Re-selling your MP3 files is a copyright violation, FedCoat judge rules.

[jmdrake]

I'd just like to add that even if an MP3 is "copyproof" similar to copyproof CDs, there's a relatively easy workaround. Just a DAW to record each song while playing it in iTunes or whatever player. Then, convert the .wav to .mp3, and voila, you've got an easily copied file.

Music industry, thou art a dinosaur. Evolve or die.

Yeah. You're right. So much for my "Bitcoinmusic" make me a billion dollars idea. Curse you heavenlyboy!

Seriously though, I was at an IP seminar few years ago where someone from the Candian music industry told us what they were doing. They struck a deal with the high speed internet providers where customers could voluntarily pay a surcharge and then download any music they wanted for free. The ISPs would pay musicians royalties based on how many songs were downloaded similarly to how radio now pays royalties based on how many songs are played. That's the model that makes the most sense to me. I think a lot of people would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to have total download freedom without fear of prosecution.

 

[oyarde]

Couldn't the same be said about a book, a CD, a DVD? Heck with the invention of 3D printers couldn't the same be said about nearly everything?

I loan all my books out , in my family , we only buy one , then everyone reads it.

 

[Matt Collins]

Its illegal to buy a cd and rip the music off of it. Just incase you don't want to use your diskman player.

That's untrue. You are allowed to make a personal backup copy.

 

[angelatc]

I am confused , does this mean I can no longer lend out my original vinyl Stones , Doors , Led, Beatles & Woodstock ?

No. But you can't re-record them and sell the copies.

 

[angelatc]

Yeah. You're right. So much for my "Bitcoinmusic" make me a billion dollars idea. Curse you heavenlyboy!

Seriously though, I was at an IP seminar few years ago where someone from the Candian music industry told us what they were doing. They struck a deal with the high speed internet providers where customers could voluntarily pay a surcharge and then download any music they wanted for free. The ISPs would pay musicians royalties based on how many songs were downloaded similarly to how radio now pays royalties based on how many songs are played. That's the model that makes the most sense to me. I think a lot of people would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to have total download freedom without fear of prosecution.

The fact that iTunes even exists means that people aren't necessarily looking for free product. They want convenience, too.

 

[Matt Collins]

Copying is not a crime

In some cases it is, in other cases it is a tort. Copyright law gives special privileges to authors of creative works, and one of those privileges is legal exclusivity of copying their creative work. Depending on how the unauthorized copying happens, for what purposes, for what medium, and what quantity, it can reach the threshold of criminal (govt vs accused) instead of civil (defendant vs plaintiff).

 

[Danan]

That's basically a reductio ad absurdum and people seem to agree with it...

The government creates artificial monopolies, called intellectual property, and then has to apply the principles in all kinds of ridiculous ways. If you can't resell what you own, you don't own it.

"But if you could resell it, how would we distinguish that from someone copying songs without buying them in the first place? In both cases the original owners don't lose their property and are virtually unaffected!" Exactly! Now think about that for a moment.

 

[jbauer]

That's untrue. You are allowed to make a personal backup copy.

.

However, to do so you have to strip the DRM off the song which "alters" the product which makes it illegal...assuming I'm up on understanding it all since it changes every other day.

 

[jbauer]

I'm talking about things that actually have value, like paper, and plastic. The design on the cover.

Come on this isn't hard. It's like commodity currency vs fiat currency.

I still disagree, would you be happier if they sent you a receipt for your mp3 purchase? MP3s have value, they exist, they give me unlimited listening ability without any distractions. Commodity vs fiat is a terrible example. The record company is able to print up and sell as many copies of Elton John they want. It doesn't decrease the value of said CD. Fiat currency value decreases linear to currency in circulation.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In some cases it is, in other cases it is a tort. Copyright law gives special privileges to authors of creative works, and one of those privileges is legal exclusivity of copying their creative work. Depending on how the unauthorized copying happens, for what purposes, for what medium, and what quantity, it can reach the threshold of criminal (govt vs accused) instead of civil (defendant vs plaintiff).

Just because the government calls an action a "crime" doesn't make it so, and you know it. I see people using their property as they wish without harming others, you see a crime. It's just a failure of your understanding of liberty.

I'm well aware of copyright law. It's BS, requiring one to do serious mental gymnastics and odd logical maneuvers to justify it, as others have pointed out.

 

[Matt Collins]

I see people using their property as they wish without harming others, you see a crime.

The government doesn't recognize it as belonging to the consumer though.

If the local government doesn't recognize title to your land, is it really "yours"?

 

[jbauer]

Just because the government calls an action a "crime" doesn't make it so, and you know it. I see people using their property as they wish without harming others, you see a crime. It's just a failure of your understanding of liberty.

I'm well aware of copyright law. It's BS, requiring one to do serious mental gymnastics and odd logical maneuvers to justify it, as others have pointed out.

Laws are laws, in this argument its the only thing that we can discuss and draw a line to help seperate. Whether you agree or disagree with a law is its own topic.

 

[unklejman]

I still disagree, would you be happier if they sent you a receipt for your mp3 purchase? MP3s have value, they exist, they give me unlimited listening ability without any distractions. Commodity vs fiat is a terrible example. The record company is able to print up and sell as many copies of Elton John they want. It doesn't decrease the value of said CD. Fiat currency value decreases linear to currency in circulation.

That receipt would not have value like an original CD in it's original case would have. Besides, I would never buy an mp3. I buy and listen to albums as a complete work, and I prefer to have a hard copy and create lossless files with which to listen.

 

[Danan]

The government doesn't recognize it as belonging to the consumer though.

If the local government doesn't recognize title to your land, is it really "yours"?

If I aquired that land according to libertarian property rights principles: yes.

If the local government enslaves me, do they really "own" me? If the local government decides to kill a certain group of people, is that justice?

 

[jbauer]

That receipt would not have value like an original CD in it's original case would have. Besides, I would never buy an mp3. I buy and listen to albums as a complete work, and I prefer to have a hard copy and create lossless files with which to listen.

I prefer to be able to hold 100k songs on a hard drive the size of one of your albums. Doesn't that add value for me? The cases are so worthless to me that the few CDs I had I threw away because the MP3 container is much more convienent. The point being that value is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[jbauer]

If I aquired that land according to libertarian property rights principles: yes.

If the local government enslaves me, do they really "own" me? If the local government decides to kill a certain group of people, is that justice?

Only if that certain group of people is muslim

 

[unklejman]

I'm well aware of copyright law. It's BS, requiring one to do serious mental gymnastics and odd logical maneuvers to justify it, as others have pointed out.

I'm just curious. Have you ever had aspirations to write music, or a book, or any other type of artwork?

It seems like a lot of people want to act like artwork just falls from the sky and don't want to recognize the talent and work that went into creating it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just how it seems.

 

[Danan]

I'm just curious. Have you ever had aspirations to write music, or a book, or any other type of artwork?

It seems like a lot of people want to act like artwork just falls from the sky and don't want to recognize the talent and work that went into creating it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just how it seems.

Not only do I believe that he is an artist, but there are many, many artists, writers, etc. against IP. It simply is not compatible with libertarianism, imho. It does not follow from first principles and I don't see what property rights theory that leads one to believe in IP is compatible with libertarianism. Also, the probably most prominent opponent of IP, Stephen Kinsella, is author and IP lawyer. If one guy "profits" from IP laws, then he.

But none of that really matters. Would you ask the Detroit auto-companies if they want to reduce tarrifs on Japanese and German cars? Would you ask slave owners if they believe slavery is just?

"Does anybody of you own slaves? It seems to me that you are just a bunch of non-slave-owners, arguing against slavery!"

 

[Matt Collins]

If I aquired that land according to libertarian property rights principles: yes.

If the local government enslaves me, do they really "own" me? If the local government decides to kill a certain group of people, is that justice?

Let's say you own land that you do not live on, and you are not homesteading it. It's just laying vacant. If you're not there and you don't posses it, without the government's protection and recognition of your title, then anyone could take your land.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I still disagree, would you be happier if they sent you a receipt for your mp3 purchase? MP3s have value, they exist, they give me unlimited listening ability without any distractions. Commodity vs fiat is a terrible example. The record company is able to print up and sell as many copies of Elton John they want. It doesn't decrease the value of said CD. Fiat currency value decreases linear to currency in circulation.

You're incorrect. Mass producing anything drives its price down. And it's not fair to compare a CD to an MP3. MP3's are super-abundant, CDs are not. In the real world, a CD is only worth a few cents. It's just a combination of market demand and market manipulation that drives up the price. If you go to some music stores, convenience stores, etc, you can find bins of old/unpopular media available free or extremely cheap.

The super-abundance of MP3's makes them worthless.