Intellectual Property rights

[CaptainAmerica]

I'd ask you how in the world this is supposed to translate to the anti-IP position, but honestly it seems completely pointless to take this further.

Well considering a few pages back that several people said that they should be able to copy a cd of music I created and resell it for their own profit. You put it into context, and figure it out since you are so intelligent.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are your own self, and I am my own self and obviously we have completely different ideals when it comes to perspectives of property. I work with professional musicians like myself who would never permit their music to be ripped off or sold without permission if they found out that was happening to them.

Then you work with professional musicians who don't know anything about law or property rights. So? There are plenty of professional musicians who entirely disagree with your friends, including myself.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The problem is you are using a made-up definition of property.

You can own land. You can own a CD. You can own a car.

More complex now.

You can own a piece of paper with an idea written on it and you can choose not to show or tell anybody about it, but you can't own the idea written on the paper. Once you release that information to the public, it doesn't belong to you, in fact it never did, because that idea can multiply and change and adapt. You can only own the paper it is written on.

This^^^

 

[cheapseats]

The problem is you are using a made-up definition of property.

You can own land. You can own a CD. You can own a car.

More complex now.

You can own a piece of paper with an idea written on it and you can choose not to show or tell anybody about it, but you can't own the idea written on the paper. Once you release that information to the public, it doesn't belong to you, in fact it never did, because that idea can multiply and change and adapt. You can only own the paper it is written on.

Self-serving claptrap.

An IDEA cannot be copyrighted, nor even a title. How many apocalypse/armageddon movies have been made? How many murder mysteries have been penned?

But the notion that SLACKERS can simply lay up, wait for someone else to create, then peddle replicas of the Creation (EASILY made more cheaply), without any compensation to the Creator is just a more scrappy version of the GIMME GIMME model.

Originally Posted by dannno
Define "your" music.

If It's my CD, if I used my hardware to make the CD, then it's my property. That doesn't mean I can commit fraud and say I performed the piece and sell it as such. But the CD is now my property.

I'd ask again . . . 'cuz I want Small Government people to be wide-screen on where AnCaps & Libertines stand.

Once you BUY and OWN a shiny disc comprised of another's original work, do you believe you are within your rights if you REPLICATE the shiny disc as many times as you can sell "your" copies? Without the investment of time, talent, production, marketing, et al. that go into the original Form, you could surely offer "your" product for sale rather more cheaply . . . which those who have never composed an original work can argue DOES serve the interest of the Consumer class.

 

[YumYum]

You are your own self, and I am my own self and obviously we have completely different ideals when it comes to perspectives of property. I work with professional musicians like myself who would never permit their music to be ripped off or sold without permission if they found out that was happening to them.

The only problem with that is that "professional" musicians/songwriters/arrangers/producers rip-off the little guy who isn't "in" the industry, and they get away with it because they have the money to hire the best attorneys. Its all about money. The people in the industry who have money think nothing of ripping off people who are not in the industry. Copyrights don't protect anybody; to win in court you need to be in the "business", and have your stuff "published". "Cashless peasants" can just suffer.

 

[dannno]

Well considering a few pages back that several people said that they should be able to copy a cd of music I created and resell it for their own profit. You put it into context, and figure it out since you are so intelligent.

Copying a CD and selling it takes time and effort as well as resources. Why wouldn't someone expect some compensation if there is a demand for it?

The question is, why aren't people buying your music CD from you? Could be a number of reasons.

You sell it for too much $$ and so people aren't willing to compensate the artist and would prefer to have a burned CD

You chose to stop making copies, even though there is a demand

You only sell it in certain locations and not everybody has access to buying it

The truth is, this person is providing a service to the market. It doesn't, however, mean the musician has to fail. There are plenty of ways for the musician to succeed very well in this environment. Sell your CD for a reasonable amount and make it more accessible to people.. or THANK the person who made all those copies when you get 30k people showing up at your sold out concerts!!

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I said I would love to hear his ideas, I didn't say I worship Ron Paul. You assume too much. Likewise I don't worship Mises institute.Your mistake is in assuming that I am radical when the real radical is the person who claims that property exists then says that no one has right to their own property. Non-contradiction

I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves?

Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner.

Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?

 

[YumYum]

Copying a CD and selling it takes time and effort as well as resources. Why wouldn't someone expect some compensation if there is a demand for it?

The question is, why aren't people buying your music CD from you? Could be a number of reasons.

You sell it for too much $$ and so people aren't willing to compensate the artist and would prefer to have a burned CD

You chose to stop making copies, even though there is a demand

You only sell it in certain locations and not everybody has access to buying it

The truth is, this person is providing a service to the market. It doesn't, however, mean the musician has to fail. There are plenty of ways for the musician to succeed very well in this environment. Sell your CD for a reasonable amount and make it more accessible to people.. or THANK the person who made all those copies when you get 30k people showing up at your sold out concerts!!

It has to be outstanding music. People will pay for great, original music.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The only problem with that is that "professional" musicians/songwriters/arrangers/producers rip-off the little guy who isn't "in" the industry, and they get away with it because they have the money to hire the best attorneys. Its all about money. The people in the industry who have money think nothing of ripping off people who are not in the industry. Copyrights don't protect anybody; to win in court you need to be in the "business", and have your stuff "published". "Cashless peasants" can just suffer.

You assume that the "little guy" is me or any other musician I mention? You have obviously created prejudice with your statement.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It has to be outstanding music. People will pay for great, original music.

people will also steal and rip off unique music .

 

[YumYum]

I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves?

Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner.

Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?

The music industry was suing elderly grandmothers because their grand-kids had downloaded music on their grandmother's computer.

 

[dannno]

It has to be outstanding music. People will pay for great, original music.

lol, that's not true, that's just in the current bullshit environment we live in where CD's cost fucking $17.99 or some shit (actually I haven't been in a CD store in years, I know some used to be in the $12.99 range on SALE!!)

If artists could sell their music cheaper more people would buy it. Or they would get pirated, but they would still end up with more exposure, more fans, and more sold out concerts.

The problem is people in this thread who are arguing for IP don't seem to understand that a burned CD is only worth $1 or $2, whereas an original CD from an artist is worth at least $5 or so. The price in the market would reflect this, the person on the corner selling your CD is not going to find a lot of customers, not to mention they aren't going to be able to command near the same price as if they had the CD straight from the artist.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Hmm...

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. 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

 

[YumYum]

people will also steal and rip off unique music .

So, write more unique music. Let them have it. After awhile, people will ask "Who is this genus?" And in time the cashless peasants will worship you as a god. True artist create. They don't depend on "one" song to "make it". They can write a couple of "hit" songs a day. The music industry created a monarchy where artists had to beg and "pay their dues" to even get a foot in the door. Now, the music industry is feeling the effects of Karma.

Explain to me how I can buy the DVD to the movie "Titanic" for $9.99, and it includes the whole musical score, but if i want to only buy the music to "Titanic", I have to pay $18 for the cd? This makes no sense. The music industry's greed is what killed their little cartel.

Hollywood better learn from their mistakes if it doesn't want to end up the same way.

 

[KingRobbStark]

Captain America's arguments are purely based on emotion. This is my paraphrasing of his arguments.

" But...but I worked so hard to think of an idea that others would have though of someday regardless if I had thought of it at all. Its unfair that people should use my "ideas", and make money out of it. Hurr durr my idurras being stollin durr *more crying* hurr durr *more tears* IP durr...".

--------Captain America

 

[YumYum]

lol, that's not true, that's just in the current bullshit environment we live in where CD's cost fucking $17.99 or some shit (actually I haven't been in a CD store in years, I know some used to be in the $12.99 range on SALE!!)

If artists could sell their music cheaper more people would buy it. Or they would get pirated, but they would still end up with more exposure, more fans, and more sold out concerts.

The problem is people in this thread who are arguing for IP don't seem to understand that a burned CD is only worth $1 or $2, whereas an original CD from an artist is worth at least $5 or so. The price in the market would reflect this, the person on the corner selling your CD is not going to find a lot of customers, not to mention they aren't going to be able to command near the same price as if they had the CD straight from the artist.

I didn't say how much they would pay; just that they would pay.

The best way to get reimbursed for your songs is to give out CDs at live shows to those people who bought tickets to hear you live.

I mean, a Rascal Flatts ticket cost $75+. They could give their fans who paid that their new CD in the mail or at the door of their concerts.

 

[One Last Battle!]

I didn't say how much they would pay; just that they would pay.

The best way to get reimbursed for your songs is to give out CDs at live shows to those people who bought tickets to hear you live.

I mean, a Rascal Flatts ticket cost $75+. They could give their fans who paid that their new CD in the mail or at the door of their concerts.

I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves?

Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner.

Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?

Are you going to actually attack the substance of the argument or will you attack peripheral points and run away to avoid it?

 

[YumYum]

Are you going to actually attack the substance of the argument or will you attack peripheral points and run away to avoid it?

What are talking about?

 

[CCTelander]

I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves?

Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner.

Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

This point needs to be driven home over and over also.

 

[ClayTrainor]

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

"Nothing is lost by the original owner."

This point needs to be driven home over and over also.

Haven't noticed this posted yet. Kinda obligatory for IP threads.