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

[Ranger29860]

If i understand this right you could just rip the hardrive out that is holding the original download of the file and sell that since it would not be copying according the the judge. Kind of the same way you could sell a cassette tape that you got but if you were to copy that tape and sell the copy even if you were to destroy the original you would still be in trouble. So I see no issue with the ruling.

Its the reproduction that is the problem not the reselling.

 

[jbauer]

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!"

(true story) If my wife attends 4 years of college, 12 years of internships before/during college, 14 years in business for herself after college learning for herself. 14+ years and 10s of thousands of dollars marketing. Endless trips around the country sell her knowledge and assisting others improve thier skills. Should she be able to write an instructional book and sell it or should it be free to everyone?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

That could happen regardless of government existence. If Jones keeps a parcel as a summer retreat, Smith could easily fence off Jones' summer home and keep it for himself. Hell, there are laws that allow the government to steal your land with a few legal tricks. And there's nothing to keep the regime from creating new and more creative ways of stealing your stuff. Don't like it? Too damn bad. Power does what it wants and will never, ever, ever care about a written constitution.

 

[Matt Collins]

My thoughts on this if anyone cares to go back and read what I have written is quite consistent.


There is no such thing as intellectual "property", it is only privileges that the federal government has doled out to create artificially monopoly with the goal of being to spur innovation in the "arts and sciences". It's not even rights, because the government can't grant rights. Once that distinction is understood everything becomes clear.


The biggest problem with this system is that it's antiquated, bloated, and abused. I don't have a problem so much with the government protecting artists, inventors, etc, but I do have a problem with it being done to the point of absurdity which it is now.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

(true story) If my wife attends 4 years of college, 12 years of internships before/during college, 14 years in business for herself after college learning for herself. 14+ years and 10s of thousands of dollars marketing. Endless trips around the country sell her knowledge and assisting others improve thier skills. Should she be able to write an instructional book and sell it or should it be free to everyone?

No one claimed a person can't try to make a profit on creative works. Just that IP laws are illegitimate. Creators always have and always will find ways to profit without IP laws.

Take your book example. If your wife wants to control how the information is disseminated, she should set up some way in which readers would have to rent the book. For example, keep it in a library where it cannot be checked out. Your wife would profit from the library's purchase of the book and users' rental fees. The problem with that is that most people wouldn't do that. So, you either suffer real losses incurred from dissemination of the product or the imaginary losses incurred from rightful owners of the book copying it.

 

[unklejman]

My thoughts on this if anyone cares to go back and read what I have written is quite consistent.


There is no such thing as intellectual "property", it is only privileges that the federal government has doled out to create artificially monopoly with the goal of being to spur innovation in the "arts and sciences". It's not even rights, because the government can't grant rights. Once that distinction is understood everything becomes clear.


The biggest problem with this system is that it's antiquated, bloated, and abused. I don't have a problem so much with the government protecting artists, inventors, etc, but I do have a problem with it being done to the point of absurdity which it is now.

I agree 100%.

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

Precisely, and this is the crux of the matter.

As supply approaches infinity, cost approaches zero. As you have correctly pointed out, information is essentially worthless due to the ability for it to have an infinite amount of copies with no overhead.

 

[Matt Collins]

That could happen regardless of government existence. If Jones keeps a parcel as a summer retreat, Smith could easily fence off Jones' summer home and keep it for himself.

Except that the government would punish him (and thus deter) him for doing so.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Except that the government would punish him (and thus deter) him for doing so.

Unless Smith could buy off the right congress critters, judges, etc. Such things happen routinely already. Corruption is such a natural part of the system that it doesn't shock most people much anymore.

 

[Matt Collins]

Unless Smith could buy off the right congress critters, judges, etc. Such things happen routinely already. Corruption is such a natural part of the system that it doesn't shock most people much anymore.

Humans always seek to dominate and plunder other humans. The best way to do this is to ensure that power is as diffuse as possible. Of course the only way to diffuse power is to first acquire it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

I see you haven't been following the IP debates long.

See my sig. I'm a composer and multi-media artist and occasionally a writer. I make the digital versions of my work available for free. If someone wants me to perform it (or get a print my art/writing), I charge for that.

So, yes-I have almost 17 years' experience recording, writing, creating, and performing to back my claim. (not to mention once winning an editor's choice award for my poetry and an International Poet Of Merit award)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Humans always seek to dominate and plunder other humans. The best way to do this is to ensure that power is as diffuse as possible. Of course the only way to diffuse power is to first acquire it.

Humans are born with power (over themselves). Their only right in the context of the world at large is to protect their own natural rights with the various moral means available.

 

[DamianTV]

If Corporations get their way, they will get a profit any time YOU sell anything you already own. Now, lets make this even worse. Since genetic code will also be included, this will also apply anything that you grow. If you actually produce something of value, like a chair, guess what, someone else will get a piece of the profit as well, off of your efforts. Be sure to thank your Corporate Congress for all of these wonderful freedoms, like the *ahem* freedom to pay someone else for the work you do.

 

[Danan]

My thoughts on this if anyone cares to go back and read what I have written is quite consistent.


There is no such thing as intellectual "property", it is only privileges that the federal government has doled out to create artificially monopoly with the goal of being to spur innovation in the "arts and sciences". It's not even rights, because the government can't grant rights. Once that distinction is understood everything becomes clear.


The biggest problem with this system is that it's antiquated, bloated, and abused. I don't have a problem so much with the government protecting artists, inventors, etc, but I do have a problem with it being done to the point of absurdity which it is now.

I appreciate the honesty of not calling it property. Anyone who sees that and agrees with this stance has to realize that it is not compatible with usual libertarian ethics (NAP + property rights theory). That leaves utilitarian reasons. But you can't call copying "theft" once you accept that IP is not real property. You can also not say that content creators "deserve" to earn profits from their work (as already pointed out the labor theory of value is BS). They are merely in the convinient position that they profit from some utilitarian government program that allegedly makes society as a whole better off.

You can be in favor of IP laws because you believe it makes society more "efficient" due to "positive externalities" and don't care for moral reasons (or your morality is simply utilitarianism). I would severly disagree with that position. I believe even a positive analysis of the problem would show that a world without IP laws is likely more efficient (and there are good empirical as well as theoretical reasons to believe that).

Anyway, once you accept that IP is not real property you can not call copying theft or morally wrong and neither is anyone morally entitled to be paid because of their effort.

(I'm not saying that Matt is guilty of any of those things, it's just a general observation.)

 

[Matt Collins]

But you can't call copying "theft" once you accept that IP is not real property.

Well, you can't call it theft regardless, because it isn't. Copyright infringement is NOT the same as theft. I think most people around here and in the tech community get it, but the content industry has been shoveling propaganda for decades about this trying to make people feel guilty for copying content.

You can also not say that content creators "deserve" to earn profits from their work (as already pointed out the labor theory of value is BS). They are merely in the convinient position that they profit from some utilitarian government program that allegedly makes society as a whole better off.

Exactly. And I think the authors of the Constitution understood that and even said so, that they are trying to give creative authors/inventors, etc a limited monopoly in the hopes that it spurs innovation and art, so that it can eventually end up in the public domain so that "everyone" owns it and society as a whole benefits.

neither is anyone morally entitled to be paid because of their effort.

I agree, it is nothing more than government fiat. The Constitution doesn't require it, and Congress could abolish all copyright and patents tomorrow if they so choose to. It's not really a moral issue at all in fact, although as mentioned, the content providers would like to make it seem like it is.

 

[The Free Hornet]

not going to be popular, but I think the judge made the right call.

M'eh - this hinges on the uselessness of what people "buy" with their iTunes and Amazon accounts. Strictly speaking, you give money and get shit in return. This is true whether you buy a non-transferable personal license (digitial download/mp3 - further limited by pages of legalese and laws not yet rammed down our throats) or a physical CD. Even the purchas of the CD has limitations despite being a physical item. E.g., you cannot play it in such a manner that lots of people can hear it. That's a public performance.

As such, there is really no metaphor that works well and protects the rights of the buyer. The terms of the purchase can and will change. My advice is to give the content industry as little money as possible unless you know and understand exactly how little your dollar buys. It would be better to save your money in case the IP thugs come after you. The purchase of any personal item or license gives you very little legal protection.

And yes I KNOW the argument that the originator still has what he had before so since you didn't take anything, how can it be theft? Well, morally it is.

Technically, legally, and morally, it is copyright infringement. Maybe you should concern yourself with the Original Intent of the founders and not make up bullshit. Thomas Jefferson understood this, why don't you?:

Jefferson wrote further "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is ... 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."

www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml
(from the comments section)

Yes, we disagree about government-forced IP, but stop using bullshit and loaded terms like "theft" which imply criminality and the police force/prison-industrial complex response. If you care about people getting credit for their work, then you ought to care first for the truth. Sacrafice one for the other and you lose both.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I honestly don't see what the confusion is about. How can you sell a data to some one if there is no way to guarantee that you aren't just copying the file?

The copy is of little relevance. They were trying to sell a license. Often, these are transferable just as you might sublet an apartment.

The judge is simply confirming the worthlessness of most digital downloads. Oddly, the people who sell these downloads are happy with the announcement. Yes, they are that fucking insane.

 

[DamianTV]

Thank you for eating my Peanut!

Of course, when you ate my Peanut, you also agreed to the Non Transferrable Irrevokable License agreement that if you try to sell your own peanuts, I will hereby acquire 110% of your profits because that was a Genetically Engineered Peanut and I own the genetic information of All Peanuts in the World! And while Im at it, if Peanuts exist on any other planets in the Universe, fuck, I own them too because I said so!

Pay up! Mundane!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thank you for eating my Peanut!

Of course, when you ate my Peanut, you also agreed to the Non Transferrable Irrevokable License agreement that if you try to sell your own peanuts, I will hereby acquire 110% of your profits because that was a Genetically Engineered Peanut and I own the genetic information of All Peanuts in the World! And while Im at it, if Peanuts exist on any other planets in the Universe, fuck, I own them too because I said so!

Pay up! Mundane!

Do I pay a poop tax too when I poop out the peanuts?

 

[DamianTV]

Do I pay a poop tax too when I poop out the peanuts?

Thank you for your inquiry into this matter. Although we do not require you to pay a poop tax, you are required to wipe your ass with a brand of toilet paper which is manufactered either by our corporation, or one of its respective subsidiaries. We respect your rights as a consumer to choose between Rough Grit Sandpaper Bathroom Tissue Brand #1 or Brand #2, of which, we do own both brands.