Kade's back

[Bman]

As a general rule a lot more wealth would be generated in a free market. Costs for almost everything, including R&D, would become lower.

I just can't agree. By this philosophy what do you imagine would happen to resource prices? I'd have to imagine they'd go sky high due to supply and demand. So then the otherside says exactly and more money is put into resoursces so the can generate more revenue and intentionally lower prices (yeah right, tell that to opec). Then the next step is that the resource companies say hey we can build this stuff so they squash out the competition because they are the only ones who posses things of value. Before you know it we will have monopolies. Permanent monopolies. And I haven't read a thing yet that can convince me that there is not a great risk of this without government intervention. To me IP is the best tool we have to level the playing field for those born with vs those born without.

 

[user]

I just can't agree. By this philosophy what do you imagine would happen to resource prices? I'd have to imagine they'd go sky high due to supply and demand. So then the otherside says exactly and more money is put into resoursces so the can generate more revenue and intentionally lower prices (yeah right, tell that to opec). Then the next step is that the resource companies say hey we can build this stuff so they squash out the competition because they are the only ones who posses things of value. Before you know it we will have monopolies. Permanent monopolies. And I haven't read a thing yet that can convince me that there is not a great risk of this without government intervention. To me IP is the best tool we have to level the playing field for those born with vs those born without.

This is basically the mainstream view. I don't know what you've read and haven't read, but some basic Austrian economics should dispel your fears. I'll just give you the short version:

First, in a free market, prices fall as wealth is created. Sure, some prices may increase in the short term, but falling prices is the overall trend.

Second, a "permanent monopoly" is only possible with government intervention. Only the government can grant monopolies by banning others from entering the market.

 

[Bman]

Are you indirectly supporting the deaths of all those people Dman?

I'm afraid you are...

Sure. I'll play the criminal. People die , people live. Far too many live. It's gotten so bad that the average intelligence of human beings is on the decline. People live in squalor because there are not enough resources in their respective areas to support their lives.

And yes if I personally had something in my hands to save someones life I would willingly give it up faster than a blink of the eye. But I can't save everyones life, and I am not going to infringe upon someones revenue source to do such.

 

[Bman]

This is basically the mainstream view. I don't know what you've read and haven't read, but some basic Austrian economics should dispel your fears. I'll just give you the short version:

First, in a free market, prices fall as wealth is created. Sure, some prices may increase in the short term, but falling prices is the overall trend.

Second, a "permanent monopoly" is only possible with government intervention. Only the government can grant monopolies by banning others from entering the market.

But if we protect physical property ownership is it not viable for someone to corner a market and keep prices extremely high (i.e. DeBeers). And how wouldn't that be likely would be my next question.

 

[user]

Sure. I'll play the criminal. People die , people live. Far too many live.

Are you talking about overpopulation?

People live in squalor because there are not enough resources in their respective areas to support their lives.

So why not have more wealth be created instead of letting them die?

 

[Conza88]

I just can't agree. By this philosophy what do you imagine would happen to resource prices? I'd have to imagine they'd go sky high due to supply and demand. So then the otherside says exactly and more money is put into resoursces so the can generate more revenue and intentionally lower prices (yeah right, tell that to opec). Then the next step is that the resource companies say hey we can build this stuff so they squash out the competition because they are the only ones who posses things of value. Before you know it we will have monopolies. Permanent monopolies. And I haven't read a thing yet that can convince me that there is not a great risk of this without government intervention. To me IP is the best tool we have to level the playing field for those born with vs those born without.

You literally lack a fundamental understanding of free markets. Monopolies don't exist in a free market. What economics books have you read?

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Conza88]

Sure. I'll play the criminal. People die , people live. Far too many live. It's gotten so bad that the average intelligence of human beings is on the decline. People live in squalor because there are not enough resources in their respective areas to support their lives.

Not play. This ain't an act. "Far too many live?"

Yeah human intelligence is on the decline - go FIGURE, go ask the STATE why that is. How about you go watch Stupid in America - Stossel.

Or do you blame the market for people becoming more stupid? There aren't enough resources because of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Wtf is this whole crisis about?

The FED caused this problem. Or do you think it was the market? Geezus fcken christ, your socialist tendencies are shining clear now.

And yes if I personally had something in my hands to save someones life I would willingly give it up faster than a blink of the eye. But I can't save everyones life, and I am not going to infringe upon someones revenue source to do such.

You are by supporting IP. The seen and unseen. Frederic Bastiat, BASIC economics.

 

[user]

But if we protect physical property ownership is it not viable for someone to corner a market and keep prices extremely high (i.e. DeBeers). And how wouldn't that be likely would be my next question.

Government interference is used to do that. You brought up De Beers, which leads me to a good example of what I was saying about others being allowed to enter a market.

As I remember it, De Beers used to advertise and charge more for "flawless" diamonds. The less imperfections a diamond had, the more valuable it supposedly was. Then some people figured out how to make synthetic diamonds that were all flawless, unlike De Beers's stash. After this, De Beers tried to advertise that their diamonds were great because of their natural flaws!

So the important thing is that others are allowed to enter a market. If a company tries to corner a market and raise prices, that just increases the incentive for someone else to enter the market and charge a lower price. You can think of it as an invisible hand directing resources to where they are most useful, in this case to break a near-monopoly.

 

[Conza88]

But if we protect physical property ownership is it not viable for someone to corner a market and keep prices extremely high (i.e. DeBeers). And how wouldn't that be likely would be my next question.

They can try, but they will fail. Just as DeBeers did.

People go for substitutes anyway. Opals, pearls, gold, silver, whatever, there are alternatives.

The market even responded. You can now chemically make artificial diamonds that are practically the same as the real thing. Experts struggle to tell the difference.

So much for a monopoly.

 

[Bman]

You literally lack a fundamental understanding of free markets. Monopolies don't exist in a free market. What economics books have you read?

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N. Rothbard

It's seriously been years. I had two roomates in college that were economic (accounting) majors and read through some of their books. Personally, I don't put a lot of stock on individual names or book titles. As a matter of fact I can only remember the title of one book in college. And don't ask me who wrote the book. My brain functions highly on numbers and patterns.

Whatever, what exactly prevents monopolies from forming in a free market system without IP protection of some sort.

 

[user]

It's seriously been years. I had two roomates in college that were economic (accounting) majors and read through some of their books. Personally, I don't put a lot of stock on individual names or book titles. As a matter of fact I can only remember the title of one book in college. And don't ask me who wrote the book. My brain functions highly on numbers and patterns.

Whatever, what exactly prevents monopolies from forming in a free market system without IP protection of some sort.

I guess you haven't read the later post(s) yet?

 

[Bman]

They can try, but they will fail. Just as DeBeers did.

People go for substitutes anyway. Opals, pearls, gold, silver, whatever, there are alternatives.

The market even responded. You can now chemically make artificial diamonds that are practically the same as the real thing. Experts struggle to tell the difference.

So much for a monopoly.

Dude I just got married within the past year and, bought a diamond ring for our engagement about 1 1/2 years ago. Not to mention I got her a diamond pendant this X-MAS. I've been buying diamonds for gifts at times over the past 16 years. If you want to show me where prices have dropped. PLEASE DO!!! I'd start argreeing with you just on that If you can direct me to where I can get 2 carat D-H, VS1 with an excellent cut rocks for about $500 bucks a pop or cheaper.

 

[Bman]

Explain it in terms I can understand.

I'm a musician. Lets say I no longer want to perform, or for that matter ever wanted to perform. I write a song and start selling it to people. But I have limited resources to distribute and advertise my music. Along comes someone else who takes my song and starts distribute my album and takes all the money and just flat out had more resources than I did. Now I can't pay my bills, so I have to leave the music writing profession and seek a more stable form of income.

Now how am I supposed to side with the guy who did nothing but produce my creation a t a cheaper price than I could. Compared to me or someone else who had the actual ability to bring something new into the world.

 

[user]

Explain it in terms I can understand.

I'm a musician. Lets say I no longer want to perform, or for that matter ever wanted to perform. I write a song and start selling it to people. But I have limited resources to distribute and advertise my music. Along comes someone else who takes my song and starts distribute my album and takes all the money and just flat out had more resources than I did. Now I can't pay my bills, so I have to leave the music writing profession and seek a more stable form of income.

Now how am I supposed to side with the guy who did nothing but produce my creation a t a cheaper price than I could. Compared to me or someone else who had the actual ability to bring something new into the world.

Why don't you want to perform? In any case, you don't have to side with that guy.

 

[Conza88]

It's seriously been years. I had two roomates in college that were economic (accounting) majors and read through some of their books. Personally, I don't put a lot of stock on individual names or book titles. As a matter of fact I can only remember the title of one book in college. And don't ask me who wrote the book. My brain functions highly on numbers and patterns.

Whatever, what exactly prevents monopolies from forming in a free market system without IP protection of some sort.

Ok, economically ignorant. Check.

Even those books at College, they wouldn't have been Austrian Economics books, so they're full of fallacies & animal spirits.

Check out the Literature (entire free pdf's books) and Media Section (entire free audiobooks and lectures) at mises.org

You'll end up knowing more than the fool who spent $100k on his PHD in economics and knows fck all about whats happening in the world.

Dude I just got married within the past year and, bought a diamond ring for our engagement about 1 1/2 years ago. Not to mention I got her a diamond pendant this X-MAS. I've been buying diamonds for gifts at times over the past 16 years. If you want to show me where prices have dropped. PLEASE DO!!! I'd start argreeing with you just on that If you can direct me to where I can get 2 carat D-H, VS1 with an excellent cut rocks for about $500 bucks a pop or cheaper.

http://shopping.carat.cc/cgi-bin/carat/00374.html ?

http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/shop_by_price.php?range=1

http://betterthandiamond.com/?gclid=CJ_n24qu3pgCFR0Sagodl2kYdg

http://shopping.carat.cc/cgi-bin/carat/search.html?id=rp6w78KF

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-artificial-diamonds.htm

Explain it in terms I can understand.

I'm a musician. Lets say I no longer want to perform, or for that matter ever wanted to perform. I write a song and start selling it to people. But I have limited resources to distribute and advertise my music. Along comes someone else who takes my song and starts distribute my album and takes all the money and just flat out had more resources than I did. Now I can't pay my bills, so I have to leave the music writing profession and seek a more stable form of income.

Now how am I supposed to side with the guy who did nothing but produce my creation a t a cheaper price than I could. Compared to me or someone else who had the actual ability to bring something new into the world.

So you wanted Napster shut down? You also want Limewire gone, Piratebay etc etc. In essence, you sided with Metallica?

You don't understand how LITTLE the artists actually get? You don't understand that by using Napster etc, an aspiring young artists can go VIRAL, if their music is good enough, get copied on youtube etc, spread around and LOVED. The marketing does itself, and then all you need to do is set up a website or Itunes, and you get paid for the music directly.

Whatever the case, if I download someones music I'm NOT stealing from them. The product on offer is a CD, costing $30. Practically all goes to the label etc. Whatever the case, using my SUBJECTIVE value I will NOT purchase the music for $30. NOT even close. In essence, I would not buy it at that price. Alternatively, if it is on line and I download it, that is because it is cheaper and meets my subjective value. I value the brandwidth or disk space, LESS than the musical file.
And because of ECONOMIES of SCALE, i.e you can COPY the files at practically NO cost... that is how it is basically free.

However, if I find your music and it is unpopular, but I like it. And there are no free versions of limewire etc.. I will go on itunes and buy it, like I have for several artists.

If they had websites, and I could order it directly, I would have. Notice it's like $10 for an album, or $.99c for a song, and not $30... and the industry wonder why sales are down.

The BIGGER point is; once your name is out there.. what do artists do? They PLAY GIG's! They play LIVE! That's where the big money is... Someone can try do a cover, but it ain't the origional, it ain't you... and it ain't what the fans want to see.

Do you not read?

The Music and Book Killers by Jeffrey A. Tucker

It is of absolute urgency, for the sake of saving the literary and artistic creations of our time and the future from oblivion, and for the sake of human liberty, that the whole rotten system be smashed. The argument to that effect is crystallized and made super compelling in the fifth chapter of Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrine and David Levine. The chapter is pithy, thorough, dead on in its practical analysis, and deeply radical. It is the perfect illustration of why I think this is one of the most original and compelling books on economics in a generation.

Copyright is a subject replete with mythology. People toss around junk legalisms that they pick up on the street while knowing nothing about the facts or the law. They imagine that copyright is important for protecting rights, even though the practical reality is that it is a killer of ideas and a rights violator on a massive scale. Indeed, something must be done to crush this institution before it brings the creative and literary arts to a grinding halt.

As mentioned in earlier pieces, copyright originated as a kingly permission to publish what was politically correct. The privilege passed to individual writers in the 19th century but didn't stay there long: the publishers inherited the right through contracts, and they now use that right to rob writers, musicians, artists, and consumers of what Jefferson considered to be inalienable.

Did the internationalization and institutionalization of copyright actually achieved its stated aim of promoting literary work? There was no increase in copyright registrations as a percentage of the population between 1900 and 1950, despite the double lengthening of the copyright term. So much for the great outpouring of creativity in literature and music.

In 1998, the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse Copyright Term Extension Act ("the biggest land grab in history") boosted copyright by 40 percent but with what effect on incentives to produce? None, so far as anyone knows. But the publishers and moguls who pushed for this nonsense are surely happy so they don't have to work harder and can continue to live off the royalties of their long-dead predecessors.

Actually, what that 1998 legislation did was provide a massive boost for authors to find ways out of the chains of copyright. The development of Creative Commons, and other tools, followed because it is ever more obvious that copyright is at war with the digital age. And thanks goodness for that. But in the meantime, copyright in the 20th century has accomplished horrible evil.

Large swaths of the literary output of the last fifty years, for example, now lie buried in the vaults of large publishers who neither print them nor permit them to be printed absent some huge fee; nor will they return rights to the author. Nor will the publishers allow them to be posted. Getting them back in print is a very expensive and time-consuming operation.

In my own work at the Mises Institute, I've encountered a dozen such cases myself, and while most individual cases offer some possibility of a fiduciary workaround, economic considerations on the margin effectively drive these works off the market. Meanwhile, the greatest thing that could ever happen to an author is for his or her works to enter the public domain but that only happens if you wrote your book before 1963 and the copyright was mercifully not renewed.

Here is a test case brilliantly conceived of by Boldrine and Levine. The works of Edgar Rice Burroughs are right on the fence of the copyright law. Some are out of copyright. Some are in. They compared the circulation between them.

At the time of writing, the books out of copyright were everywhere in print, online, and in stores. In contrast, the books in copyright were all out of print. This is not an accident. In this way, copyright serves as a tax on production, so of course it results in less not more.

The same is true of innumerable authors, including many classically liberal authors. The world is highly fortunate that they published with marginal firms that failed to renew their copyrights after they expired. Otherwise, their works would be unavailable. It is in fact tragic that Hayek himself had major publishers who renewed many copyrights, because that fact alone has caused them to be tethered to the point of limiting Hayek's own influence.

What the 1998 act did was put tens of thousands of titles under copyright that would otherwise have been open to the world. All this was done to protect the work of one company – Disney – which ironically made its fortunate by making movies based on public domain stories! The authors here further point out that large companies have no incentive to bring back into print the titles for which they own copyright because they don't want them to compete with their new hardback titles. It really is a form of legal suppression of literary work going on here, made possible only by the state's law, and it is an outrage. A vast swath of the literary output of the West of the last 50 years has been kidnapped by private parties with the legal approval by the state.

Again, the beneficiaries of the law are not authors and not musicians and artists. Musicians themselves typically earn far more from concerts than royalties. So the conventional theory is wrong: copyright doesn't inspire creativity. These musicians would work and create without it; in fact, no one has a greater incentive for abolishing the current system than creators.

For 2000 years, the core of musical creativity was the emulation and elaboration on existing musical forms, with composers both competing with each other and cooperating in a communal way toward advancement. They depend most heavily on sharing information. If this is stopped, culturally significant creativity is seriously impeded. Copyright shut the cooperative process down at the turn of the 19th century.

Today, serious "classical" composers have to keep returning to public domain material like folk songs to make variations on themes. The music of the 20th century is largely off limits. Meanwhile, the search for originality has created bizarre forms of music within the conservatory culture, none of which has sticking power in the culture at large because it is illegal to imitate it.

This whole scenario represents a radical attack on the very essence of cultural advancement. The repeal of copyright would result in a huge outpouring of great music that uses popular music in a variety of different forms. Composers would be unleashed to write, ensembles could perform and record, and musicians of all sorts would produce with glorious new creativity. As it is, they live in a caged world in which lawyers determine what they can write, play, and record. If you understand this, you can see why musical forms have taken such a huge tumble in the last 100 years, while creativity has taken place only in sectors that eschew copyright, such as jazz and independent rock.

As for recording, the effort to prevent file sharing has been a disaster for artists. Again, this resulted from special-interest legislation. The tethers are so tight now that many bands are reduced to refusing any recording contracts at all, merely so that they can distribute their own music the way they want to. This has been proven again and again to be compatible with huge sales. The best selling CDs of last year were also the ones available for free download.

Whenever this subject comes up, unthinking people toss around crazy bromides. "You mean you want to allow anyone to just steal anyone's work? Why would anyone bother to write a book or write a song."

These kinds of questions reflect what happens to our thinking in a time of statism; we can't imagine how freedom would work. We do not, for example, ask similar questions about other sectors.

"If you allow the private growing of vegetables, why would anyone bother to start commercial farms or open grocery stores? If you allow people to cook at home, why would anyone open a restaurant? If you allow people to just share recipes, why would anyone become a master chef? You would allow just anyone to steal the idea of a tomato or a sauce or a fancy dish that took years in culinary school to create?"

These questions only sound stupid to us because we don't have existing laws covering these topics. Somehow everything works out. Because we have copyright, we can't even imagine how we could get along without it. And yet we see many examples around us. Public domain works are hugely popular and firms profit from selling them, and they are more prevalent than copyrighted works.

What I find striking is that copyright operates today by state-authorized theft of creativity by large firms. Writers and composers and bands permit themselves to be looted of their own right to distribute their own work. Composers work years on a piece and then give up the results to some business corporation in exchange for their right to publicly hum the tune they wrote. It is astounding, and wholly nonviable.

Fortunately, the free market is finding a workaround to evil copyright laws in the form of Creative Commons and other institutions. In this way, at least there is a path to freedom for us, whereas the same can't be said of patent laws.

Finally, let me say this: I know that I've written many articles on this book and this live blog of this one chapter is long, but the truth is that I've barely scratched the surface here. This one chapter has far more to offer, but I'll end for now.

One last note: do not write me with some smarty pants remark about how, if we are serious, the Mises Institute should allow anyone to publish our books. All our new works, insofar as it is possible, will be published with a Creative Commons license as a matter of signed contract with authors. As for this article, please "steal" it. That goes for anything I write. If you can sell it and make a buck, good for you. If you become a millionaire, shame on me for not thinking of it first.

 

[Bman]

http://shopping.carat.cc/cgi-bin/carat/00374.html ?

http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/shop_by_price.php?range=1

http://betterthandiamond.com/?gclid=CJ_n24qu3pgCFR0Sagodl2kYdg

http://shopping.carat.cc/cgi-bin/carat/search.html?id=rp6w78KF

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-artificial-diamonds.htm

Thanks, but I should clarify that the man made jobs are not for every woman. I've asked if it was an issue and it is. They have to be the real mccoy.

So you wanted Napster shut down? You also want Limewire gone, Piratebay etc etc. In essence, you sided with Metallica?

You don't understand how LITTLE the artists actually get? You don't understand that by using Napster etc, an aspiring young artists can go VIRAL, if their music is good enough, get copied on youtube etc, spread around and LOVED. The marketing does itself, and then all you need to do is set up a website or Itunes, and you get paid for the music directly.

Whatever the case, if I download someones music I'm NOT stealing from them. The product on offer is a CD, costing $30. Practically all goes to the label etc. Whatever the case, using my SUBJECTIVE value I will NOT purchase the music for $30. NOT even close. In essence, I would not buy it at that price. Alternatively, if it is on line and I download it, that is because it is cheaper and meets my subjective value. I value the brandwidth or disk space, LESS than the musical file.
And because of ECONOMIES of SCALE, i.e you can COPY the files at practically NO cost... that is how it is basically free.

However, if I find your music and it is unpopular, but I like it. And there are no free versions of limewire etc.. I will go on itunes and buy it, like I have for several artists.

If they had websites, and I could order it directly, I would have. Notice it's like $10 for an album, or $.99c for a song, and not $30... and the industry wonder why sales are down.

The BIGGER point is; once your name is out there.. what do artists do? They PLAY GIG's! They play LIVE! That's where the big money is... Someone can try do a cover, but it ain't the origional, it ain't you... and it ain't what the fans want to see.

Ok bust on my economics all you want. You have absolutley no idea of how money is made in music. You have some numbers but you have some serious flaws. I can't take what you say here seriously because you are all wrong.

On this topic I suggest checking out www.ascap.com.

Yea, record companies do overcharge. Sure they have no one but themselves to blame for bad sales. But your number are well off and I'd have to ask when the last time was that you played in a touring band. And if you think big money is in performing. Well total revenue is certainly there. The actaul amount the band takes home? This can very and sure some can be successful this way. But if this is your only revenue stream in music, well more than likely you are fucked. This is not the best way to seek a career in music. Been there done that, you have a huge misconception.

 

[user]

Thanks, but I should clarify that the man made jobs are not for every woman. I've asked if it was an issue and it is. They have to be the real mccoy.

Ah but they are the real mccoy. Believing otherwise is a propaganda problem.

Ok bust on my economics all you want. You have absolutley no idea of how money is made in music. You have some numbers but you have some serious flaws. I can't take what you say here seriously because you are all wrong.

On this topic I suggest checking out www.ascap.com.

Yea, record companies do overcharge. Sure they have no one but themselves to blame for bad sales. But your number are well off and I'd have to ask when the last time was that you played in a touring band. And if you think big money is in performing. Well total revenue is certainly there. The actaul amount the band takes home? This can very and sure some can be successful this way. But if this is your only revenue stream in music, well more than likely you are fucked. This is not the best way to seek a career in music. Been there done that, you have a huge misconception.

Should the government have banned personal computers to protect typewriter manufacturers? Markets should be free so they can adapt to consumer preferences, not unfree to protect a certain business model.

 

[Bman]

Ah but they are the real mccoy. Believing otherwise is a propaganda problem.

Yeah tell that to my wife.

Should the government have banned personal computers to protect typewriter manufacturers? Markets should be free so they can adapt to consumer preferences, not unfree to protect a certain business model.

There certainly are shades of gray. To me this is not completely black and white. To say all ideas and invention are immediate public domain is a bit much.

Like for instance the movie "flash of genius". What are your thoughts on that story.

 

[user]

Yeah tell that to my wife.



There certainly are shades of gray. To me this is not completely black and white. To say all ideas and invention are immediate public domain is a bit much.

Like for instance the movie "flash of genius". What are your thoughts on that story.

I haven't seen the movie but I think I know the gist of the story.

First, I would say in a free market you wouldn't normally have a company like Ford being so huge and in such a position of power. (I know this contradicts mainstream thinking.)

Second, I do believe in market-based ways of assigning credit and payment to the originators of ideas.

 

[Conza88]

Thanks, but I should clarify that the man made jobs are not for every woman. I've asked if it was an issue and it is. They have to be the real mccoy.

Tell her they are the real thing. Whatever, seriously. Your rebuttals can in now way be construed as academic in anyway, they are childish in the extreme.

YOU asked me to provide diamonds cheaper than the price etc. I did exactly that. You said that would be enough to convince you...

Well look at you reneging... typical. Moving the goal posts fallacy.

Ok bust on my economics all you want. You have absolutley no idea of how money is made in music. You have some numbers but you have some serious flaws. I can't take what you say here seriously because you are all wrong.

You have no right to an economic opinion. Pretty much just like a marxist doesn't. Completely ignorant, and you have so far admitted it.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."​

- Murray Rothbard.​

'Check yaself before ya wreck yaself.'

Yea, record companies do overcharge. Sure they have no one but themselves to blame for bad sales. But your number are well off and I'd have to ask when the last time was that you played in a touring band. And if you think big money is in performing. Well total revenue is certainly there. The actaul amount the band takes home? This can very and sure some can be successful this way. But if this is your only revenue stream in music, well more than likely you are fucked. This is not the best way to seek a career in music. Been there done that, you have a huge misconception.

Present facts. Mere conjecture.

The fundamental principle is; you have an emotional attachment to IP, you think it protects your songs etc. and it's the only way for you to make money. Big fail right there.

Let's say you sign to a recording studio etc. They get the copyright for your songs, OR your voice, like Nancy Cartwright and her Bart Simpson voice. MGM or someone are sueing her / Scientology, because she used the voice to promote Scientology. OR a book publisher owns the copyright on your book as an author; as MANY do.

Years down the track, the company goes bust or it simply refuses to market your material. They don't want to republish your books, so it DIES, it recedes into the ABYSS of non existence. You can't play your own song because you don't own the copyright on it. You can use the voice you created... it's insane.

What about if you have an opening melody or song or whatever, that apparently closely mirrors someone elses, and they sue you...

It's fken idiotic. Get over your emotional reasoning, that you think its in your best interest to support IP. It ain't champ. And the sooner you wake up to that, the better you'll be off.

You're just afraid of the competition. Figures.