A victory for intellectual property rights?

[AutoDas]

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.

It's called, "lost sales".

 

[AutoDas]

It's called, "lost sales".

Says who?

 

[AoiMasamune]

My problem with intellectual property:

Lets say I'm an engineer. I'm not, but for the sake of argument lets say I am.

Say I read an article about a new design for a vertical windmill. I like this design.
I spend my time re-engineering that specific type of windmill.
Then I go to my hardware store of choice, and purchase the materials I'll need. I then spend my own labor building this windmill. Say that with the materials I used it cost a total of $150.
Of course my neighbors ask me questions about it, which lead me to look at the asking price for one of these devices. The manufacturer who holds the patent is asking $4500 per unit, with better materials, but much lower quality manufacturing. I show this to my neighbors.

My neighbors offer to buy several of MY units for $500 each. Of course I agree!

The manufacturer gets word of this. I find myself at the business end of a $30,000 lawsuit for making $2000. (Losses for the manufacturer + damages)


Another example that bothers me:

According to supply and demand, the higher the supply of something and the easier it is to get, the cheaper it becomes. It's safe to assume that as the supply of something approaches infinity, the price approaches $0.

In the case of music, we have the ability to make infinite copies without ever running out. The supply of music is INFINITE. Why should we be forced by law to pay for a media type (CD) that wastes precious resources further damaging the environment when we already have the technology to not do so?

My $0.02.

 

[Matt Collins]

If you downloaded a CD and mailed the artist $5 they'd say thanks. I support the artists, not the labels. Suing little girls and old ladies for thousands of dollars per song does not make me want to patronize their failed business model.

Except that most signed musicians don't own their own copyrights; the labels do.

 

[Matt Collins]

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

No, but copying a CD or downloading music from the Internet isn't theft.

People have been stealing since time began.

That is very true. But the proliferation of unauthorized copies of a copyrighted work is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

 

[Matt Collins]

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.

Exactly. The definition of theft is to take something from someone and deprive them of the item in question. When a copyright is infringed upon it isn't theft because the copyright holder is deprived of nothing.

 

[Matt Collins]

It's called, "lost sales".

But that is not theft. And one can also not correlate "lost sales" to "downloaded music". So there is no way of knowing for sure.

 

[Matt Collins]

Says who?

The people who launch the FUD campaigns to try and turn copyright issues into a moral argument (which it is not). The RIAA and MPAA have been trying to make people feel guilty for downloading copyrighted material but it has largely backfired. Some however have bought into the propaganda. Their most effective tactic is to attempt to equate copyright infringement to theft in the minds of the general public.

 

[dannno]

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

He CLEARLY said he would download it off the internet and said nothing about stealing material property from a store or individual..give me a break.

 

[dannno]

What if you DO NOT "put it out there"? That someone else takes it upon themselves to do so?

Example? I don't see how this is possible at all.

 

[Matt Collins]

My problem with intellectual property:

Lets say I'm an engineer. I'm not, but for the sake of argument lets say I am.

Say I read an article about a new design for a vertical windmill. I like this design.
I spend my time re-engineering that specific type of windmill.
Then I go to my hardware store of choice, and purchase the materials I'll need. I then spend my own labor building this windmill. Say that with the materials I used it cost a total of $150.
Of course my neighbors ask me questions about it, which lead me to look at the asking price for one of these devices. The manufacturer who holds the patent is asking $4500 per unit, with better materials, but much lower quality manufacturing. I show this to my neighbors.

My neighbors offer to buy several of MY units for $500 each. Of course I agree!

The manufacturer gets word of this. I find myself at the business end of a $30,000 lawsuit for making $2000. (Losses for the manufacturer + damages)

Well if you re-engineered it then you are no longer using the original design and should apply for a new patent. It could be accepted or rejected, but that's up to the government.


Patents are not bad, in fact the lightbulb, telephone, movie camera, projectors, and a whole host of other things were created because of patent laws.

According to supply and demand, the higher the supply of something and the easier it is to get, the cheaper it becomes. It's safe to assume that as the supply of something approaches infinity, the price approaches $0.

In the case of music, we have the ability to make infinite copies without ever running out. The supply of music is INFINITE. Why should we be forced by law to pay for a media type (CD) that wastes precious resources further damaging the environment when we already have the technology to not do so?

Very good point. As the supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero. Therefore recorded music is almost wortheless. The RIAA refused to innovate and ignored the MP3 technology for so long that they lost their opportunity to exploit and capitalize on it.

Copyright laws create an artificial scarcity by granting a time-limited monopoly which allows the price to be artificially set. Now that the artificial scarcity is essentially bypassed because of technology the price of the product gets lower and lower.

The RIAA should've pulled their head out of their butts in the 90's when this tech was in it's infancy but they were resting smug and lazy on their government granted monopoly.

Mark Anderson (who I think is a libertarian) and editor for Wired Magazine has done a lot of research and has written some damn good articles on the subject. They are all available online.

 

[Soccrmastr]

Gaius are you sure you're on the right forums haha??

 

[sidster]

this is f-u-n

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.

It's called, "lost sales".

Says who?

It is "lost sales". If you copy a CD and give me a copy then that
will translate to potential loss of sale as it would remove my
potential incentive to go to the store and purchase this CD. If
I copy that CD and give it to my cousin, the cycle continues...
if you rip the CD put it on the internet for anyone to download,
the argument continues...

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

He CLEARLY said he would download it off the internet and said nothing about stealing material property from a store or individual..give me a break.

It is the same principle. It is equivalent to the same thing. One
manifests itself in a physical/tangible form, while the other not
so much. I guess the only difference when you download from
the internet is that you are not stealing the packaging material(s).

What if you DO NOT "put it out there"? That someone else takes it upon themselves to do so?

Example? I don't see how this is possible at all.

Example? Imagine someone stumbling across a web-site that
either through poor security policies or administration has left
a "hole" open for you to be able to download this company's
latest software (e.g., Photoshop, Windows Vista, etc.). You
then put this software on the internet for others to download.



All that said, I agree that record labels are inherently evil
and such companies like Disney are greedy bastards that
perpetuate piracy by their own immoral business practices.

I don't think it is right for a record company or even an
artist to expect everyone to pay $20 (or whatever a CD
costs these days ... I have not purchased one in a decade
or so) for their CD just because there is one song on there
that I want. That is complete bullshit.

Disney is a very good example of greed in practice. They
release their movies, then they vault them up for a few
years, then they rerelease them in new media, etc etc.
If I have purchased one of their movies on VHS I should
not be expected to pay full price for their new release on
Blu-Ray media. I have already paid for the RIGHT to own
a personal copy of this movie. Just because the media
changed, I shouldn't have to be FORCED to pay full price.
I would think it would be fair if they would allow previous
owners of such movies to pay a small fraction of the
price, which would cover the media costs only. But this
will never happen.

Such practices and overpricing, of course, lead to piracy.


As for patents, they no longer serve the purpose they were
meant to serve. They were intended to help the "small guy"
to get their innovative ideas and products out into the market
and allow them some time to establish themselves before
the bigger companies stifle them before they can even start.

Today, it is the "big, bad companies" that pile on patents
to stifle competition. It is not uncommon for companies to
hold patents not directly related to their business or product
line. I work for one such SCUMBAG company. Their patent
business is a $1.2 Million dollar annual. They have a vast
patent portfolio. They have no intention of producing the
product described my a good 98% of these patents, but
they do license these patents to other companies for profit.

Btw, guess what this type of practices do for the end users?
They increase the price for us. They serve no other purpose
but to fatten up the greedy fucks and stagnate innovation
and competition.

 

[Mini-Me]

In other words, you advocate parasitism on the minds of the creators of movies, tv-series, music, games and software applications. You claim that they have no right to profit from their creations. Without supporting intellectual property rights, you're at best advocating a mongrel form of capitalism.

Technically speaking, "intellectual property" is NOT property, and restricting what others can do with their copies of something is not protecting the copyright holder's rights; rather, it's violating the rights of the owner of a specific copy. However, copyrights do have a very useful function, because of the fact that the original copy of a work takes time, effort, and money to make, whereas subsequent copies are cheap and abundant. The legitimate purpose of copyrights and patents is a collectivist purpose, but it's important nevertheless, and I consider it the only collectivist notion I support. When the government grants the original creator of a work an exclusive license to reproduce that work through copyrights or patents, it creates artificial scarcity for that work. This provides a profit motive for research and development which would ordinarily be absent in a true free market. This profit is not the NATURAL RIGHT of the copyright holder. Rather, it's merely the means to accomplish the true purpose of "intellectual property": That true purpose is to promote progress in the arts and sciences. It's a collectivist notion which violates the individual rights of everyone to do whatever they want with their physical copy of something, but nevertheless, it is important.

UNFORTUNATELY, these laws have been perverted by copyright lobbies to serve another purpose, which is why you now hear all the talk about how these laws are intended to protect the earnings of artists, inventors, etc. They're not. The legitimate purpose has always been, and always will be, solely to promote progress in the arts and sciences. When copyright and patent laws become too restrictive and draconian, they actually result in the stagnation, rather than the progress, of the arts and sciences. This is because they can prevent further improvements, derivative works, etc. When copyright laws are too weak and provide too little exclusivity, progress suffers. When copyright laws are too strong and provide too much exclusivity, progress also suffers. It's like a normal curve, where "just the right amount" of copyright protection results in the best outcome. Of course, giving the government the authority to make such subjective value judgments opens up the possibility for abuse and lobbyist-bought legislation.

Today's laws provide WAY too much exclusivity. Copyright laws have gone so far that they are in fact undermining their original purpose. Part of the reason is that many copyright laws are no longer even Constitutional. The relevant text is in Article I, Section 8:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;​

By continually extending copyrights at the behest of lobbyists whenever they are about to expire and pass into the public domain, Congress is violating the condition that copyrights are to be for limited times. If Congress can extend copyrights over and over without limit, they become in effect unlimited and therefore unconstitutional.

In other words, I support copyright law and patents in theory...but in practice, today's laws have gone way too far, and they have been literally bought by the copyright lobby. I cannot stand for this, and I have no sympathy for those who help enforce these unjust and unconstitutional laws.

(In response to the overall tone of this thread: Even if "intellectual property" was truly an inalienable right, which it is not, violating copyrights is still not "stealing." Stealing implies robbing the original owner of an object of that object. Merely copying an object does not deprive its previous owner of his or her own copy. Therefore, violating copyrights would always be quite different from stealing, even if "intellectual property" were an inalienable right.)

 

[libertea]

It is "lost sales". If you copy a CD and give me a copy then that
will translate to potential loss of sale as it would remove my
potential incentive to go to the store and purchase this CD. If
I copy that CD and give it to my cousin, the cycle continues...
if you rip the CD put it on the internet for anyone to download,
the argument continues...

Sounds like free promotion to me.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine;
as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
me.”

--Thomas Jefferson

 

[mediahasyou]

You can own a material good. (object)

You cannot own a thought, knowledge, or information. (non object)


Think if we had intellectual property laws. This would mean every time you quote someone, something you would have to ask for their permission. There would be so much corruption. Any bad politician, high status figure could vanish any bad words from the past.

RP is in this one: http://www.ilovextra.com/

 

[sidster]

Sounds like free promotion to me.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine;
as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
me.”

--Thomas Jefferson

what if 'he' takes 1/4 of your "taper" to use for his own
and share with his neighbors?

 

[sidster]

You can own a material good. (object)

You cannot own a thought, knowledge, or information. (non object)


Think if we had intellectual property laws. This would mean every time you quote someone, something you would have to ask for their permission. There would be so much corruption. Any bad politician, high status figure could vanish any bad words from the past.

RP is in this one: http://www.ilovextra.com/

so what you are saying I should be able to take RP's books
and reprint them with my name on them?

 

[libertea]

what if 'he' takes 1/4 of your "taper" to use for his own
and share with his neighbors?

wtf?