How can anyone say screw Rush for not letting Rand Play their music

[low preference guy]

It might seem like a fine line, but trust me, it's not. I work in the music industry, I engineer recording and concerts for a living.

There are many good arguments against IP, but saying "trust me ... I work in the music industry, I engineer recording and concerts for a living." is a pretty lame one.

 

[Matt Collins]

The way I see it, Rand didn't financially benefit from using Rush's tunes as he could've chosen any of the other songs/bands out there. What Rand did do, is put Rush back on the map in the minds of many ordinary republicans that might have long given up on caring about/listening to them. Not to mention the younger part of the crowd that had little or no impression of Rush as a band.

And as someone who works in and has studied the music industry for well over a decade, I can tell you that yes the labels, publishers, and many of the older artists are just now figuring out that publicity is good, even if they are not compensated for it. They relied on their governmental protections and based their business models on it for a very long time and don't want to change. They don't realize that they create contempt whenever they end up on the wrong side of the issue of this by being heavy handed in their enforcement.

 

[Matt Collins]

Almost everyone here agrees with you that copyright and patent law needs to change, because it has become an absurd corporatist racket that's stifling rather than promoting progress.

Exactly. The length of time for protection the government offers authors keeps extending every time Mickey Mouse is about to expire and enter the public domain. Disney continues to lobby legislators every few years to continue to extend "copyright" protections so now it's essentially "infinity -1"

A fair person wouldn't think to stiff a good server, and you should certainly tip, but that doesn't mean it should be the law. As for the title question: I believe it should be legal for Rand to say, "HAHA LOL, SCREW YOU, RUSH! I'M PLAYING YOUR MUSIC ANYWAY!" but it would be an incredibly dick move, and any blowback from it would be wholly earned.

This makes a great deal of sense. On the other hand, the authors should want people to promote their music every chance they get

 

[Matt Collins]

There are many good arguments against IP, but saying "trust me ... I work in the music industry, I engineer recording and concerts for a living." is a pretty lame one.

That wasn't an argument against (or for) IP. It was a statement to establish my credibility.

Have you ever studied "copyright" law formally?


.

 

[Matt Collins]

Those trashing Rush for protecting their property aren't defenders of the constitution and property rights.

You are confusing many things. There is no property involved here, just privileges that the government happens to dole out to artists.


Ideas and expressions of ideas are not owned by anyone.

 

[low preference guy]

That wasn't an argument against (or for) IP. It was a statement to establish my credibility.

If you need something else beyond your arguments, you actually lose credibility in my eyes. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

 

[TheDriver]

Screw Rush!

 

[thomas-in-ky]

Crony-Capitalism of Monsanto/Disney/Congress/Supreme Court notwithstanding, I vote to keep the patent and copyright clause in the US Constitution.

 

[Xenophage]

This is ridiculous. Rand is a huge Rush fan, and why wouldn't he be? I imagine they're probably the single most popular band among libertarians.

Has anyone considered that this is just standard record label bullshit? The members of Rush probably haven't had a thing to do with it.

That said, using their music in this manner puts them in an awkward situation. I fully support Rush AND Rand.

 

[Christianlibertarian]

I'm not a legal scholar, so forgive me if there are glaring holes in my argument, but, isn't it fair for an artist or record company to sell a CD and part of the contract be that the buyer does not copy it or use it for profit or political gain? Isn't that just part of the contract, enforceable by law? Of course they shouldn't be able to make up the stipulations after the transaction is made.

 

[Matt Collins]

I'm not a legal scholar, so forgive me if there are glaring holes in my argument, but, isn't it fair for an artist or record company to sell a CD and part of the contract be that the buyer does not copy it or use it for profit or political gain?

You are not agreeing to a contract when you buy a CD.

There is no contract. You are simply subject to federal "copyright" law.


.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm not a legal scholar, so forgive me if there are glaring holes in my argument, but, isn't it fair for an artist or record company to sell a CD and part of the contract be that the buyer does not copy it or use it for profit or political gain? Isn't that just part of the contract, enforceable by law? Of course they shouldn't be able to make up the stipulations after the transaction is made.

Of course, the author should be able to give his CD using a contract if he wants. The "problem" arises when someone who doesn't have a contract gets possession of the material.

Suppose I obtain an mp3 of the song from someone who bought the CD. He signed the contract, but I didn't. If there is no way to prove that he gave the mp3 to me, there is nothing that can be done to punish him. And since I didn't sing the contract, I can distribute it if I want to.

 

[Xenophage]

The intellectual property rights issue on here is a consistent source of frustration. The Rothbardian douchebags that claim the moral authority to profit from the intellectual capabilities of individuals more creative than themselves sicken and frighten me. It is a higher form of theft and a greater act of coercion than the forceful acquisition of some piece of physical property.

These are people that did not grok The Fountainhead. They attack the notion of liberty at its very core. It's not a minor divide here. It's fundamental.

I never understood the deep feelings of animosity between Rothbard and Rand until I was confronted with the unreasoning veracity with which Rothbardians attack intellectual property rights. I understand it completely since joining this forum, and I'm on Rand's side all the way.

 

[Matt Collins]

It is a higher form of theft and a greater act of coercion than the forceful acquisition of some piece of physical property.

The dictionary apparently escapes you; there is no theft involved.

the unreasoning veracity with which Rothbardians attack intellectual property rights.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property rights". Perhaps "intellectual privileges" but remember the government doesn't grant rights.

And no, I am not a Rothbardian on the subject if you must know. I do believe that some protections are beneficial on this front.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm not a Rothbardian, have never been one, and I oppose to Copyright laws.

Efforts to prevent people from copying files should be made through contracts, not through a blanket imposition of restrictions to people who never signed a contract.

 

[thomas-in-ky]

Surely libertarians support the "Trade Secret" domain of IP ? That is to say, one has total ownership of all the electrical, chemical, biological, physical, (and metaphysical) reactions between ones ears. (self ownership) As well as a basic right to privacy. Sharing the expressible patterns formed between ones ears is voluntary. If this is done within the framework of a contract, and the contract is breached, the share-er would have the right to reclaim damages from the share-ee.

I concede that within the music industry, subsequent transfers of information are hard to contractually obligate. (Whether it was legal or enforceable, Rand did the morally right thing when Rush asked him not to use their music, and they were within their moral rights.) But, within engineering and manufacturing fields, Trade Secrets are not only justified from a libertarian perspective, they are effective and enforceable. This IP recipe worked fabulously for Kentucky's favorite Colonel and I never once felt restrained in what I could do with my chicken here at the house.

 

[Matt Collins]

they were within their moral rights.

I don't know if I agree with this. Morality is relative whereas individual rights are not.

 

[MichelleHeart]

I wrote an article on this today:

Hey, Rush: Sharing 'Intellectual Property' Isn't 'Stealing'

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Those trashing Rush for protecting their property aren't defenders of the constitution and property rights.

Sorry all be you are wrong bashing Rush.

Perhaps they don't want to be linked to anything political?

Perhaps they don't want their music used without their permission.

Perhaps they just don't like Rand.

Either or all of the above is their right. You may not like it but they absolutely have a right to stop people from using their music without their permission.

Now everyone has the right to let Rush know how displeased you are or even boycott them, still it is their right to stop people from using their stuff.

Everyone have a beer or a cocktail and chill.

Do I have to ask for Rush's permission to play their songs in my house? IP laws created by the government is a wide load of bullcrap

 

[MichelleHeart]

Do I have to ask for Rush's permission to play their songs in my house? IP laws created by the government is a wide load of bullcrap

This.