then B" only work when B really is a necessary consequence of A. That's not the case here.

Why?

For one, not everyone perceives reality the same. And since reality exists independent of perception, perceptions can be objectively wrong.



There is no dichotomy between economics and philosophy.
Yeah, there really is. Economics is concerned with the problems of distributing resources; philosophy is concerned with knowledge of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

I'm not taking from the rich to give to the poor, and I'm fairly sure I never implied I was.

Wiktionary defines a thief as: "One who carries out theft; a robber; a pickpocket"

I never said the artist never deserved renumeration for their works (though I do have admirations for those that realise under the Creative Commons license). I just think that the copyright laws in which companies "representing" the artist make millions from private citizens for downloading some songs is unjust.
For a second, let's pretend those companies are not ripping off the artists far worse than they could ever rip off the consumers. Let's pretend, just for this one point, that every penny of the price they charge for songs is shared fairly among the company, who pays all the salaries of all their workers out of it, and the artists who support themselves and their families with it. That's how it's supposed to work, so let's pretend for a second that it does.

How many copies do you think you can download and share for free before you start taking food out of the mouths of those artists and all those workers?

Perhaps this will be easier for you to understand: all property is capital and ideas are not capital.

Take an economics class and get back to me on this dear.

It's impossible to steal ideas.

Ha.


Replication is NOT theft. Theft is taking something physical

No, theft is the taking of property. If you don't think plagiarism (for example) is theft, go ahead and try it.

You people were arguing that property laws should be repealed. If you're actually just going to argue that they don't really exist this should be real short.

Should be, but I get the feeling that we're going to have about a thousand posts of "na uh" and "A=A" and other charming "rebuttals."

Hence my use of the word physical.
Hence my use of the word "stealing."

Thank you doesn't pay my rent.

You're absolutely right, and I never said I didn't think IP laws should exist at all, but should be watered down from the state they're in that an artist can earn millions from a song that sells for $1 on iTunes.

EDIT: I should note that I think the law should probably distinguish between cases like this and cases of art, because restricting any particular scientific knowledge is much worse than restricting any particular piece of art.

Unfortunately the law doesn't much differentiate whether you're copying music or reverse engineering AIDs medication that costs $5 to make but is sold under license for $500.

Why not? That is one of the (very very few) proper functions of government, after all.
There are no proper functions of government.

That's not the issue; the issue is whether or not they're legitimate.

They are legitimate to anyone who believes they're legitimate, and to anyone who engages in them. In a voluntaryist free market, very few people would engage in them or enter intellectual property contracts, since the monopolistic and anti-innovation nature of intellectual property is clear to market participants.

For a second, let's pretend those companies are not ripping off the artists far worse than they could ever rip off the consumers. Let's pretend, just for this one point, that every penny of the price they charge for songs is shared fairly among the company, who pays all the salaries of all their workers out of it, and the artists who support themselves and their families with it. That's how it's supposed to work, so let's pretend for a second that it does.

How many copies do you think you can download and share for free before you start taking food out of the mouths of those artists and all those workers?

If I had no ability to pay for it in the first place, none.

However, if somebody DOES have the money to pay for it, and it's not unreasonable, they should.

Infinite as in it can be replicated infinitly.

Um. No.

I'm getting the distinct impression that neither you nor Bluth/Trilateral has ever come up with anything creative in your entire lives.

You're absolutely right, and I never said I didn't think IP laws should exist at all, but should be watered down from the state they're in that an artist can earn millions from a song that sells for $1 on iTunes.

Aaaand back come the green tights...

Um. No.

I'm getting the distinct impression that neither you nor Bluth/Trilateral has ever come up with anything creative in your entire lives.

I have. Nothing of worth though, unless you want a guaranteed Achieved on a paper.

Aaaand back come the green tights...

I don't see what's wrong with my statement at all?

Aaaand back come the green tights...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb78/viva_la_sam_1/Robin-Hood-Tights-bh03.jpg

There are no proper functions of government.

Oh, so you actually meant all laws should be repealed.

Well, what more is there left to say. You have no real argument other than alluding to a childish anarchist's pipe-dream.

They are legitimate to anyone who believes they're legitimate, and to anyone who engages in them. In a voluntaryist free market, very few people would engage in them or enter intellectual property contracts, since the monopolistic and anti-innovation nature of intellectual property is clear to market participants.

Oh, rich. Yeah, "anti innovation" because apparently stealing and "replicating" something is now "innovative." LOL. Seriously, LOL.

Um. No.

I'm getting the distinct impression that neither you nor Bluth/Trilateral has ever come up with anything creative in your entire lives.

Excuse me?

I resent two things: First, your assumption that this Trilateral Commission collectivist and I are the same person, apparently because he's wrong and I'm right.

Second, that I have never created anything, given that I am quite an accomplished composer, performer, and writer.

I totally agree with you, aside from the length of copyright. But I guess that's just abitrary, itself.
No, it is not arbitrary. The ability of my work to generate income from sales, resales, and licensing of usage and copying, is the single most valuable thing I've got. I have a right to be able to control it as I see fit during my lifetime. That makes sense, doesn't it -- if I am the creator of something that has an ongoing ability to generate income, I should be able to use it that way, shouldn't I? So that's the "lifetime of the artist" part right there.

And the rationale for keeping the work out the public domain for 50 years after the artist's death is to maintain the legacy and identity of the artist and his/her work by keeping them whole and undiluted, as it were, long enough for the artist to be remembered historically (if he/she is going to be remembered at all). After that, others can start using the work, but it should be strongly enough identified with the original creator that no one else will be able to pass off Mozart's works or Shakespeare's works as their own, even though they are now in the public domain.

And like I said, this is just the default setting of the law. The actual owner of the copyright can choose to do less with it if they like.

As a defense for some illegal downloading, which I am certainly guilty of..

Where I bought the CD previously but have since lost it/had it stolen/scratched it.

Am I paying for the CD or the music?

I have. Nothing of worth though, unless you want a guaranteed Achieved on a paper.

Oh you have? And you contend that you could do that.... infinitely.

Are you aware that you're not immortal?

There are no proper functions of government.
Sure there are.

I'm aware Rothbard denies this, but Austrians are hack economists, and there's a very good reason their ideas are not taken seriously by real economists: they have no actual intellectual validity.

And like a typical Austrian fanboy, you religiously subscribe to every single conclusion presented by the Austrian "school" without bothering to understand the reasoning behind them or even know anything about economics.

They are legitimate to anyone who believes they're legitimate,

The legitimacy of a contract is a function and property of the contract itself. It is not dependent on anyone's perception.

You're absolutely right, and I never said I didn't think IP laws should exist at all, but should be watered down from the state they're in that an artist can earn millions from a song that sells for $1 on iTunes.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Why is an artist not allowed to make millions? If songs download for $1, and 1 million copies are downloaded, why can't the artist get that million dollars?

Arguments of the form "If A Then B" only work when B really is a necessary consequence of A. That's not the case here.

Why?

For one, not everyone perceives reality the same. And since reality exists independent of perception, perceptions can be objectively wrong.
That's absolutely fallacious. The only meaning of reality is through individual perception and individual experience. Objectivism denies the right and prerogative of the individual to perceive and assign value as he sees fit.


Yeah, there really is. Economics is concerned with the problems of distributing resources; philosophy is concerned with knowledge of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

You could not be more wrong if you think the problem of distributing resources is not intimately related to the fundamental nature of the universe. The problem of distributing resources is the problem of the individual in relation to the universe, and how he disposes of the "universe" around him.

Excuse me?

I resent two things: First, your assumption that this Trilateral Commission collectivist and I are the same person, apparently because he's wrong and I'm right.

You're almost certainly the same person because you were both making the exact same "free market is the only information processing, resource allocating mechanism/engine capable of" blah blah blah arguments a few days ago.

And you are both arguing in the same manner. Naked assertions, blinding ignorance about economics, same fallacies, all rather obnoxious.

The fact that you (apparently) disagree with him/yourself on this thread is not that convincing when weighed against the above. But OK, let's play this game. You're two different people, and you're both wrong.

No, it is not arbitrary. The ability of my work to generate income from sales, resales, and licensing of usage and copying, is the single most valuable thing I've got. I have a right to be able to control it as I see fit during my lifetime. That makes sense, doesn't it -- if I am the creator of something that has an ongoing ability to generate income, I should be able to use it that way, shouldn't I? So that's the "lifetime of the artist" part right there.

Apparently it is pretty abitrary if original French IP law doesn't agree with you. "Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years."

And the rationale for keeping the work out the public domain for 50 years after the artist's death is to maintain the legacy and identity of the artist and his/her work by keeping them whole and undiluted, as it were, long enough for the artist to be remembered historically (if he/she is going to be remembered at all). After that, others can start using the work, but it should be strongly enough identified with the original creator that no one else will be able to pass off Mozart's works or Shakespeare's works as their own, even though they are now in the public domain.

Protecting the artists image? Doesn't matter much if you're dead.

And like I said, this is just the default setting of the law. The actual owner of the copyright can choose to do less with it if they like.

Indeed. What a default setting, but what if someone wants a "stronger" copyright?

If I had no ability to pay for it in the first place, none.

However, if somebody DOES have the money to pay for it, and it's not unreasonable, they should.
Being poor is an excuse for stealing food, not music or art or literature. You need food to survive, so it would be wrong to deny it to you. You don't need my art to survive, so pay up, freeloader. If you can't afford to buy music, learn to whistle and make your own. If you can't afford to buy art, do your own fingerpainting in the free ketchup that comes from McD's.

Oh you have? And you contend that you could do that.... infinitely.

Are you aware that you're not immortal?

Created new things infinitely? No.

Reproduced infinitely? Yes.

As a defense for some illegal downloading, which I am certainly guilty of..

Where I bought the CD previously but have since lost it/had it stolen/scratched it.

Am I paying for the CD or the music?
The music on the CD. But this is an issue of how the middlemen are allowed to operate. You buy a CD, which is a delivery system for the music, which is what you really bought. The CD is defective. You should get a free replacement. Most of the time, you will.

You buy a CD. It isn't that cheap. It gets damaged within a year of buying it. Now, as far as I know, no recording company will warrant against damage to a CD that wasn't defective coming out of the package. But I don't think it would hurt them if they did, and if you would be allowed one free replacement download, within one year of a proven legal purchase.

But as far as I know, they don't do that.

Being poor is an excuse for stealing food, not music or art or literature. You need food to survive, so it would be wrong to deny it to you. You don't need my art to survive, so pay up, freeloader. If you can't afford to buy music, learn to whistle and make your own. If you can't afford to buy art, do your own fingerpainting in the free ketchup that comes from McD's.

Would you not prefer the general population to be cultured?

[quote]The only meaning of reality is through individual perception and individual experience.
"Meaning of reality" is not the same thing as reality itself. The former is a construct created by a human as a consequence of a possibly flawed perception of the latter.

Or, in simple terms: You're entitled to think that brick wall is a nice fluffy pillow, but that's not going to change the fact that if you bash your head into it you're probably not going to like what happens.

Objectivism denies the right and prerogative of the individual to perceive and assign value as he sees fit.
Incorrect; Objectivism completely endorses the right and prerogative of the individual to be wrong if he so chooses.

You could not be more wrong if you think the problem of distributing resources is not intimately related to the fundamental nature of the universe. The problem of distributing resources is the problem of the individual in relation to the universe, and how he disposes of the "universe" around him.

Attempting to redefine the scope of disciplines is really quite disingenuous...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Why is an artist not allowed to make millions? If songs download for $1, and 1 million copies are downloaded, why can't the artist get that million dollars?

I mean millions from one person downloading one track in infringement of copyright law, and awarded as damages.

You're almost certainly the same person because you were both making the exact same "free market is the only information processing, resource allocating mechanism/engine capable of" blah blah blah arguments a few days ago.
So when people agree they're obviously the same person, and when they disagree they're obviously the same person.

And you are both arguing in the same manner. Naked assertions, blinding ignorance about economics, same fallacies, all rather obnoxious.
That is true about TC, not about me. I defy you to find a single flaw in any of my arguments.

The music.

So does that mean that he gets the copyright with it, and gets to reproduce it and distribute it?

Sure there are.

I'm aware Rothbard denies this, but Austrians are hack economists, and there's a very good reason their ideas are not taken seriously by real economists: they have no actual intellectual validity.

And like a typical Austrian fanboy, you religiously subscribe to every single conclusion presented by the Austrian "school" without bothering to understand the reasoning behind them or even know anything about economics.
Actually you intrigue me. I've not met an Aynrandian who subscribes to so called "mainstream" economics. Go on.

The legitimacy of a contract is a function and property of the contract itself. It is not dependent on anyone's perception.

Again you deny the individual's prerogative of perception. But even if we throw out legitimate economics and assume what you say is true, in a free market non-distribution contracts would be marginalized due to normal economic processes. These contracts are only widespread today due to cartelization and monopolistic interference, which have no place in a free market.

Created new things infinitely? No.

Reproduced infinitely? Yes.

No.

You can do nothing infinitely. You yourself are finite. Your time, energy, and money are finite.

That's absolutely fallacious. The only meaning of reality is through individual perception and individual experience. Objectivism denies the right and prerogative of the individual to perceive and assign value as he sees fit.


You can believe in an objective reality, while also believing that we each experience it in our own way, or that the subject/object perspective itself is inappropriate.

Apparently it is pretty abitrary if original French IP law doesn't agree with you.
When people say shit like that, I tend to laugh and stop listening to them.

"Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years."
And this is why. This is patents, not copyright. You do understand that patents, trademarks and copyright are not the same thing, don't you?

Protecting the artists image? Doesn't matter much if you're dead.
Easy for you to say. But then, "tough shit" is easy for me to say.

Indeed. What a default setting, but what if someone wants a "stronger" copyright?
They don't have it, unless they are Time Warner and that ilk. And if you want to hike up your green tights and take them down, be my guest.

No.

You can do nothing infinitely. You yourself are finite. Your time, energy, and money are finite.

Okay then, it can't be reproduced infitely. However, it can be reproduced so easily and in a low cost manner that it's so easy to reproduce that the costs are negligible.

Created new things infinitely? No.

Reproduced infinitely? Yes.
Reproducing other people's work infinitely is called theft, unless you paid for the privilege. This is especially true if you do it infinitely. Five or ten copies you can get away with easily. Infinite copies, none of which are paid for, is called destroying my ability to earn a living off my work, and it lands you in court.

So when people agree they're obviously the same person

No. Don't make me repeat myself just because you refuse to read.

That is true about TC, not about me. I defy you to find a single flaw in any of my arguments.

I defy you to make a single valid argument.

Your circular reasoning is a logical fallacy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14492020&postcount=88). It needs no refutation since it is absolutely meaningless bullshit.

So does that mean that he gets the copyright with it, and gets to reproduce it and distribute it?

I wouldn't say that, but I do take it as my right to download those songs again, I suspect I'd need receipts in court but for the moment...

Okay then, it can't be reproduced infitely. However, it can be reproduced so easily and in a low cost manner that it's so easy to reproduce that the costs are negligible.

You know, I'm a musician myself. You won't mind sending me some of your music so I can reproduce it under my own name, right? I mean the costs of my stealing your work and fraudulently peddling it as if it were my own are neglible because you can just make more music. Right?

You can believe in an objective reality, while also believing that we each experience it in our own way, or that the subject/object perspective itself is inappropriate.

Any permutations of these positions are acceptable.

Would you not prefer the general population to be cultured?
A bullshit question. You do not need to steal from me to get "cultured."

I mean millions from one person downloading one track in infringement of copyright law, and awarded as damages.
The law is the law, my friend. You should have thought of that before you did it.

But that just brings us back to my original points, because it is not the artists bringing such vindictive suits, and it is not the artists benefitting from them. It's the Time Warners et al, who screw the artists over even worse than they do you.

When people say shit like that, I tend to laugh and stop listening to them.

People cite French IP law to you frequently?

And this is why. This is patents, not copyright. You do understand that patents, trademarks and copyright are not the same thing, don't you?

It all falls under the umbrellla of Intellectual Property.

Easy for you to say. But then, "tough shit" is easy for me to say.

Let me rephrase. What does your reputation matter if you're dead?

They don't have it, unless they are Time Warner and that ilk. And if you want to hike up your green tights and take them down, be my guest.

Why is the strongest the default?

Would you not prefer the general population to be cultured?
Dude, like Muryvets I make a part of my living from my creative endeavors. But I make the rest of my income by facilitating the creative works of others. I put in twelve to sixteen, sometimes twenty hour days working to realize their creation. Am I to bask in the warm glow of having 'cultured' someone who bulk downloaded the work with a bunch of others and then use the, what, remaining eight hours of my day to find yet another job to put food on the table and sleep when I'm dead? No, they fucking pay me, they pay me based on the residuals that they get from the sale of the creation I helped craft. I'm not getting rich, I'm making a living. It's all fun and games to pretend it's all about Britney Spears and the head of Sony, but it's not.

Reproducing other people's work infinitely is called theft, unless you paid for the privilege. This is especially true if you do it infinitely. Five or ten copies you can get away with easily. Infinite copies, none of which are paid for, is called destroying my ability to earn a living off my work, and it lands you in court.

It doesn't destroy your ability unless I distribute it.

So does that mean that he gets the copyright with it, and gets to reproduce it and distribute it?
No. He gets a license to use the music for his own personal entertainment.

That is all. He does not own the music. He only owns the right to listen to it. He does not have the right to alter it, to republish it, to broadcast it to the public, or to sell it (the music, not the physical CD) unless he gains a further license from the owner of the copyright and pays the owner for it, too.

You know, I'm a musician myself. You won't mind sending me some of your music so I can reproduce it under my own name, right? I mean the costs of my stealing your work and fraudulently peddling it as if it were my own are neglible because you can just make more music. Right?

When the hell did fraud come into this?

When the hell did fraud come into this?

Right about when people started arguing that intellectual property laws should be repealed.

Right about when people started arguing that intellectual property laws should be repealed.

I was arguing that they should be changed, not repealed, that's not my argument.

Oh, rich. Yeah, "anti innovation" because apparently stealing and "replicating" something is now "innovative." LOL. Seriously, LOL.

Improving upon existing material freely is innovation. IP laws prevent that from happening efficiently, and thereby slow innovation.

IP laws use force to create artificial scarcity for something that is not scarce.

I was arguing that they should be changed, not repealed, that's not my argument.

Yet you were supporting his "ideas are intangible, and therefore can be replicated infinitely, and therefore are not scarce, and therefore not property" argument.

No. He gets a license to use the music for his own personal entertainment.

That is all. He does not own the music. He only owns the right to listen to it. He does not have the right to alter it, to republish it, to broadcast it to the public, or to sell it (the music, not the physical CD) unless he gains a further license from the owner of the copyright and pays the owner for it, too.

Ah, I notice you edited your original answer to Barrintonia of just "the music".

But why do you deserve income derived from your artistic creations?

People cite French IP law to you frequently?
No, but I hear lots of ignorant crap on lots of subjects. It all follows the same patterns. The pretentious opening in one of the classic tells.

It all falls under the umbrellla of Intellectual Property.
No, it does not. Patent applies to one kind of thing. Copyright applies to a different kind of thing. Trademark apply to a third kind of thing. They do not overlap. They all have their own rules. They each have their own legal specialists and everything. You cannot cite patent law and claim it is relevant to a discussion about copyright. The fact that you do not know this indicates that you have not given this any serious thought beyond your own selfish -- and cheapskate -- desire to get something for nothing.

Let me rephrase. What does your reputation matter if you're dead?
It matters to my heirs -- remember them? My poor little kids who would starve in the street if it were up to you, you cheapskate. And it matters to history. It matters to the record of who did what, when.

Why is the strongest the default?
Because when the person who depends on holding copyright the most for their living is the one who holds the power over it, it is far easier to let them lighten up restrictions than to make them petition for enhancing restrictions. Set it at the strongest, and then let the artist be as generous or otherwise as they like.

Yet you were supporting his "ideas are intangible, and therefore can be replicated infinitely, and therefore are not scarce, and therefore not property" argument.

Just because I happened to provide information that supported it, it doesn't mean I agreed with it.

Improving upon existing material freely is innovation.

"Replicating" existing material is not. Quit moving the goalposts.

IP laws prevent that from happening efficiently, and thereby slow innovation.

No. They don't. Again, this is the part where you demonstrate you've no idea what you're talking about. My innovation has never been "slowed" by the fact that I can't steal other people's ideas. Perhaps yours has, and this has made you bitter.


IP laws use force to create artificial scarcity for something that is not scarce.

They protect artists from having fucking rip-offs, plagiarists, and stupid criminal scum from stealing their ideas and passing them off as their own.

It doesn't destroy your ability unless I distribute it.
Right. And you would be making infinite free copies of my work for what other reason? To paper your house with them? Fuck that shit say I.

When the hell did fraud come into this?
When Coldplay copped your attitude and ripped off that session musician by lifting one his original compositions in nearly its entirety for one of their songs, without even crediting him let alone paying him. He sued.

Ah, I notice you edited your original answer to Barrintonia of just "the music".

But why do you deserve income derived from your artistic creations?
And here we are right back at square one and my very first post in this thread: Why do you think artists exist to entertain you for free?

In other words, why DON'T I deserve income derived from my artistic creations?

Just because I happened to provide information that supported it, it doesn't mean I agreed with it.

You argued in favor of it, whether you were doing so disingenuously or not.

No, but I hear lots of ignorant crap on lots of subjects. It all follows the same patterns. The pretentious opening in one of the classic tells.

I was just providing evidence.

No, it does not. Patent applies to one kind of thing. Copyright applies to a different kind of thing. Trademark apply to a third kind of thing. They do not overlap. They all have their own rules. They each have their own legal specialists and everything. You cannot cite patent law and claim it is relevant to a discussion about copyright. The fact that you do not know this indicates that you have not given this any serious thought beyond your own selfish -- and cheapskate -- desire to get something for nothing.

Of course it falls under the umbrella of Intellectual Property. All those things you listed are just divisions of IP. I know peple who download movies just because they can and it's free, I am not one of them. I myself download music, and if I can afford it, usually buy the LP or CD second hand. The second-hand market deprives artists of money, does this make the people that participate morally deficient?

It matters to my heirs -- remember them? My poor little kids who would starve in the street if it were up to you, you cheapskate. And it matters to history. It matters to the record of who did what, when.

What harm happens if to your heirs if your creative productions go into the public domain? Most people I know will have to work to earn their money, not be inheriting a artifical monopoly from their parents.

Because when the person who depends on holding copyright the most for their living is the one who holds the power over it, it is far easier to let them lighten up restrictions than to make them petition for enhancing restrictions. Set it at the strongest, and then let the artist be as generous or otherwise as they like.

Tough shit.

"Replicating" existing material is not. Quit moving the goalposts.
Even if I replicate 1,000 copies of your mp3 I'm not violating your private property rights (rights are different from laws).


No. They don't. Again, this is the part where you demonstrate you've no idea what you're talking about. My innovation has never been "slowed" by the fact that I can't steal other people's ideas. Perhaps yours has, and this has made you bitter.
Innovation is demonstrably slowed by IP laws, most notably in technology. But that point is immaterial, as unlimited replication and distribution of creative ideas violates no property, since ideas aren't property.


They protect artists from having fucking rip-offs, plagiarists, and stupid criminal scum from stealing their ideas and passing them off as their own.

You created ideas. You don't own them. Plagiarists may be ridiculous, but they violate no one's property rights. They're merely uncreative.

Innovation is demonstrably slowed by IP laws, most notably in technology. But that point is immaterial, as unlimited replication and distribution of creative ideas violates no property, since ideas aren't property.


Source, please. While I do not think that our current IP system is optimal is does require, in patents at least, for innovators to reveal their designs to the public. Without IP what incentives do inventors and such have to share their work?

Right. And you would be making infinite free copies of my work for what other reason? To paper your house with them? Fuck that shit say I.

What I said is true, nonetheless.

When Coldplay copped your attitude and ripped off that session musician by lifting one his original compositions in nearly its entirety for one of their songs, without even crediting him let alone paying him. He sued.

And that happened with copyright law, that shows it's at least somewhat ineffectual at preventing what you claim it does prevent.

And here we are right back at square one and my very first post in this thread: Why do you think artists exist to entertain you for free?

In other words, why DON'T I deserve income derived from my artistic creations?

No, artists exist because they happen to be able to create music, movies, art etc.

Why not? If you want to charge you can, but I don't think that should be enshrined in law.

Intellectual property laws are just out of date. We do need some sort of system to protect innovation and creativity, but as they are now the system has turned into one of corporate protectionism. What passes for "research and development" for most of the companies who claim intellectual property rights is as often as not a list of purchased ideas or a list of general concepts that they have manipulated the copyright laws into creating a system of taxation upon anyone who actually attempts to invent. Meanwhile, the same corporations violate the copyrights of anyone without the legal budget to defend their rights against a small army of lawyers.

Even if I replicate 1,000 copies of your mp3 I'm not violating your private property rights (rights are different from laws).

"My" mp3? I thought you didn't believe in intellectual property.


Innovation is demonstrably slowed by IP laws, most notably in technology. But that point is immaterial

Not to mention completely unsupported and most likely pulled out of your ass.

, as unlimited replication and distribution of creative ideas violates no property, since ideas aren't property.


Your ability to assume you are right and then use the assumption to argue that you're right is truly amazing indeed.

You created ideas. You don't own them.

Oh? Who does? The Greater Good? The State? Everyone? God? The People? The Public?

If I created it, it's mine. Period.

Plagiarists may be ridiculous, but they violate no one's property rights. They're merely uncreative.

You said they were innovative before. Now they're uncreative. Let me know when you know when you make up your mind.

You argued in favor of it, whether you were doing so disingenuously or not.

I just supported his argument. That does not in any way mean I agree with him. "You said something that has something common with one of them! You must be one of them!" Is not a valid argument.

By the way, I don't want to get involved with the Tri-Bluth show at all, but I think a few details need to be clarified, since One-O-One has made it clear that people who crab about IP law don't really understand it. So a couple of points of information:

1) You cannot actually copyright "an idea." "An idea" would mean "my play is about two guys waiting for another guy."

2) But you CAN copyright the actual work produced on that idea. So the play "Waiting for Godot" is copyrighted. It is about two guys waiting for another guy. You could also write a play about two guys waiting for another guy, but as long as you didn't copy "Godot", you'd be fine.

3) You also cannot copyright a title. So if you decide to write a novel about 10 guys chasing an elephant down a traintrack, and you call it "Waiting for Godot", you'd still be okay, legally. Artistically and professionally, you'd be laughed out of business, but that's a different matter, and you probably would never be able to go out for lunch in any city that had a theater in it, because everyone who knew anything about theater would have you marked for ridicule and abuse on sight, but that's a different matter.

So, copyright protects the actual work that an artist, musician, writer produces. The song. The story. The play. The painting. The photograph. Etc.

Tough shit.

I'm still waiting for you to send me "your" music.

Source, please. While I do not think that our current IP system is optimal is does require, in patents at least, for innovators to reveal their designs to the public. Without IP what incentives do inventors and such have to share their work?

They don't need to share their blueprints. If they want to make a profit off their invention they'll have to construct the product, which can be reverse-engineered. Technological innovation is held back by patent laws that allow inventors to block innovations on their blueprint by other inventors, or hinder further improvement with licenture injunctions. This is shown in the history of inventions under the patent regime, which hinders continuous improvement.

I just supported his argument. That does not in any way mean I agree with him. "You said something that has something common with one of them! You must be one of them!" Is not a valid argument.

"Tough shit" isn't a valid argument either. Nor is this strawman you're burning right now.

I don't give a fuck if you, apparently, disagree with what YOU YOURSELF SAY.

I was just providing evidence.

Of course it falls under the umbrella of Intellectual Property. All those things you listed are just divisions of IP.
I see. You're one of those people who gets caught in ignorance and then tries to defend it instead of hitting google to make themselves look less clueless, eh?

You're wrong. I told you why.

I know peple who download movies just because they can and it's free, I am not one of them. I myself download music, and if I can afford it, usually buy the LP or CD second hand. The second-hand market deprives artists of money, does this make the people that participate morally deficient?
Was the original recording paid for?

What harm happens if to your heirs if your creative productions go into the public domain? Most people I know will have to work to earn their money, not be inheriting a artifical monopoly from their parents.
More self-serving whining. Now, just so you can keep benefitting yourself for free off my work, you're going to tell me what I'm allowed to leave my children?

Tough shit.
Yeah, for you.

I'm still waiting for you to send me "your" music.

What music? I said Achievement level paper. I will scan my History paper for you from last years exam.

Feel free to earn money off it, distribute it, claim it's yours, edit it whatever.

IP Laws exist to protect artists, musicians, and anyone with a new idea from having someone steal their ideas. As an artist I understand and appreciate IP laws more than it seems some people here do; if I create a water color image of the Washington Monument as seen from the steps of the Jefferson Memorial it is my image, and I have the right to decide how, where, and when it gets distributed; if anyone violates the terms for distribution that I set for something than they are stealing from me, plain and simple, and are as guilty as the person who stole your wallet whether you feel that way or not. If I write a movie script, it is my property, if I sing a song nobody has ever heard before, it is my property, if I have an idea forming in my mind, that idea belongs to me, and will com to fruition through my own labor; in which case I am the creator hence the owner.

Some people mentioned musicians; why don't they own the music they make? They sign contracts with recording studios, the recording studio gives them money for their intellectual property; in a sense they are buying or renting the music they make from the artist. Now the recording studio is allowed to distribute the IP however they desire, and place whatever terms and conditions they wish too on the music created by the original artist. When you download a song off of <insert name of P2P website here> you are stealing the music from the recording company and they have every right to demand civil recompense and even to have criminal charges brought up against you. Its not only legal, its right, and fair. When you purchase something make sure you know exactly what you are purchasing; when you buy a CD you are buying the music so that you can listen to it for your own enjoyment, copying that music and passing it on to someone else is usually not within your rights since the record companies who own/control the IP are almost always listed as the soul purveyors of the item.

"My" mp3? I thought you didn't believe in intellectual property.
You created it though. The possessive is clarifying.

Not to mention completely unsupported and most likely pulled out of your ass.



Your ability to assume you are right and then use the assumption to argue that you're right is truly amazing indeed.



Oh? Who does? The Greater Good? The State? Everyone? God? The People? The Public?

If I created it, it's mine. Period.
Again you don't understand the nature of property rights. Property rights allocate scarce resources. Ideas aren't scarce so they're not property.

You said they were innovative before. Now they're uncreative. Let me know when you know when you make up your mind.

By definition an innovator isn't the same as a plagiarist. A plagiarist doesn't cite sources and most likely does not make improvements on the existing work. Recall that Newton acknowledged he stood on the shoulders of giants.

They don't need to share their blueprints. If they want to make a profit off their invention they'll have to construct the product, which can be reverse-engineered. Technological innovation is held back by patent laws that allow inventors to block innovations on their blueprint by other inventors, or hinder further improvement with licenture injunctions. This is shown in the history of inventions under the patent regime, which hinders continuous improvement.

So that's no source. Thanks.

So that's no source. Thanks.

Here's a source that will help you.
http://mises.org/story/3280

What I said is true, nonetheless.
No, actually, it isn't. All you are doing is saying you could get away with violating my right to control copying of my work ("copyright") as long as I don't catch you doing it. But that doesn't mean there is no harm to me in having such a massive stash of my works lying around that I can have no way to track any future sales of.

And that happened with copyright law, that shows it's at least somewhat ineffectual at preventing what you claim it does prevent.
Wrong again. Coldplay did the wrong thing. Copyright law enabled the wronged party to sue for the money he was properly owed for the unauthorized use of his work. The system worked very well.

No, artists exist because they happen to be able to create music, movies, art etc.
Come on, drop the other shoe -- are we allowed to earn a living by doing that or not?

Why not? If you want to charge you can, but I don't think that should be enshrined in law.
Why not? There are laws making sure you get paid for whatever work you do, aren't there? Why can't there be laws making sure I get paid for the work I do?

While I do not think that our current IP system is optimal *snip*

Nothing is. We have to work with what we got, and try to make it better.

You created it though. The possessive is clarifying.

Clarifying, indeed. Pity you don't seem able to recognize just what it clarified.

Again you don't understand the nature of property rights. Property rights allocate scarce resources.

Do you think repeating this makes it any more true or valid than it was a few minutes ago?

Ideas aren't scarce so they're not property.

You said they were actually infinite, not "not scarce." Again you move the goalposts.

By definition an innovator isn't the same as a plagiarist. A plagiarist doesn't cite sources and most likely does not make improvements on the existing work.

By definition he steals ideas.

You said they were actually infinite, not "not scarce." Again you move the goalposts.


I moved nothing. Remember, on the field the goal post is composed of two posts, both of them stationary. One post is "infinite" and one post is "not scarce" (in economics these terms are synonymous)

What music? I said Achievement level paper. I will scan my History paper for you from last years exam.

Feel free to earn money off it, distribute it, claim it's yours, edit it whatever.

Oh, cool! However, to do so would be a crime and a violation of your rights. Still, I give you credit for apparently being willing to practice what you preach, much like communists who have no problems with food being stolen from their mouths.

I moved nothing. Remember, on the field the goal post is composed of two posts, both of them stationary. One post is "infinite" and one post is "not scarce" (in economics these terms are synonymous)

You've yet to come up with any kind of proof that anything I come up with is the property of the public domain unless I decide that it is.

I moved nothing.Remember, on the field the goal post is composed of two posts, both of them stationary. One post is "infinite" and one post is "not scarce" (in economics these are synonymous)

You are intellectually dishonest and apparently unable to recollect what happened all of five fucking minutes ago. Too bad for you, I guess.

You've yet to come up with any kind of proof that anything I come up with is the property of the public domain unless I decide that it is.

That's ok, keep thinking about it. Once you understand the nature of private property you'll understand why ideas aren't property.

You are intellectually dishonest and apparently unable to recollect what happened all of five fucking minutes ago. Too bad for you, I guess.

I fully recollect what happened five minutes ago. In economics "scarcity" is the opposite of "infinity". Using basic logical operators like "not", you can arrive at the definition of infinity as "not scarce" and scarcity as "not infinite." Use your logical operators.

I see. You're one of those people who gets caught in ignorance and then tries to defend it instead of hitting google to make themselves look less clueless, eh?

You're wrong. I told you why.

"When people say shit like that, I tend to laugh and stop listening to them."
"No, but I hear lots of ignorant crap on lots of subjects. It all follows the same patterns. The pretentious opening in one of the classic tells."

This is why I'm wrong? Thanks for the enlightenment.


Was the original recording paid for?

"That is all. He does not own the music. He only owns the right to listen to it. He does not have the right to alter it, to republish it, to broadcast it to the public, or to sell it (the music, not the physical CD) unless he gains a further license from the owner of the copyright and pays the owner for it, too."

Well, apparently, the music was paid for, but the seller can only sell the physical medium. So, according to you, the seller isn't allowed to. I'm buying something that the artist could've had me paid for with "stronger" copyright laws.

More self-serving whining. Now, just so you can keep benefitting yourself for free off my work, you're going to tell me what I'm allowed to leave my children?

More trolling. What actual harm happens to your heirs if your production goes into the public domain? Please do answer.

I'm not dictating what you can't or can leave your children. I'm questioning whether or not they deserve to profit off your work after your death. This is a pretty unique situation.

Yeah, for you.

You too. Oh, by the way, what DO you produce?

Oh, cool! However, to do so would be a crime and a violation of your rights. Still, I give you credit for apparently being willing to practice what you preach, much like communists who have no problems with food being stolen from their mouths.

Communists who let food be taken are letting it be stolen? Huh. Twisted.

There are laws making sure you get paid for whatever work you do, aren't there?
Laws aren't needed to ensure people would still get paid for work. An employer that fails to pay his employees would be quickly abandoned by his employees, so if the employer wants to get any work done, he'd pay his employees.

Why can't there be laws making sure I get paid for the work I do?

You're using force to distort the market and fix prices to the detriment of the rest of society.

If employees can walk away from non-paying work (non-paying due to employer failing to pay the agreed fee), surely a musician can walk away from non-paying work (non-paying due to the line of work yielding no profits). No force is involved in these activities. People can find other jobs, it's not the end of the world.

Communism is stealing now? Cool!

All taxation is stealing, i.e. using force to force someone to give up his property.

Laws aren't needed to ensure people would still get paid for work. An employer that fails to pay his employees would be quickly abandoned by his employees, so if the employer wants to get any work done, he'd pay his employees.

You're using force to distort the market and fix prices to the detriment of the rest of society.

If employees can walk away from non-paying work (non-paying due to employer failing to pay the agreed fee), surely a musician can walk away from non-paying work (non-paying due to the line of work yielding no profits). No force is involved in these activities. People can find other jobs, it's not the end of the world.

Alas, the reason your view doesn't work is the same reason communism doesn't work, people abuse through force.

Ownership laws, whether property, music or steam engines, may have their faults but they ensure someone is paid for their efforts.

That's ok, keep thinking about it. Once you understand the nature of private property you'll understand why ideas aren't property.

But they are property, my ideas are my property. If I walk out one day and announce to the world "Hey, someone should invent a machine that <insert purpose here>." I have exercised my right to distribute MY intellectual property how I see fit; in which case the manner was free and public and legally I cannot begrudge someone actually building the machine because I did not build the machine, he used my idea that I distributed freely and publicly.

If that same person were to somehow hook an electrode or something up to my head and read my thoughts "Hey somebody should" and then goes and does it, he is stealing.
This might sound like a crazy over-exaggeration of people's capabilities to you but you are actually saying that its perfectly legal for someone to rape a person's mind and take any ideas they may have as their own with no legal repercussions. Ideas are property, get used the that idea.

Oh, cool! However, to do so would be a crime and a violation of your rights. Still, I give you credit for apparently being willing to practice what you preach, much like communists who have no problems with food being stolen from their mouths.

Here's the link - http://rapidshare.com/files/195848642/nsg.rar.html - and it's neither a crime, nor a violation, since I am willingly letting you do it, I give up my rights to this particular piece of work.

All taxation is stealing, i.e. using force to force someone to give up his property.

Coercion, may I ask, are you an anarcho-capitalist?

Alas, the reason your view doesn't work is the same reason communism doesn't work, people abuse through force.

Ownership laws, whether property, music or steam engines, may have their faults but they ensure someone is paid for their efforts.

That goes without saying. A free market can only exist under conditions where ownership laws exist, since property ownership is the foundation of free market exchange. But these natural laws emerge from the free market, and are enforced by judges other authorities voluntarily recognized by market participants. In a free market intellectual property laws wouldn't come into existence, again due to the nature of laws as an allocator of scarcity, which I discussed already. Only in a state, where government claims a monopoly on violence, do distortionary laws like IP exist.

Intellectual property laws in general are good. They allow people to profit from good ideas, (note: ideas cannot be infinite, it takes energy to think or conceive of ideas and therefore cannot be infinite, as energy, and the way it is obtained, food is not infinite) additionally they allow for people to know about an idea, and come up with new ones of their own, patent laws and the like, actually encourage people to share ideas, by ensuring some amount of profit from their work. This doesn't necessarily stop people from improving on the idea, it simply forces them to compensate the originator of the idea they're using. Additionally, after a set amount of time, the protections expire, allowing anyone to reproduce them.

But they are property, my ideas are my property. If I walk out one day and announce to the world "Hey, someone should invent a machine that <insert purpose here>." I have exercised my right to distribute MY intellectual property how I see fit; in which case the manner was free and public and legally I cannot begrudge someone actually building the machine because I did not build the machine, he used my idea that I distributed freely and publicly.

If that same person were to somehow hook an electrode or something up to my head and read my thoughts "Hey somebody should" and then goes and does it, he is stealing.
This might sound like a crazy over-exaggeration of people's capabilities to you but you are actually saying that its perfectly legal for someone to rape a person's mind and take any ideas they may have as their own with no legal repercussions. Ideas are property, get used the that idea.
Your scenario is unenlightening. Mind-rape is use of physical force against another human being. No force is involved if you burn 1,000 DVDs.

Your scenario is unenlightening. Mind-rape is use of physical force against another human being. No force is involved if you burn 1,000 DVDs.

Those 1,000 DVDs are physical manifestations of another person's ideas. Since I made it pretty clear that ideas are property, and even though unlikely can be stolen, I have made a case for why you burning 1,000 copies of a DVD that you are not authorized to burn constitutes a crime. Even going by your strange views on property the DVD is a physical thing, that physical thing was created by someone else, and digitally imprinted with something that dozens of people spent hundreds of man hours; and energy to produce; making it by your definition real property; and making a copy of real property is illegal too.

Here's a source that will help you.
http://mises.org/story/3280

Its a pretty sad source. A single instance a long time ago. Here's a better source to prove your assertion (http://keithsawyer.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/do-patents-increase-innovation/). I shall come up with counter sources later.

Those 1,000 DVDs are physical manifestations of another person's ideas. Since I made it pretty clear that ideas are property, and even though unlikely can be stolen, I have made a case for why you burning 1,000 copies of a DVD that you are not authorized to burn constitutes a crime. Even going by your strange views on property the DVD is a physical thing, that physical thing was created by someone else, and digitally imprinted with something that dozens of people spent hundreds of man hours; and energy to produce; making it by your definition real property; and making a copy of real property is illegal too.
You're getting closer to the point. The DVD is the physical medium for the idea. The DVD can be owned as property, but the idea can't be owned.

You're getting closer to the point. The DVD is the physical medium for the idea. The DVD can be owned as property, but the idea can't be owned.

Then can I license you to use my property in one way and not another?

Its a pretty sad source. A single instance a long time ago. Here's a better source to prove your assertion (http://keithsawyer.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/do-patents-increase-innovation/). I shall come up with counter sources later.

I don't see how that's a "sad source" or "single instance". It discusses 60 years of incremental development of steam engine technologies. Only when you make the false assumption of the usefulness of patents do you fail to grasp the continuous and organic course of technology improvement and falsely conceptualize these things as a "single instance".

Then can I license you to use my property in one way and not another?

Yes, but any clause preventing reproduction of the idea contained within the DVD would be illegitimate, since you're proposing to regulate the use of something (the idea contained in the DVD) that isn't your property. That's like licensing someone to borrow your car, but preventing him from sticking his head back and breathing the air in the backseat. These illegitimate clauses can't be taken seriously and are "breachable".

...or how ridiculous they are. Some background; Intellectual Property is a monopoly on artistic creations, such as music, films, etc. Since the rise of the digital age piracy has been considered a problem by the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, and they've accordingly targetted people they've considered so, often leveraging courts into making defendants pay insane amounts for relatively innocuous amounts of "stolen" (never mind that defition doesn't fit with digital replication).

Focusing on music and movies, what does General think about the enforcement of these (civil) laws in court by the RIAA and MPAA?

Some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#Efforts_against_copyright_infringement
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-america/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245235.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

Why shouldn't someone who did the work, created the art, wrote the poem, wrote the story, or etcetera not be able to expect compensation for it, and protection of their rights and claim to the original material?

Not that I think RIAA's actions are in any way ennobling, but-they are representing their clients as they are supposed to.

Intellectual property rights are one of the most important rights that have existed, without it, we would not be living with the advanced technologies we are living with now. Almost all experts agree that without intellectual property rights like patent law, the industrial revolution, and many subsequent technological advancements, would never of happened.

I don't see how that's a "sad source" or "single instance".

Because the assertions it makes are routinely shown to be false, again and again and again.

You're getting closer to the point. The DVD is the physical medium for the idea. The DVD can be owned as property, but the idea can't be owned.

*shrugs* - then there is no real point in having ideas anymore, is there ?
Or to make music. Or whatever that takes creativity - because without protection you cannot make a living of it. Copying is often easier than coming up with the idea in the first place - and the copycat has the HUGE advantage of no startup and research costs.

Let's say I come up with an idea for a movie.

I slave away at writing a brilliant screenplay. This takes me six months.

I go and secure $10million to make this movie from backers.

I hire actors, crew, equipment, locations, extras etc etc. I give lots of people jobs. I slave away at directing this movie for a year and a half.

I release the movie and everybody who sees it gets it on a $1 DVD with the money going to the guy who burned the copy for $0.05 in some factory he's got set up. Everybody loves the movie, it's brilliant but I end up with squat all to show for my creativity and my two years of blood, sweat and tears.

But me getting screwed is not the problem.

The problem is that everyone wants to see what I'm gonna do next. I go back to the backers and ask for $15million to make an even better movie. Only they're now bankrupt. And I don't get to make any movies. That equipment goes unused. The crew go work in supermarkets. The actors retire. And no movies get made ever again, excepting those shot on camcorders in back gardens.

THere's so much wrong with this OP it's hard to explain without charts.

An interesting website by a lawyer that shows the shadey tactics by the RIAA.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

Let's say I come up with an idea for a movie.

I slave away at writing a brilliant screenplay. This takes me six months.

I go and secure $10million to make this movie from backers.

I hire actors, crew, equipment, locations, extras etc etc. I give lots of people jobs. I slave away at directing this movie for a year and a half.

I release the movie and everybody who sees it gets it on a $1 DVD with the money going to the guy who burned the copy for $0.05 in some factory he's got set up. Everybody loves the movie, it's brilliant but I end up with squat all to show for my creativity and my two years of blood, sweat and tears.

But me getting screwed is not the problem.

The problem is that everyone wants to see what I'm gonna do next. I go back to the backers and ask for $15million to make an even better movie. Only they're now bankrupt. And I don't get to make any movies. That equipment goes unused. The crew go work in supermarkets. The actors retire. And no movies get made ever again, excepting those shot on camcorders in back gardens.

sounds to me like you need to come up with a better system of generating income from creative works that more closely matches reality as you find it. doesn't really seem all that hard to me.

sounds to me like you need to come up with a better system of generating income from creative works that more closely matches reality as you find it. doesn't really seem all that hard to me.

Actually, it seems he DID find a way of making money off creative works that matched reality as he found it.

Reality as he found it has intellectual property laws.

"When people say shit like that, I tend to laugh and stop listening to them."
"No, but I hear lots of ignorant crap on lots of subjects. It all follows the same patterns. The pretentious opening in one of the classic tells."

This is why I'm wrong? Thanks for the enlightenment.
No, you're wrong because patents are not copyright. Patent law is different from copyright law. You were answering a question about copyright, and you cited patent law. That is the wrong answer.

If you want to discuss IP in general, that's fine, but that means you have to be aware of the differences between patent, copyright and trademark/servicemark and all their rules. As I told you, they are NOT interchangeable, and when you try to talk about copyright by referencing patents, you are wrong and showing that you know none of the things you should have learned if you wanted to debate this issue.

Well, apparently, the music was paid for, but the seller can only sell the physical medium. So, according to you, the seller isn't allowed to. I'm buying something that the artist could've had me paid for with "stronger" copyright laws.
Wrong again. You really don't seem to understand this at all. Did you look up anything about it before starting this thread?

1) The artist makes the music. As creator, copyright belongs to him by default.

2) The artist sells rights to use of the music. There are lots of rights, and the artist may sell all or any of them, in a lump or piecemeal, making whatever deal(s) he sees fit. One such deal that music artists make is to grant a recording company the right to broadcast and make copies of the original recording for distribution and sale. The artist's deal means that he will get a percentage (royalty) of the price paid for each sale/licensed use of the music that is managed by the recording company.

3) So the artist has granted the recording company the right to copy and sell the music, in exchange for a fee to the artist.

4) He did not give the consumer who buys the copies the right to make further copies.

More trolling. What actual harm happens to your heirs if your production goes into the public domain? Please do answer.

I'm not dictating what you can't or can leave your children. I'm questioning whether or not they deserve to profit off your work after your death. This is a pretty unique situation.
It's not trolling, it's sarcasm and it is on point to your remarks. If I have children, we must presume that I work to support and benefit them. If I own something that is worth money, do I or do I not have the right give it to them in order to benefit them by it? Does my own family have or not have a right to access to assets that I brought into the family? The product of my work is such an asset. Therefore, whatever future earning potential exists in my work is such an asset. Why should they not be able to get it?

And if the bulk income of the family was my artistic output, and I die, how is the loss of that income source not going to harm them? Eh? How is being denied the legacy of their family not a harm to them? Answer me that one.

And while you're at it, explain how it is a "unique situation" for the children of artists to inherit the asset that is their parent's work product?

If you start a company and die, do not your children inherit that company and its potential for future earnings, and do they or do they not have the right to either sell that company for immediate cash or use it to generate their own earnings? It is exactly the same thing with artistic work product -- art is the artist's business, the body of work (songs, books, paintings, plays, etc) are the assets of that business.

The only "unique situation" here is the one you propose whereby an artist's children are denied their family legacies in a way no other professional's children would be.

And I still see no reason for your suggestion other than your desire to get my work without paying me for it.

You too. Oh, by the way, what DO you produce?
I am a fine artist and designer. I produce one-of-a-kind sculptures and collages (copyrighted). I create and print/bind on demand art books of my own original content (copyrighted). I design and produce specialty printed stationery items and am designing toys and games (to be trademarked). And I design jewelry (neither copyrighted nor trademarked).

I also write fiction. All of it is copyrighted, even though it is only a hobby at this time.

THere's so much wrong with this OP it's hard to explain without charts.

I'll help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Intellectual property laws do NOT prevent legitimate innovation. They do prevent illegitimate theft.

1) The artist makes the music. As creator, copyright belongs to him by default.

2) The artist sells rights to use of the music. There are lots of rights, and the artist may sell all or any of them, in a lump or piecemeal, making whatever deal(s) he sees fit. One such deal that music artists make is to grant a recording company the right to broadcast and make copies of the original recording for distribution and sale. The artist's deal means that he will get a percentage (royalty) of the price paid for each sale/licensed use of the music that is managed by the recording company.

3) So the artist has granted the recording company the right to copy and sell the music, in exchange for a fee to the artist.

4) He did not give the consumer who buys the copies the right to make further copies.


Sort of yes, sort of no. Most recording artists labor under the “work for hire” doctrine. By which I mean that their labor is never their property, but is solely the property of the employer, from creation.

The work for hire doctrine basically states that any work done under the employment of someone else, for the purposes of that employment, belongs to the employer, it’s slightly different than granting the employer the right to use your work, it was never yours to begin with.

Actually, it seems he DID find a way of making money off creative works that matched reality as he found it.

Reality as he found it has intellectual property laws.

Well, the ability to mass transfer digital content has somewhat altered reality and, possibly, made intellectual property laws a little redundant.

People are already adapting, creating social networks based around their art who are willing to pay for content.

Radiohead's an easy'ish example, putting their album online and asking people to pay what they wanted, Lily Allen's a better example of someone who built a fanbase on MySpace and then sold an album off the back of that.

People can stick to old systems in futility or adapt to new technology.

Sort of yes, sort of no. Most recording artists labor under the “work for hire” doctrine. By which I mean that their labor is never their property, but is solely the property of the employer, from creation.

The work for hire doctrine basically states that any work done under the employment of someone else, for the purposes of that employment, belongs to the employer, it’s slightly different than granting the employer the right to use your work, it was never yours to begin with.

Just to add to that, this shouldn't be mistaken for something which just applies to work done whilst contracted to an employer. A screenplay, for example, can be written 'on spec' without any form of agreement and the writer would own the copyright. But when that screenplay is sold, it'll fall under "work for hire" and the copyright would no longer belong to the writer.

Just to add to that, this shouldn't be mistaken for something which just applies to work done whilst contracted to an employer. A screenplay, for example, can be written 'on spec' without any form of agreement and the writer would own the copyright. But when that screenplay is sold, it'll fall under "work for hire" and the copyright would no longer belong to the writer.

The work for hire doctrine typically, from my understanding, is a looking back doctrine. In other words, when the work was produced, were you under a contract to produce it? Yes? then it's work for hire, and you don't own it, and never did.

If not, if it was just something you made, and later sold the rights to, this is NOT "work for hire", it's just something you made and then sold the rights to.

Well, the ability to mass transfer digital content has somewhat altered reality and, possibly, made intellectual property laws a little redundant.

People are already adapting, creating social networks based around their art who are willing to pay for content.

Radiohead's an easy'ish example, putting their album online and asking people to pay what they wanted, Lily Allen's a better example of someone who built a fanbase on MySpace and then sold an album off the back of that.

People can stick to old systems in futility or adapt to new technology.

The first thing to say is that a lot of exceptions can only exist as exceptions because they really on the novelty-driven publicity that only an exception can generate. The second thing is probably more important - not everything is as cheap to create as an album. If you want to make a 'The Dark Knight', you have to find hundreds of millions of dollars and the potential profit has to be enough that you're willing to risk those hundreds of millions.

Yes, but any clause preventing reproduction of the idea contained within the DVD would be illegitimate, since you're proposing to regulate the use of something (the idea contained in the DVD) that isn't your property. That's like licensing someone to borrow your car, but preventing him from sticking his head back and breathing the air in the backseat. These illegitimate clauses can't be taken seriously and are "breachable".

Why is it "illegitimate" if I freely choose to license something in that matter, and someone agrees, why shouldn't a mutual agreement be enforceable? Isn't that a corruption of the free market? Not allowing people to engage in enterprise as they see fit?

The work for hire doctrine typically, from my understanding, is a looking back doctrine. In other words, when the work was produced, were you under a contract to produce it? Yes? then it's work for hire, and you don't own it, and never did.

If not, if it was just something you made, and later sold the rights to, this is NOT "work for hire", it's just something you made and then sold the rights to.

It's probably quite clear that I ain't got no legal mind. But suffice to say I've taken legal advice on this and they definitely get you on this, at least with screenplays. I think it's under the idea that you've been commissioned to make a contribution toward a motion picture although obviously one can see this commission is after the fact.

The first thing to say is that a lot of exceptions can only exist as exceptions because they really on the novelty-driven publicity that only an exception can generate. The second thing is probably more important - not everything is as cheap to create as an album. If you want to make a 'The Dark Knight', you have to find hundreds of millions of dollars and the potential profit has to be enough that you're willing to risk those hundreds of millions.

Hmm, exceptions can sometimes be markers for a new reality.

The Dark Knight is annoyingly good, that, in itself, could be considered an exception compared to the crud produced due to the need for a perceived sure-fire hit, from sequels to those endless Wayan Brother parodies to no-plot action films etc.,

One could argue that the best innovations come from low-budget independents that are then made-over by the big distributors because they have the market reach, they're as much stealing ideas as anyone.

People-powered distribution may be far more efficient because, regardless of the idea, if it's good, people will pay for it whereas we're often suckered into paying for rubbish due to an industry of mainstream critics invested in sucking up to the big studios.

It's probably quite clear that I ain't got no legal mind. But suffice to say I've taken legal advice on this and they definitely get you on this, at least with screenplays. I think it's under the idea that you've been commissioned to make a contribution toward a motion picture although obviously one can see this commission is after the fact.

Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

17 U.S.C. sec 101

It has to be either made "within the scope of employment" or or be "ordered or commissioned".

If I just, on my own free time, and my own free will, without any understanding that I am paid to do this, either as a regular part of my employment, or a "one off" commission, create something, then show it to someoen who wants to buy my rights to it, this is NOT work for hire.

It doesn't mean I CAN'T do that, i certainly CAN sell my rights to it. But that requires an affirmative step, is what I"m saying. If I, of my own free time, write a play called "Neo Art's Big Adventure" it's mine, i own the rights to it. I can sell those rights, but it is encumbant on them to demonstrate I did that.

If, however, I was working for them, and created it in the scope of my employment, they don't have to prove any transfer of rights, they just have to prove I was working for them, and wrote it in the scope of my employment, in which case, no transfer of rights is needed, since it was always theirs.

You do have to take an affirmative step in that you have to sign it away but you sign it away as work for hire if my understanding is correct. Or to rephrase, you sign a document agreeing that it's work for hire. So it's not automatic but given the realities of the relationship, it's pretty unavoidable.

Here's the link - http://rapidshare.com/files/195848642/nsg.rar.html - and it's neither a crime, nor a violation, since I am willingly letting you do it, I give up my rights to this particular piece of work.
Which you can do because you own it in the first place. I couldn't just take it and then generously give it to someone else, without your prior permission, however.

You do have to take an affirmative step in that you have to sign it away but you sign it away as work for hire if my understanding is correct. Or to rephrase, you sign a document agreeing that it's work for hire. So it's not automatic but given the realities of the relationship, it's pretty unavoidable.

no, again, not to my understand, that's what I'm trying to make clear. If I produce something, as a work for hire, I do not have to take any affirmative step to give away my intellectual property rights to it. Because I never had any.

Anything, anything I create that falls under the work for hire doctrine is never mine, I have no rights to it to sign away. If it's work for hire, then the instant the right attaches, it's my employers right, not mine. Once I enter into an employment agreement, everything, every single thing that I create under the capacity of my employment belongs to the employer.

Sort of yes, sort of no. Most recording artists labor under the “work for hire” doctrine. By which I mean that their labor is never their property, but is solely the property of the employer, from creation.

The work for hire doctrine basically states that any work done under the employment of someone else, for the purposes of that employment, belongs to the employer, it’s slightly different than granting the employer the right to use your work, it was never yours to begin with.
Yes, work for hire is a different issue. Most musicians produce on a work-for-hire basis, unless or until their work product becomes popular enough that they can use it for leverage in their dealings with the companies and renegotiate terms when they renew their contracts. Headliner stars do retain ownership of much of their own "songbooks."

no, again, not to my understand, that's what I'm trying to make clear. If I produce something, as a work for hire, I do not have to take any affirmative step to give away my intellectual property rights to it. Because I never had any.

Anything, anything I create that falls under the work for hire doctrine is never mine, I have no rights to it to sign away. If it's work for hire, then the instant the right attaches, it's my employers right, not mine. Once I enter into an employment agreement, everything, every single thing that I create under the capacity of my employment belongs to the employer.

Uh, I have to go sue my lawyer then.

I did a quick google and this is the only thing I could find:

Work For Hire: Generally speaking, if you write something, you’re the author and the copyright owner. However, if you write something for an employer during the scope of your normal employment, or if you’ve been commissioned or specially employed to write something as a contribution to a motion picture, then your literary material can be considered a “work for hire”. Why is this important? When we’re dealing with a work for hire, it’s the employer, not the employee (the person actually doing the writing) who is considered the legal author and copyright holder. Practically every screenplay sold to signatory companies is a work for hire. For reference, here’s the technical definition of the term:
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as *a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work*, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

no, again, not to my understand, that's what I'm trying to make clear. If I produce something, as a work for hire, I do not have to take any affirmative step to give away my intellectual property rights to it. Because I never had any.

Anything, anything I create that falls under the work for hire doctrine is never mine, I have no rights to it to sign away. If it's work for hire, then the instant the right attaches, it's my employers right, not mine. Once I enter into an employment agreement, everything, every single thing that I create under the capacity of my employment belongs to the employer.

I think Sirmomo1 is saying that it's common practice to write the script first independently and then, due to the nature of how studios pick up scripts, they write into the contract that it's work for hire despite the fact that it was written prior to a contract.

In that sense, you sign your rights away.

Well, the ability to mass transfer digital content has somewhat altered reality and, possibly, made intellectual property laws a little redundant.
Not really. Unless you are arguing that the ability to steal a lot very easily makes laws against theft redundant.

People are already adapting, creating social networks based around their art who are willing to pay for content.

Radiohead's an easy'ish example, putting their album online and asking people to pay what they wanted, Lily Allen's a better example of someone who built a fanbase on MySpace and then sold an album off the back of that.

People can stick to old systems in futility or adapt to new technology.
What the new delivery systems allow is for artists to start cutting out the middlemen (RIAA) and sell directly to the consumers via the internet. That is something I would love to see artists do. That does not, in any way, limit their right to control their own work, however.

I think Sirmomo1 is saying that it's common practice to write the script first independently and then, due to the nature of how studios pick up scripts, they write into the contract that it's work for hire despite the fact that it was written prior to a contract.

In that sense, you sign your rights away.

oooh ok, I see what's goin on here. Yes, ok, quite right. It's a "after the fact" hiring, essentially.

Was getting confused for a moment.

Would you not prefer the general population to be cultured?

Then they can access to projects such as Project Gutemberg or EuropeArchive where they can download stuff out of copyright for free.

On Europearchive there's about 3'000 full lp's to download. I got practically all of Haydn works from there.

Or you are whining about not being able to download legally Madonna's last CD? Or the last Harry Potter book? Are you aware that isn't exactly "culture"?

You do have to take an affirmative step in that you have to sign it away but you sign it away as work for hire if my understanding is correct. Or to rephrase, you sign a document agreeing that it's work for hire. So it's not automatic but given the realities of the relationship, it's pretty unavoidable.
In all work-for-hire situations that I have ever seen, the transfer of rights is clearly and explicitly stated in either the contract you sign as a freelancer, or in the job description and/or employment manual if you go to work as a regular employee. Also clearly stated is exactly what works or kind of works you are giving up rights to.

So the transfer of rights to your creative output is explicitly stated and made by a definite act (you signing the contract and/or taking the job).

no, again, not to my understand, that's what I'm trying to make clear. If I produce something, as a work for hire, I do not have to take any affirmative step to give away my intellectual property rights to it. Because I never had any.

Anything, anything I create that falls under the work for hire doctrine is never mine, I have no rights to it to sign away. If it's work for hire, then the instant the right attaches, it's my employers right, not mine. Once I enter into an employment agreement, everything, every single thing that I create under the capacity of my employment belongs to the employer.
Just splitting the hair: Entering into the employment agreement IS the explicit act by which you transfer your rights.

It is a fine hair to split indeed, but there have been instances of creative staffers leaving a company and then trying to sue over rights to works they produced while on staff or getting sued for trying to sell works they produced while on staff. They generally claim fuzziness about what rights were transferred, and they generally fail and for good reason, but it does happen.

Just splitting the hair: Entering into the employment situation IS the explicit act by which you transfer your rights.

Sorta. You can't transfer rights to a thing before there is a thing. I have no rights in the material I haven't written yet. You COULD argue that the entering into a work agreement is a proactive agreement to transfer all future rights, but from a technical legal standpoing, the agreement to enter into a work contract is an agreement to enter into a work contract. The work for hire doctrine deals with the consequences of such, as it pertains to IP stuff created after that fact.

In other words it might SAY "you agree to transfer all rights" etc etc but that's ass covering. If it falls under work for hire, you HAVE NO RIGHTS to it, never did.

Not really. Unless you are arguing that the ability to steal a lot very easily makes laws against theft redundant.

I am somewhat, digital distribution means theft is very, very easy.

What the new delivery systems allow is for artists to start cutting out the middlemen (RIAA) and sell directly to the consumers via the internet. That is something I would love to see artists do. That does not, in any way, limit their right to control their own work, however.

I agree, I truly believe artists should be paid for their creations, but to sit and humpf rather than adapt...

I think part of the problem with all this is the differing forms of artistic content, it would be very hard for me to copy and distribute your work, which has physical substance as opposed to downloading music.

There are people showing that success can be made from new forms of distribution - I would hope you might consider a Facebook group, you have an army of people most likely willing to share and distribute the work through their networks, namely us.

Then they can access to projects such as Project Gutemberg or EuropeArchive where they can download stuff out of copyright for free.

On Europearchive there's about 3'000 full lp's to download. I got practically all of Haydn works from there.

Or you are whining about not being able to download legally Madonna's last CD? Or the last Harry Potter book? Are you aware that isn't exactly "culture"?

Mm, that point was quite a fallacy. But nah, give me The Grateful Dead over Madonna any day. Which brings up musicians covering songs, how can they justify that if a person wrote a song, but loses out future source of income from other musicians covering it?

I am somewhat, digital distribution means theft is very, very easy.
Let me put it to you this way: I don't deal with middleman distributors with whom I share rights to my work. It's all me. And I tend to be quite generous with granting access to my work. But if you screw me, I will crush you.

I don't care if it was easy for you to steal from me. That just gives me more incentive to crush you to a pulp, and make an example for any other thieves that might be lurking out there.

I'm like JK Rowling in that way. Crushing those who try to steal my work from me.


I agree, I truly believe artists should be paid for their creations, but to sit and humpf rather than adapt...

I think part of the problem with all this is the differing forms of artistic content, it would be very hard for me to copy and distribute your work, which has physical substance as opposed to downloading music.

There are people showing that success can be made from new forms of distribution - I would hope you might consider a Facebook group, you have an army of people most likely willing to share and distribute the work through their networks, namely us.
Namely the self-proclaimed theives? No, thanks.

Mm, that point was quite a fallacy. But nah, give me The Grateful Dead over Madonna any day. Which brings up musicians covering songs, how can they justify that if a person wrote a song, but loses out future source of income from other musicians covering it?

they generally can't. Covering a song is a derivative work. Doing so is violation of copyright. Most "cover bands" do so with permission, or get away with it.

it's not legal to do so without permission.

What is interesting is the fact that intellectual property is such a elatively young concept and how quickly it has expanded in the last few decades. It seems to get more expansive with each year. Just think that even a few decades ago, music and literature only had copyright protection for 25 years. Now it's what? 75?

Mm, that point was quite a fallacy. But nah, give me The Grateful Dead over Madonna any day. Which brings up musicians covering songs, how can they justify that if a person wrote a song, but loses out future source of income from other musicians covering it?
You really have not looked up anything about this, have you, not even since starting the thread.

They don't lose out on future income by other bands covering their songs, because the other bands paid for the license to cover the songs.

That's why that session musician sued Coldplay. They didn't pay for a license to use his music and they just got Song of the Year for the tune they stole from him. (I'm not sure, if they have settled with him yet, but his evidence and case are strong, and I believe he will get what is owed to him for the use of his composition.)

Let me put it to you this way: I don't deal with middleman distributors with whom I share rights to my work. It's all me. And I tend to be quite generous with granting access to my work. But if you screw me, I will crush you.

I don't care if it was easy for you to steal from me. That just gives me more incentive to crush you to a pulp, and make an example for any other thieves that might be lurking out there.

I'm like JK Rowling in that way. Crushing those who try to steal my work from me.

Well it's a bit too much effort for me to steal your work.

Namely the self-proclaimed thieves? No, thanks.

I wouldn't close off avenues abruptly like that, consideration of wise use costs you nothing.

Although the laws on this seem a bit outdated, if I have created something I would really be angry if someone else steals it and claims it as his/her own. I respect intellectual property on the basis that it was a product of the hard work of a person. And with this I am referring to literature, image and song writing.

As for the ''illegal'' downloading of music and films, I don't see that as a violation of intellectual property. The only probelm is that the artists claim they lose money if people don't buy their CDs or movies. But that's not grounds enough, but of course I'm not familiar with the penal code on this regard, to prosecute someone. If anything, the artist should feel greatful that even those who cannot afford the product in question, still try to listen and give their support to the intellectual property. You can all correct me if you think I am deathly wrong.

Well it's a bit too much effort for me to steal your work.



I wouldn't close off avenues abruptly like that, consideration of wise use costs you nothing.
Actually, Facebook was a bad example because I despise everything about Facebook and will never use it for anything. That's just a personal decision that applies only to me. But there's a whole rest of the internet out there for me to use, and I am looking into ways to use it that will (a) protect my copyright and (b) allow me to find and crush anyone who violates it. :)

Actually, Facebook was a bad example because I despise everything about Facebook and will never use it for anything. That's just a personal decision that applies only to me. But there's a whole rest of the internet out there for me to use, and I am looking into ways to use it that will (a) protect my copyright and (b) allow me to find and crush anyone who violates it. :)

*notes large Muravyets-embossed hammer appearing out of screen*

Nifty

Source, please. While I do not think that our current IP system is optimal is does require, in patents at least, for innovators to reveal their designs to the public. Without IP what incentives do inventors and such have to share their work?

None. Actually in a technological world the abrogation of IP would mean tha the firms would resort to production secrets that would lower production, increase costs and slow developement.

Although the laws on this seem a bit outdated, if I have created something I would really be angry if someone else steals it and claims it as his/her own. I respect intellectual property on the basis that it was a product of the hard work of a person. And with this I am referring to literature, image and song writing.

As for the ''illegal'' downloading of music and films, I don't see that as a violation of intellectual property. The only probelm is that the artists claim they lose money if people don't buy their CDs or movies. But that's not grounds enough, but of course I'm not familiar with the penal code on this regard, to prosecute someone. If anything, the artist should feel greatful that even those who cannot afford the product in question, still try to listen and give their support to the intellectual property. You can all correct me if you think I am deathly wrong.
You're deathly wrong on two points:

1) The artists are dependent for their income on sales of their recordings. You say you respect their rights to their intellectual property, but how do you expect them to be able to keep making that music if you violate their ability to control it for the purpose of making a living from it by stealing it off the internet?

2) Generally, for the artists, it would be a matter of suing people in a civil complaint, not criminally prosecuting them. I know that the RIAA loves to threaten people with criminal prosecution, but I think for such charges to have any weight, you'd have to be running a business in pirated copies.

I am somewhat, digital distribution means theft is very, very easy.

Digitally copying is NOT considered theft under the law. Theft is if one takes an item that belongs to another, for example a jacket left at a club, and intends to keep it being well aware that it is not theirs. This means the actual owner of the item is deprived of it's use.

There is a reason people are charged with copyright violation, and are not commonly charged with theft, because it isn't theft. The future earnings lost only really should only come into play when it is being distributed.

*notes large Muravyets-embossed hammer appearing out of screen*

Nifty
That would be so cool.

You're deathly wrong on two points:

1) The artists are dependent for their income on sales of their recordings. You say you respect their rights to their intellectual property, but how do you expect them to be able to keep making that music if you violate their ability to control it for the purpose of making a living from it by stealing it off the internet?

2) Generally, for the artists, it would be a matter of suing people in a civil complaint, not criminally prosecuting them. I know that the RIAA loves to threaten people with criminal prosecution, but I think for such charges to have any weight, you'd have to be running a business in pirated copies.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You're deathly wrong on two points:

1) The artists are dependent for their income on sales of their recordings. You say you respect their rights to their intellectual property, but how do you expect them to be able to keep making that music if you violate their ability to control it for the purpose of making a living from it by stealing it off the internet?

This is the main thrust of it though. The fact is, entertainment is a business. For businesses to exist, they have to be profitable. If the entertainment isn't profitable, it won't be made.

I have yet to see one good anti IP argument about how music should be "free for everyone" without it ending up in the overall death of the music industry.

You like metallica? I gaurentee Metallica doesn't like working for free.

Why shouldn't someone who did the work, created the art, wrote the poem, wrote the story, or etcetera not be able to expect compensation for it, and protection of their rights and claim to the original material?

Just because somebody automatically makes something, it has to be a source of income? Does this apply to my photos I take on holiday? The only thing I really agree with IP-laws wise is that of others taking someones work without their permission and using it to obtain profits, for example in a television ad.

Not that I think RIAA's actions are in any way ennobling, but-they are representing their clients as they are supposed to.

Sheesh, why are people keeping up this facade of the RIAA being anything else but a company bent on making profits anyway it can? And that includes screwing over the artist. Heres a nice article from 2006 on the RIAA lobbying for artists royalties to be lowered: http://au.gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html.

Another general comment I'd like to toss into the ring:

I personally believe that the whole IP system has been corrupted by both corporate greed and consumer greed. Until all this music download and software DRM mess started up, the general rule of thumb was that the consumer was allowed to make a few copies of something for personal use (which included non-commercial sharing with others), just so long as he did not do any of the following:

1) Steal the work in the first place.

2) Broadcast or publically display the works without permission.

3) Produce the copies specifically for sale, without paying royalties out of the sale price to the copyright holder.

4) Produce a volume of copies that could potentially be sold commerically -- so, 5 copies for friends = okay; 1000 copies for some undisclosed purpose = not okay.

5) Alter the work and/or claim authorship over it (subject to "fair use" doctrines).

The current state of virtual warfare over copyright, however, is due, in my opinion, to the combination of entertainment corporations that are almost psychotically obsessed with squeezing money out of every project in every possible way no matter how minute, and consumers who seem to have the mindset of 4-year-olds whose parents didn't make them pay for their toys, so they don't seem to see why they should have to pay for things they want now.

Caught between those two, I really think it is time for artists to find a new way of doing things.

Another general comment I'd like to toss into the ring:

I personally believe that the whole IP system has been corrupted by both corporate greed and consumer greed. Until all this music download and software DRM mess started up, the general rule of thumb was that the consumer was allowed to make a few copies of something for personal use (which included non-commercial sharing with others), just so long as he did not do any of the following:

1) Steal the work in the first place.

2) Broadcast or publically display the works without permission.

3) Produce the copies specifically for sale, without paying royalties out of the sale price to the copyright holder.

4) Produce a volume of copies that could potentially be sold commercially -- so, 5 copies for friends = okay; 1000 copies for some undisclosed purpose = not okay.

5) Alter the work and/or claim authorship over it (subject to "fair use" doctrines).

The current state of virtual warfare over copyright, however, is due, in my opinion, to the combination of entertainment corporations that are almost psychotically obsessed with squeezing money out of every project in every possible way no matter how minute, and consumers who seem to have the mindset of 4-year-olds whose parents didn't make them pay for their toys, so they don't seem to see why they should have to pay for things they want now.

Caught between those two, I really think it is time for artists to find a new way of doing things.

I had a really long post typed up that basically said this, but not so eloquently. The whole thing is caused by a lack of respect - the corporations have no respect for their consumers, and the consumers have no respect for the corporations they buy from.

Ergo, we get this "virtual warfare" as you so eloquently put it.

Just because somebody automatically makes something, it has to be a source of income? Does this apply to my photos I take on holiday? The only thing I really agree with IP-laws wise is that of others taking someones work without their permission and using it to obtain profits, for example in a television ad.
Guess what? Because you made those holiday photos, you do own the copyright on them. Automatically. Eww, icky copyright cooties are on your photos!!! If you wanted to use them commercially, you could, and you would have all the power and protections over them you felt like exercising up to and including the full-on protections of the international copyright laws.

Guess what else? You do not get to decide that other people don't get to exercise those same powers and protections over the creative work they produce in order to make money, if that is what they feel like doing with the stuff they make.

Sheesh, why are people keeping up this facade of the RIAA being anything else but a company bent on making profits anyway it can? And that includes screwing over the artist. Heres a nice article from 2006 on the RIAA lobbying for artists royalties to be lowered: http://au.gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html.
For the record, I don't defend them or believe they are benefitting artists at all.

But that does not change the fact that your attitude harms artists even more than theirs does.

This is the main thrust of it though. The fact is, entertainment is a business. For businesses to exist, they have to be profitable. If the entertainment isn't profitable, it won't be made.

I have yet to see one good anti IP argument about how music should be "free for everyone" without it ending up in the overall death of the music industry.

You like metallica? I gaurentee Metallica doesn't like working for free.

I knew someone would bring up Metallica. Metallica are another example of defenders of the status quo, because they couldn't come to terms with digital filesharing. Too bad P2P sharing isn't actually bad for their business model after all.

From the recent study of filesharing, and media consumption by those people:
Furthermore, there is a strong evidence that people who buy a high number of DVDs, videogames, cinema tickets and concert tickets also purchase a higher number of CD albums.

Link. (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html)

I knew someone would bring up Metallica. Metallica are another example of defenders of the status quo, because they couldn't come to terms with digital filesharing. Too bad P2P sharing isn't actually made for their business model after all.

From the recent study of filesharing, and media consumption by those people:


Link. (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html)

I have the feeling that no matter how eloquently some posters put the argument, this will turn into a "Nuh huh!"/"Yeah uh!" discussion.

For the record, my doubts on the subject have been cleared.

I have the feeling that no matter how eloquently some posters put the argument, this will turn into a "Nuh huh!"/"Yeah uh!" discussion.

Nuh uh!

But that does not change the fact that your attitude harms artists even more than theirs does.

My attitude does that? Wow, and here I thought it was my actions.

I knew someone would bring up Metallica. Metallica are another example of defenders of the status quo, because they couldn't come to terms with digital filesharing. Too bad P2P sharing isn't actually made for their business model after all.

From the recent study of filesharing, and media consumption by those people:
Furthermore, there is a strong evidence that people who buy a high number of DVDs, videogames, cinema tickets and concert tickets also purchase a higher number of CD albums.

Link. (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html)
Huh, look at that: "buy" and "purchase".

So this has...what?... to do with people downloading and filesharing shit for free?

My attitude does that? Wow, and here I thought it was my actions.
Your actions are the direct result of your attitude. If you did not think the way you do, you would do what you do. Also, your attitude seeks to legitimize theft of artistic work product by claiming that there is some kind of question over whether artists "deserve" (your word) to make money from their work. An attitude that an artist does not deserve to earn a living from their work is damaging to the profession of artist.

It's not trolling, it's sarcasm and it is on point to your remarks. If I have children, we must presume that I work to support and benefit them. If I own something that is worth money, do I or do I not have the right give it to them in order to benefit them by it? Does my own family have or not have a right to access to assets that I brought into the family? The product of my work is such an asset. Therefore, whatever future earning potential exists in my work is such an asset. Why should they not be able to get it?

And if the bulk income of the family was my artistic output, and I die, how is the loss of that income source not going to harm them? Eh? How is being denied the legacy of their family not a harm to them? Answer me that one.

And while you're at it, explain how it is a "unique situation" for the children of artists to inherit the asset that is their parent's work product?

If you start a company and die, do not your children inherit that company and its potential for future earnings, and do they or do they not have the right to either sell that company for immediate cash or use it to generate their own earnings? It is exactly the same thing with artistic work product -- art is the artist's business, the body of work (songs, books, paintings, plays, etc) are the assets of that business.

But how far does it go? Businesses technically can be handed on forever, why deny yourself that right with copyright?

My attitude does that? Wow, and here I thought it was my actions.

Both actually. Your view that the magical sky fairy has granted you the supreme right to decide for other people what they should do with THEIR creations is quite harmful as well.

Once you manage to create something worthwhile yourself, be it art, a scientific innovation or whatever, you can talk. About YOUR creation only.

An exception could be made for discoveries that are highly important for society -if you for instance discover a cure for AIDS, but refuse to have it used on population group X, the government could intervene.
But last time I checked people did not die from a lack of Metallica.

Intellectual property laws are important; they are what makes it possible for people to create artistic works for a living. They are even more important today than they were in the past due to modern technologies allowing ordinary people to create flawless copies of works.

I wholeheartedly support the RIAA and MPAA in their campaign to enforce their copyrights and punish those who are illegally trading in their work. I don't agree with some of their methods, nor do I like the way the legal system works. But I agree with the theoretical basis behind their legal campaign.

Having said all of that, I do believe that the legal framework behind intellectual property laws needs to be reexamined. The system was intended to ensure that the creator was adequately compensated for his work, and I believe that is a noble goal. But what purpose does it serve that the copyright extend for another 70 years after the creator's death? Do corporations really need nearly a century (95 years) of exclusive rights?

I believe that the terms of copyright protection are excessive and that there need to be more exemptions for those who create derivative works through sampling, remixing, etc. The law should both allow for the fair compensation of the original creator while also protecting those who would innovate through the creative use of that work.

Both actually. Your view that the magical sky fairy has granted you the supreme right to decide for other people what they should do with THEIR creations is quite harmful as well.

Once you manage to create something worthwhile yourself, be it art, a scientific innovation or whatever, you can talk. About YOUR creation only.

An exception could be made for discoveries that are highly important for society -if you for instance discover a cure for AIDS, but refuse to have it used on population group X, the government could intervene.
But last time I checked people did not die from a lack of Metallica.

Not only that. Why, if you seem to know the answers to your own question, One-O-One, did you make this thread?

Live performances and sales of music. A musician can sell his own music, but does not have the right to prevent others from copying, modifying, and distributing his or her music.

That's sort of ridiculous you know. Can anybody go out and purchase a book, edit it, and re-sell it as their own. Or a painting, or a bit of scuplture, or a film? What is the speacial case where music is conserned?

Your actions are the direct result of your attitude. If you did not think the way you do, you would do what you do. Also, your attitude seeks to legitimize theft of artistic work product by claiming that there is some kind of question over whether artists "deserve" (your word) to make money from their work. An attitude that an artist does not deserve to earn a living from their work is damaging to the profession of artist.

My attitude certainly isn't to get what I want for free. As I previously mentioned given the chance and my own ability to pay, I will. I would however love to do something more akin to donating to the artist, rather than letting that money pass through BigEvilRecordCorporationTM's hands.

I'm questioning whether or not the artist deserves to earn money, and whether or not it is for the public good. I have been rebuked on some points, but generally I still believe that copyright laws are far too harsh on people not infringing to earn money from others works.

But how far does it go? Businesses technically can be handed on forever, why deny yourself that right with copyright?
Strawman. Kindly show me where I or anyone else in this thread has advocated perpetual copyright. I'll wait.

While I'll wait for you to read your own thread, I will remind you that the law specifically states an expiration for copyright protection and that nobody has advocating changing that. That I personally have advocated lessening the ability of anyone other than the original creator to claim the same lifetime + 50 years that accrues to the original creator. I also specifically stated such copyright should not be renewable or resettable by those who buy the copyright from the original creator.

Burn your strawman on your own lawn, not on mine, thanks.

I had a really long post typed up that basically said this, but not so eloquently. The whole thing is caused by a lack of respect - the corporations have no respect for their consumers, and the consumers have no respect for the corporations they buy from.

One of these is often a product of the other. Look at the artists that have put up their work for free with an optional fee of some sort. They make tons of money off of the deal because most people, if they like something, do still want to own it - and they'll pay for it.

But, due to the way organizations like the RIAA have handled these things (when they really should have jumped in and made the technology profitable from the start), many people have no respect for them.


Guess what else? You do not get to decide that other people don't get to exercise those same powers and protections over the creative work they produce in order to make money, if that is what they feel like doing with the stuff they make.

Unfortunately, musicians have rarely had those powers to exercise over their creative work. Those powers have generally gone to huge corporations who routinely screw the musicians out of getting anything - and stand in their way if they choose to try something new in distributing their work.*

Luckily, with all of the digital technology available now, artists are much more able to put out and control their own work, rather than relying on such corporations.

*Even though these new tactics work. The last NIN album became a bestseller, despite the fact that most of it could be obtained though a perfectly free download. Why? Because people wanted to own the hardcopy. They wanted the full version. And Trent Reznor is good to his fans - which means they want to be good to him as well (and they know that he owns his own stuff - so the money really does go to him).


I knew someone would bring up Metallica. Metallica are another example of defenders of the status quo, because they couldn't come to terms with digital filesharing. Too bad P2P sharing isn't actually made for their business model after all.

I got a kick out of it when I found out that theirs was one of the only 3 songs that couldn't be transferred from Rock Band I into Rock Band II.

I recently heard an interview with Lars Ulrich where he was talking about thinking that games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero were good for the industry because he watched his son getting introduced to all of these songs that he had loved when he was younger and really enjoying them. He thought it was a great way to get the music out there to a new audience. And I was thinking, "FINALLY! HE GETS IT!"

And then Metallica refused to allow the song they had on Rock Band I to be transferred onto Rock Band II. This means that it really isn't going to be introduced to any new audiences anymore. No one who has a copy of RBII is going to stick RBI back in their machine. So I guess he hasn't really gotten it after all.

My attitude certainly isn't to get what I want for free. As I previously mentioned given the chance and my own ability to pay, I will. I would however love to do something more akin to donating to the artist, rather than letting that money pass through BigEvilRecordCorporationTM's hands.

I'm questioning whether or not the artist deserves to earn money, and whether or not it is for the public good. I have been rebuked on some points, but generally I still believe that copyright laws are far too harsh on people not infringing to earn money from others works.

Of course the artist deserves to make money from what he has produced, it is his livlyhood.

If you were an excelent pie maker, would you go into buisness baking and seling pies, or just give them away, or leave them to cool on your window and not complain when they are stolen?

Not only that. Why, if you seem to know the answers to your own question, One-O-One, did you make this thread?
Perhaps he was hoping to prove how right he was. Too bad that doesn't seem to be working out so far.

Both actually. Your view that the magical sky fairy has granted you the supreme right to decide for other people what they should do with THEIR creations is quite harmful as well.

Once you manage to create something worthwhile yourself, be it art, a scientific innovation or whatever, you can talk. About YOUR creation only.

An exception could be made for discoveries that are highly important for society -if you for instance discover a cure for AIDS, but refuse to have it used on population group X, the government could intervene.
But last time I checked people did not die from a lack of Metallica.

Ah, but you see, countries like Thailand are on the US's book as a Patent Violators for making generics for AIDS treatment available, taking the costs from $500 down to $30. Who's immoral now?

I'm not saying Metallica don't deserve renumeration if people like their music, and want a copy of it for personal use, however I do believe the copyright laws are far too harsh on people praticing copyright infringement for personal use.

Perhaps he was hoping to prove how right he was. Too bad that doesn't seem to be working out so far.

Perhaps that's it.

Of course the artist deserves to make money from what he has produced, it is his livlyhood.

If you were an excelent pie maker, would you go into buisness baking and seling pies, or just give them away, or leave them to cool on your window and not complain when they are stolen?

Because it is not like that. It is like the pie maker makes excellent pies, and somebody goes and takes the recipe he uses and posts it on the Internet for all to see. He loses potential income because people know how to do it themselves.

My attitude certainly isn't to get what I want for free. As I previously mentioned given the chance and my own ability to pay, I will. I would however love to do something more akin to donating to the artist, rather than letting that money pass through BigEvilRecordCorporationTM's hands.
Oh, really? So tell me, ballpark estimate, how much money have you mailed to the artists whose songs you have downloaded so far?

I'm questioning whether or not the artist deserves to earn money, and whether or not it is for the public good. I have been rebuked on some points, but generally I still believe that copyright laws are far too harsh on people not infringing to earn money from others works.
Taking what you want even though you can't pay for it and claiming that you are not harming anyone by doing that. Making up self-serving bullshit about how you would prefer to "donate" to the artists, oh, if only you could. Questioning whether someone else deserves to earn money from their work and talent or whether they should have to give it away for free. All of these are indicators of your attitude and that it is indeed that you should be allowed to get my work for free.

Squirm all you like. It is the self-serving self-justification of a thief.

Perhaps that's it.

Mm, I wanted to be challenged on my beliefs. Which I have been, specifically by people in the business.

Lol. I put a lot of thought into my first post and it was buried in seconds. Way to start eh?

Because it is not like that. It is like the pie maker makes excellent pies, and somebody goes and takes the recipe he uses and posts it on the Internet for all to see. He loses potential income because people know how to do it themselves.

So you are claiming then that when you illegaly download a bit of music, it is not the art itsself that you are grabbing but the knowledge of how to create it for yourself?

No man that's rubbish.

Lol. I put a lot of thought into my first post and it was buried in seconds. Way to start eh?

Heh welcome to the gang!:D

Lol. I put a lot of thought into my first post and it was buried in seconds. Way to start eh?

This is NSG. No further explanation is required.

Mm, I wanted to be challenged on my beliefs. Which I have been, specifically by people in the business.

Then why are you contesting it all. You already got the answers you were seeking...

Because it is not like that. It is like the pie maker makes excellent pies, and somebody goes and takes the recipe he uses and posts it on the Internet for all to see. He loses potential income because people know how to do it themselves.
That's exactly what it's like, and the pie maker who created that recipe has the right to sue the one who published it without his permission and without paying him for the right to publish it.

Oh, really? So tell me, ballpark estimate, how much money have you mailed to the artists whose songs you have downloaded so far?

Roughly, absolutely nothing. I do actually own CDs/Vinyls (all of which are second hand) for approximately 25% of my music. However, it is difficult for me seeing as I don't have an actual job, and I'm a high school student. Not the kind of people known for their high levels of income.

Taking what you want even though you can't pay for it and claiming that you are not harming anyone by doing that. Making up self-serving bullshit about how you would prefer to "donate" to the artists, oh, if only you could. Questioning whether someone else deserves to earn money from their work and talent or whether they should have to give it away for free. All of these are indicators of your attitude and that it is indeed that you should be allowed to get my work for free.

Squirm all you like. It is the self-serving self-justification of a thief.

See post #206 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14494568&postcount=206) on the theft thing.

Roughly, absolutely nothing. I do actually own CDs/Vinyls (all of which are second hand) for approximately 25% of my music. However, it is difficult for me seeing as I don't have an actual job, and I'm a high school student. Not the kind of people known for their high levels of income.

If I could afford one, I'd love to have a Ferrari. The fact that I can't afford one does not entitle me to take one for free.

So you are claiming then that when you illegaly download a bit of music, it is not the art itsself that you are grabbing but the knowledge of how to create it for yourself?

No man that's rubbish.

Well, apparently Murayvets disagrees with you. However, your analogy doesn't even apply the digital distribution as it is, its like the baker makes a pie and leaves it out to cool, and you make an exact copy of the pie, the baker loses nothing but the profit he could've made off you.

If I could afford one, I'd love to have a Ferrari. The fact that I can't afford one does not entitle me to take one for free.

I'm sure you could if you had a machine that replicated a Ferrari, and in that case, since you couldn't afford a Ferrari, the company loses nothing, do they?

Huh, look at that: "buy" and "purchase".

So this has...what?... to do with people downloading and filesharing shit for free?

Sorry, bad excerpting skills on my part.

However, our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing.

But last time I checked people did not die from a lack of Metallica.

No, and that's a problem for Metallica, because the more they act like assholes towards their fans, the less anyone wants their music.

In the end, I believe they've lost far more money because of their attitude towards file sharing and the like than they ever would have because of the file sharing itself.

Digitally copying is NOT considered theft under the law. Theft is if one takes an item that belongs to another, for example a jacket left at a club, and intends to keep it being well aware that it is not theirs. This means the actual owner of the item is deprived of it's use.

There is a reason people are charged with copyright violation, and are not commonly charged with theft, because it isn't theft. The future earnings lost only really should only come into play when it is being distributed.

then mentally replace "steal" with "violate federal copyright law" for the sake of technical accuracy if it makes you feel any better.

No, and that's a problem for Metallica, because the more they act like assholes towards their fans, the less anyone wants their music.

In the end, I believe they've lost far more money because of their attitude towards file sharing and the like than they ever would have because of the file sharing itself.

And people still, despite Metallica's BS, still downlaod their music for free.

I'm sure you could if you had a machine that replicated a Ferrari, and in that case, since you couldn't afford a Ferrari, the company loses nothing, do they?

It's not a matter of "losing". That's just a cheap argument pirates use to justify their illegal activities. Maybe in YOUR case you download music that you wouldn't otherwise afford.

But there are people, lots of people, who do download music simply because they don't want to buy it, though they could. The law can not afford to go into some balancing act trying to determine where it's legal and where it's not. It's illegal.

"loses" is a question for damages. It does not speak to the actual illegality of the act.

then mentally replace "steal" with "violate federal copyright law" for the sake of technical accuracy if it makes you feel any better.

It's not about making me feel better, it's about accuracy, and trying to claim everyone that violates copyright is a thief is just dumb. I can see where it comes into it on people making money on others works, but for this it doesn't.