The Grateful Dead exploded modern myths of IP

[torchbearer]

and if you could be marketed without sharing your music, and sell every single listen, are you denying you would?

I don't blame you for adjusting to the market and world, but that's not the same as saying everybody should be forced to do the same.

oh, i don't like the idea of force. just which direction is the force coming from?

 

[WaltM]

if you really wanted to hear my music for free, you could wade through my 28,000 post. there are about 15 post that contain links to mp3s.
i'd consider it an honor if people took the time to listen to it.
it will cost neither of us anything additional. art will be shared.

exactly my point.

had you try to sell it, you might not have the same luck.

But you wanted to give some away, as that's the necessary cost to market it out.

 

[WaltM]

oh, i don't like the idea of force. just which direction is the force coming from?

the IP deniers in this forum, who say that music, books can and should be copied for free at all times, and nobody should be compensated for it after they've sold their one copy.

 

[torchbearer]

the IP deniers in this forum, who say that music, books can and should be copied for free at all times, and nobody should be compensated for it after they've sold their one copy.

how does a band choose which system they wish to follow?

 

[WaltM]

how does a band choose which system they wish to follow?

by whatever they think benefits them.

they might get it wrong, but it's their choice and responsibility.

its not up to the consumer to deprive them of their copyright & privileges unless they've explicitly released their rights. (why is this so hard to understand, whereas nobody would deny that a person has a right to life, even if he's not explicitly claimed so)

 

[dannno]

Walt, if I owned a couch and sold it to you, but specified that you weren't allowed to have pets on the couch, do you believe that I can go to the government and tell them to go check to make sure you aren't allowing pets on the couch? Especially if you never signed anything? It isn't my couch, I'm not renting it out to you, it's your property now, you can let animals on the couch if you want to. You don't need permission from the government to do what you wish with your property. Anything else goes against the true spirit of property rights.

What if I wrote a note on the couch that said by buying this couch you agree not to have pets on it.. but I didn't tell you about the hidden note, I just had police show up at your door? Do you see how your beliefs are the anti-thesis of liberty?

 

[torchbearer]

by whatever they think benefits them.

they might get it wrong, but it's their choice and responsibility.

its not up to the consumer to deprive them of their copyright & privileges unless they've explicitly released their rights. (why is this so hard to understand, whereas nobody would deny that a person has a right to life, even if he's not explicitly claimed so)

i see. i choose to go IP free. i'm cool with the model because it worked well for me.

 

[torchbearer]

people who don't like IP shouldn't buy from bands that support it.

 

[WaltM]

people who don't like IP shouldn't buy from bands that support it.

I agree.

but people here, such as dannno and heavenlyboy, seem to believe that they can violate copyright just because they never agreed to it.

 

[dannno]

people who don't like IP shouldn't buy from bands that support it.

I don't

Sometimes I make copies of their ones and zeros, and never steal a cent from the band..

I would probably consider going to their shows, though, so that they have more incentive to not give a shit about album sales.. since going to a concert is equivalent of buying several of the band's CDs..

 

[dannno]

I agree.

but people here, such as dannno and heavenlyboy, seem to believe that they can violate copyright just because they never agreed to it.

I violate bullshit copyrights because I'm not stealing from anybody and I never agreed to the contract.

I still support actual musicians more than people who just buy albums.

 

[WaltM]

Walt, if I owned a couch and sold it to you

in order for you to "sell it to me", we have to both agree on the terms.

, but specified that you weren't allowed to have pets on the couch, do you believe that I can go to the government and tell them to go check to make sure you aren't allowing pets on the couch?

yes, if it's a contract that I agreed to.

Especially if you never signed anything?

if I didn't sign it, you'd have to show how I was supposed to be bound to these terms. Now, just because you are ignorant of laws that apply to you (in default), does not mean you're free to violate it.

if it was common practice(and the law) that sale of couches had attached conditions, then, YES, I WELCOME YOU TO ENFORCE IT.

It isn't my couch, I'm not renting it out to you, it's your property now, you can let animals on the couch if you want to.

Not if I agreed otherwise, or if the law specified what I can't do.

Which is EXACTLY THE CASE WITH GUNS, just because I didn't agree not to kill people with my gun doesn't mean I'm allowed to.

You don't need permission from the government to do what you wish with your property. Anything else goes against the true spirit of property rights.

What if I wrote a note on the couch that said by buying this couch you agree not to have pets on it.. but I didn't tell you about the hidden note, I just had police show up at your door? Do you see how your beliefs are the anti-thesis of liberty?

yes, if you had a hidden note, that's neither an agreement nor a law.

Copyright does NOT fall under a hidden note, it's a forced agreement by default. Copyright labels are often explicit on the outside (and by default, you are bound by it, just like you are to anti-murder laws)

 

[WaltM]

I violate bullshit copyrights because I'm not stealing from anybody and I never agreed to the contract.

I still support actual musicians more than people who just buy albums.

So if I never agreed to anti-murder laws, I shouldn't be forced to abide by them?

You've NEVER EVER responded to this question (because you can't!)

 

[Son of Detroit]

I don't actually need to read the article. You know darn well yourself that NOT ALL BANDS are nearly as good as Grateful Dead, so not all bands will benefit from an IP free society.

Grateful Dead and good in the same sentence. Hah. :o

 

[dannno]

So if I never agreed to anti-murder laws, I shouldn't be forced to abide by them?

You've NEVER EVER responded to this question (because you can't!)

Of course we have answered that question, hundreds of times, you just don't listen. You can't violate somebody's person or property. Period. It's so simple, you are the one who tries to complicate things and create immoral laws.

If a band produces 100,000 copies of an album, and I never steal any of them, then I never deprived them of their property. If I copy my friend's that he bought, with my friend's permission, jack shit can be done. Literally. It's been happening since the advent of music production. You are actually under the impression that this can some how be enforced, but it can't.

I don't believe in laws that are impossible to enforce. Murder and stealing are possible to enforce because somebody or some THING goes MISSING or is injured. When the supposed owner of the item can't even tell when their "property" has gone "missing" then it makes it completely impossible to enforce.

I'm the one taking the logical, simplistic approach. You are the one taking the tyrannical, complex and impossible approach. You have to show how that benefits society, and from the OP we can see that there is no benefit to the tyranny you enjoy sustaining.

 

[Old Ducker]

The Dead proved that in an IP world you can voluntarily surrender some rights and still prosper vis a vis those who don't. Lots of deadheads were moar free shit hippies so this was simply catering to their clientele.

Next.

 

[WaltM]

Of course we have answered that question, hundreds of times, you just don't listen. You can't violate somebody's person or property. Period. It's so simple, you are the one who tries to complicate things and create immoral laws.

Says who that a person or property is not to be violated, but copyright can be?

If a band produces 100,000 copies of an album, and I never steal any of them, then I never deprived them of their property.

There's more than one way to deprive a person of their property.

If I trespassed your home, did I deprive your property or cause any monetary loss?

If I copy my friend's that he bought, with my friend's permission, jack shit can be done. Literally. It's been happening since the advent of music production. You are actually under the impression that this can some how be enforced, but it can't.

You're under the impression that nobody gets away with murder, but some do.

Or fraud, counterfeit, ID theft.

I don't believe in laws that are impossible to enforce. Murder and stealing are possible to enforce because somebody or some THING goes MISSING or is injured.

so if I can't show what's missing or injured, I can't be punished?

When the supposed owner of the item can't even tell when their "property" has gone "missing" then it makes it completely impossible to enforce.

Good, so if I walk into your house without your knowledge, I can't be violating your property.

I'm the one taking the logical, simplistic approach. You are the one taking the tyrannical, complex and impossible approach. You have to show how that benefits society

No, I'm not interested in benefitting society, or else I'd be a socialist.

But even if I did, I don't see how anti-murder laws benefit the society I live in.
(yet you are happy to force people to abide by them)

, and from the OP we can see that there is no benefit to the tyranny you enjoy sustaining.

You can't see it.
Too bad some people don't need to care what you see/don't see.

 

[Fox McCloud]

WaltM; trolling Ron Paul forums since January 2010.

 

[Old Ducker]

WaltM; trolling Ron Paul forums since January 2010.

No moar than all the anti-ip freaks are.

 

[silverhandorder]

The Dead proved that in an IP world you can voluntarily surrender some rights and still prosper vis a vis those who don't. Lots of deadheads were moar free shit hippies so this was simply catering to their clientele.

Next.

You don't have a right to be free of competition. You also do not have a right to me using my property the way you want it. If I chose to use my own resources for copy purposes I am free to do so.

But as I said before this is not a pressing issue for me. If you can't be honest with your self then so be it.