Internet Piracy

[Peace&Freedom]

They don't "own" it after they have sold it to me.

If I go out and buy a wooden spoon, go home and make a copy of it and give it away, I'm free to do so. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. This is the same thing.

This transfer of ownership or rights is the main point, whether the spoon analogy is a good analogy or not. The existence of copyright does not cancel other parties' rights (especially after a transaction), or reduce them to privileges. What would we say to a pizza delivery guy who came back after he dropped off the food, saying "we don't like the way you are sharing the pizza with your buddies. You don't own the pizza, just usage permissions within our parameters. Cough it back up." Do music consumers have a right to go back to the publisher and say "we don't approve of your sharing the money we gave you to your workers, go give it back?"

Copyright was originally meant to be a temporary government approved monopoly granted to publishers (not authors) to enable them to complete initial publishing of work until they could get their money back---after which the work was to become part of the public domain. It was not intended to become the open-ended or never ending, permanent subsidy that is promoted today. A true free market would not have copyright at all, and would operate on a non-exclusive distribution business model that did not have the state inflating the value of a given publisher. Alternatively, publishers could enter contractual agreements with the authors to create any exclusivity desired (focused on the company's unique promotion, not unique delivery of the product). Currently the market clearly is moving towards a post bottleneck, non-exclusive distribution model in its choices, so the corporate mantra of "only we own" is becoming increasingly moot.

 

[Kraig]

Ok so would you agree with this then? Someone makes a spoon with art work that rivals mona lisa on it. Someone buys that beautiful spoon at the store. They rip off the artwork and put it onto their own spoons to give away. Do you think this is right or should that person just come up with their OWN artwork to put on the spoon then give away?

Aren't replicas of the mona lisa available all over the place? How does their value stack up to the original? I think that answers itself.

What you are saying is absolutely no different than inventing the wheel and saying it's wrong for people to copy the idea.

 

[peepnklown]

Constituent hit the nail on the head!

 

[tribute_13]

I don't buy into the whole intellectual property bullshit.

As far as downloading music, I don't think entertainers should make money through CD sales. A true entertainer makes their money through ticket sales and concerts.

This roots out the shit performers from the good ones. Keeps the market clean.

 

[nayjevin]

devil's advocate:

all a person owns is his ability to create -- his creation is his voluntary entry of an example of his ownership (talent) into the public domain.

 

[nayjevin]

My definition of "piracy" differs considerably from that of others. To me, it's only theft of intellectual property in the truest sense, and justifiably prohibited, if the source does not receive credit for his or her work (i.e., someone illegally downloads a song and replaces the artist's name with his or her own).

As a musician myself, I would just feel glad that people like my stuff, and get a kick out of seeing it proliferate online, in whatever form. The only thing I would resent personally would be having my work co-opted and accredited to somebody else.

Intellectual property rights are very important, but record companies running to Daddy Government to help them squeeze out small fortunes from college kids is tenfold more unethical than any "criminal-minded music lover" who downloads a CD for personal use.

QFT

additionally, I think

anyone creating works of art should be doing so in the hopes that it proliferates widely - not that it brings great profit.

their efforts to make it proliferate if they so choose - such as building a website with advertisements, burning and labeling a DVD or CD of it and selling it, performing live -- should all bring profit -- but a person experiencing a duplicate of that work (i.e. downloading a dvd or cd) should not be restricted IMO

 

[nayjevin]

devil's advocate:

Thought and time are NOT unlimited resources, especially quality thought. To say that a digital copy of a song is worth nothing is to say that no resources went into producing it, or rather that artists offer nothing and are a useless drain to make an ad hominem.

the digital copy does not represent time and resources, nor quality of thought - it represents a duplicate of that one chunk of time/resources it took to make it.

a copy multiplies the effect of time/resources.

theft of a copy steals the ability to use that original chunk of time/resources from one person and gives it to another

sharing digital content online multiplies the effect of each piece of work without taking the ability to use it away from anyone.

-- I've entered the text of this post voluntarily into the public domain -- thereby leaving you free to use it, quote it, alter it, sell it, repackage it, etc. The free market should boycott you should you do so for evil.

 

[Kludge]

I don't buy into the whole intellectual property bullshit.

As far as downloading music, I don't think entertainers should make money through CD sales. A true entertainer makes their money through ticket sales and concerts.

This roots out the shit performers from the good ones. Keeps the market clean.

Idunno. I enjoy music from my house, but I've only gone to two concerts... -- wasn't fond of a bunch of fools around me screaming, coughing, and chain-smoking. I don't think I'll ever go to another unless someone really wants me to, and I like them.

Sound quality of a CD is far superior, anyway.

 

[andrewh817]

I believe in unrestricted access to information so I'm definitely against prosecution for internet piracy as that is the next step towards a censored internet.

But you know something? It really sucks that people making quality art or music can no longer make a living doing what they do. But guess what....... that's natural selection and the only reason this piracy is so "controversial" is all the record company lobbyists begging the government for no competition.

 

[cindy25]

British paperback books have something printed that they may not be sold below cover price-ever.

bought a ken follet novel and was shocked.

this intellectual property thing is out of hand