A victory for intellectual property rights?

[heavenlyboy34]

if i dont sign it I aint binded by it.

I cant just stick a contract on something and claim that its legally binding to whomever comes into possession of that item. Thats ridiculous.

Sure you can. You can produce an item and write its official use on it. If the user does something with the product outside of intended use, the agreement you accepted by buying the product is null and void when you use the product for unintended purposes. (read your warranties)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Except that not every pirated copy = a lost sale. The two cannot be correlated.

They can and are. (remember those legal notices they used to put at the beginning of movies that warned of FBI action should you violate the copyright?)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Any contract some signs can be changed before hand.
If I am given a contract and cross some parts out and they agree then they changed parts don't apply.
What if I just cross out the "not for preformance"?
For a normal contract that works.


[sarcastic]Yes lets have people who would gain from more laws for CP enforce those laws that benefit them.[/sarcasm]
That sounds like a conflict of interest.

If you cross out whatever terms you dislike without the permission from the copyright holder, you've broken the contract. This NEVER works. If it did, I would apply that to the contracts I signed with my student loan lender. They would probably break my legs if I did that, though.

 

[Matt Collins]

They can and are.

Incorrect. How many law classes have you taken on copyright? How long have you studied the issue? I have studied it seriously for the last 8 years and have taken two law courses on the subject. I also have a degree in the music industry, live in Nashville, and work in the music industry.

What are your credentials on the subject?

(remember those legal notices they used to put at the beginning of movies that warned of FBI action should you violate the copyright?)

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Incorrect. How many law classes have you taken on copyright? How long have you studied the issue? I have studied it seriously for the last 8 years and have taken two law courses on the subject. I also have a degree in the music industry, live in Nashville, and work in the music industry.

What are your credentials on the subject?


What does that have to do with anything?

I studied music industry and law in music school. I have also done extensive research in preparing a business plan-I intend to own and operate a symphony orchestra. I work in the music industry too-on the productive end (composer/musician)

Get yourself a copy of this book http://www.amazon.com/Music-Business-Handbook-Career-Guide/dp/0761916679 and learn it.

 

[Matt Collins]

I studied music industry and law in music school. I have also done extensive research in preparing a business plan-I intend to own and operate a symphony orchestra. I work in the music industry too-on the productive end (composer/musician)

Cool. Hope it works out for you.

Get yourself a copy of this book http://www.amazon.com/Music-Business-Handbook-Career-Guide/dp/0761916679 and learn it.

I don't need to. I already know what's in it. Remember I have a bachelor's degree in the music industry.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Cool. Hope it works out for you.

I don't need to. I already know what's in it. Remember I have a bachelor's degree in the music industry.

Have you ever read "the do-it-yourself guide to the music industry"? That's a really good book for modern musicians.

 

[revolutionman]

Sure you can. You can produce an item and write its official use on it. If the user does something with the product outside of intended use, the agreement you accepted by buying the product is null and void when you use the product for unintended purposes. (read your warranties)

like i said bureaucratic, legal jargon.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

like i said bureaucratic, legal jargon.

exactly. That's one thing that sucks about government control of copyright/patent.

 

[Matt Collins]

Have you ever read "the do-it-yourself guide to the music industry"? That's a really good book for modern musicians.

I'm not a musician, I'm an engineer.

 

[danberkeley]

Libertarians don't recognize a man's right to the product of his own mind? So much for Atlas Shrugged.

When was the last time you touched the "product of your own mind"? When was the last time someone physically grabbed it and ran away with it without your permission? Also, not all libertarians agree with Ayn Rand.

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

No. The difference is that IP is not physical. You cant touch the things that dont exist. Also, reproduction is not stealing. If someone downloads a song from the internet, that person is not taking it physically, it is reproducing or making a copying of it. THat is not theft.

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.

Turncoat?

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...

"Potential loss" is a misnomer in your case. You cant lose something you dont have. A better term would be "potential otherwise-would-have-been sale". Also, making a copy of something is not theft.

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.

So the person who takes advantage of the situation should be punished for the mistakes of others?

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.

What is immoral about Disney's business practices? I am ignorant with regards to this.

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.

No one is forcing you to buy anything. Also, since you know Disney is going to release a Blu-Ray version, why not wait till it comes out? Why must you buy the lesser quality VHS version?

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.

No. They were intended to protect the inventor from competition. Edison gained much power and wealth from patent laws.

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

No. That would be fraud. Also, us Ron Paul supporters would immidiately notice what you did and laugh at you. That's why the founding fathers "got away" with

stealing ideas

from Thomas Paine and so on. The intellectuals who read their works knew that those ideas came from people like Tom Paine. It was common knowledge/ideas.

why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for
all to download free of charge?

Many reasons. Say you want a copy of work to carry with you so you can read at the park. You could take your laptop and a read a PDF version. Or, you could print a copy from your laptop and take it with you to the park. Or, you could save time, money, ink, costs of binding the pages together by purchasing a physical copy from a bookstore. Also, most books by Rothbard, Mises, Paul, etc. are available for free (PDF) through mises.org.

-------
Actually, when you buy a CD, DVD, software, etc, you buy a user license. You own the physical container and can do what you please with it (frisbee, anyone?), but the contents are proprietary. If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract. ALL libertarians understand the importance of contract. (download "The Market For Liberty" if you don't get it) If you want to use your CD's music in film, elevators, etc, you can purchase a license for that purpose.

It seems that copyright law does need to be updated, but it is still workable. It would be best administered by people who understand the market, like artists and producers. The government is far too stupid and inept to understand it.

Yes. This is totally compatible with Libertarian thought. It also renders obsolete the "need" for copyright laws.

Digital music can be duplicated perfectly millions of times.
QUOTE]

That's not true. There is always a loss of quality when you make a digital copy. Any who knows anything about computers knows that.

if i dont sign it I aint binded by it.

I cant just stick a contract on something and claim that its legally binding to whomever comes into possession of that item. Thats ridiculous.

I see what you are getting at and agree. The EULA should be printed on the outside of the packaging.


... what's with all the soft balls?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's not true. There is always a loss of quality when you make a digital copy. Any who knows anything about computers knows that.

If a person wants to pirate a CD and can afford the digital technology, they can create a new master from the pirated CD. They can then print perfect copies ad infinitum. They could also rip the files using Nero or something similar and burn new CDs from those original files.

I happen to know about computers, as I work with digital audio regularly and studied digital studio recording as part of my music studies.

 

[slothman]

How do the recordings (on computer) change.
I'm glad programs don't do that.
Who knows what my files would do as I copied some around several times.
Are the songs in a lossy format?
If so then switch to a lossless.

I do agree that if you digitize it to computer and then send it back to a record/tape/whatever it will lose bits or sound.
But if it is on computer it won't during a copy.

I do have experience.
I have worked on computers for over 20 years.
Most of the is programming though.
No degrees though.

 

[revolutionman]

when libertarians run the show, this will be the big national debate. LoL

 

[heavenlyboy34]

you who are really interested in this subject may be interested in this article:

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-two-year-olds-work-out-who-owns.html
findings suggest that young children judge ownership based on who is first in possession of a given object. In an initial study, children aged between two and four were told a simple story about a boy and a girl playing with a toy, after which they were asked to say who owned the toy. If the story described the girl as playing with the toy first, then the children tended to say she owned the toy, and vice versa if the boy was described as playing with the toy first.

But what if the children were simply attributing ownership to whichever person was first associated with the toy, rather than in possession of it? A further experiment involved telling the children that the girl likes the toy, and then that the boy likes the toy. However, in this case, the children were no more likely to say the girl owned the toy than the boy did, even though the girl had been associated with the toy first (the same was true with the sexes reversed).

Finally, Friedman and Neary wanted to see how easily the first possession rule could be overcome in the context of gift giving. When the young children were told that the boy has a ball which he then gives to the girl as a present, they still tended to say that the boy owns the ball (the reverse being true if the story began with the girl in possession). However, when the gift giving was made more explicit (a wrapped present on the girl's birthday), then the first possession rule was broken, and the young children correctly realised that the girl now owned the gift.

The researchers said the most important next step was to find out where young children get this rule about first possession from. They surmised that it could be learned from hearing utterances like ‘‘It’s her doll, she had it first’’, or it could be innate, the product of a "cognitive system dedicated to reasoning about ownership."

 

[dannno]

So what did the kids say when the boy copies a song he downloaded illegally from the internet onto the girl's ipod?

 

[Matt Collins]

There is always a loss of quality when you make a digital copy. Any who knows anything about computers knows that.

Ummm... patently incorrect. I am an audio engineer and trust me, a digital copy is exactly accurate.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What I see are a bunch of excuses to attempt to justify theft.

 

[LibertyEagle]

when libertarians run the show, this will be the big national debate. LoL

That, and kiddie porn.

Libertarians don't need opposition. They do a fine job all by themselves, shooting themselves in the foot.

It's a darn good thing that the freedom movement is not a Libertarian movement. A darn good thing.

My 2 cents.

 

[TastyWheat]

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

Maybe, if I thought the workers were getting screwed. I don't make a lot of money, but my net worth is above the average musician's. They go into deep debt to make records and go on tours. You'd have to put out a platinum record to make any real amount of money in the music industry.