Tough issue: Internet Radio

[torchbearer]

http://www.myspace.com/jivasrecords
http://www.myspace.com/rfltour
http://www.jivasrecords.com
http://www.gulfrockus.com

Some sites are incomplete. the myspace sites are more of our store fronts. i don't do well with web design. any volunteers are welcomed.

the rfl tour is the vehicle we are using to gather support for ron paul. we just had a rock for liberty show a couple of weeks ago.

 

[torchbearer]

If you watch the video on the myspace.com/rfltour page, you'll hear clips of my band's music as the background music.
the slide shows pictures are of our many rock for liberty show... and our showcase band.
we are also working on an internet radio project/podcast. working just with good indie bands.

 

[nayjevin]

'puppet rehab' hell ya fukemup
nice
yeah the video music too
good stuff

usually this type of referral turns out to be pretty lame -- but this isn't

thanks!

 

[torchbearer]

Yeah, well that's not the case. I listen almost entirely to non-RIAA music.

Same here. I enjoy indie music. in fact, a lot of these bands are way better than the top 40 crap. you just have to find them.. but thats half the fun.

 

[torchbearer]

yeh, puppet rehad was written and recorded by a band called 'US'. they are one of our bands. we have evanesence's live sound guy coming in next month to record their album. the stuff they have up now is just some early cuts of their music without vocals. definitely check out their site too.

 

[torchbearer]

Well, it goes to a bigger issue of copyright law in general. Every copyright holder has a monopoly on whatever they copyrighted. The RIAA expands this by taking many individual copyright holders and banding them together so they act in lockstep, like a large monopoly. But it's a voluntary association of copyright holders, so I don't think it can or should be "broken up" by the government. But considering this case in detail would be an interesting exercise in libertarian thought.

Intellectual property isn't a monopoly.

 

[torchbearer]

bump

 

[Give me liberty]

New licensing fees could doom Internet radio, but webcasters are fighting back with a 'Day of Silence

If, like me, you're a fan of Internet radio sites such as Pandora or Live365, you'll have to find something else to listen to Tuesday. Dozens of online broadcasters have stopped playing music, in protest of a new levy the government and the music labels are about to impose.

An overly dramatic gesture? A petulant response to a little extra taxation? Perhaps -- until you discover that the new fee appears to add up to more than the annual revenue of all Internet radio sites put together. That ludicrously high bill could well cripple this promising young industry in its crib.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/magazines/business2/internet_radio.biz2/

So that means alex jones radio and other radio talkhosters will stop and protest.

Mean i love radio Internet without it, i wouldnt have know about the NAU.

 

[Montana]

Intellectual property isn't a monopoly.

"Intellectual Property" isn't property. What people call intellectual property is very much a monopoly. If it wasn't a monopoly then it wouldn't be illegal for me to compete with them by making free copies.

The whole concept of copyright is somewhat antithetical to libertarianism. The CRB thing is like net neutrality all over again: It's government interference in the market as a solution to other government interference in the market. First the government destroys the market for copies of a particular copyrighted work (or broadband internet access) with its regulations, then it comes up with more laws to contend with the abuses of those government-created monopolies.

 

[torchbearer]

I thought it was porperty in the since that if i create it using my body, which is my property... the fruit of that effort is also my property... an intellectual property... that i own just as much as i own myself... and thus, if i choose.. i can sell that property...
If you don't own your ideas... you don't own your self.

 

[kylejack]

"Intellectual Property" isn't property. What people call intellectual property is very much a monopoly. If it wasn't a monopoly then it wouldn't be illegal for me to compete with them by making free copies.

The whole concept of copyright is somewhat antithetical to libertarianism. The CRB thing is like net neutrality all over again: It's government interference in the market as a solution to other government interference in the market. First the government destroys the market for copies of a particular copyrighted work (or broadband internet access) with its regulations, then it comes up with more laws to contend with the abuses of those government-created monopolies.

The product of my labor should certainly be protected. This can only be done by defending intellectual property. Even the founders understood the importance of patents and copyrights.

 

[Chase]

Intellectual Property is a poor term to use. This is just a generic label used to roll up different protection schemes in an attempt to make them all look the same. They are very different.

Trademark law, for instance, protects your name. There are, of course, fair use provisions. And if your name enters common vocabulary, the good of the people wins and you lose exclusive rights to the mark.

Copyright law protects your work. There are, of course, fair use provisions. It's really designed to protect you from commercial exploitation.

Patent law sucks, IMO, because it lacks the fair use provisions. If I think of a great invention that you've already thought of and patented, I can't even build it myself without running afoul of the law. This is true even if I've never met you, seen your version of the invention or heard of your patent. With 6 or 7 billion people on the planet, it's hardly surprising that more than one person can come up with a given invention. Giving sole rights to that invention to the first person is just the state propping up an unfair monopoly.

The modern patent system is basically good for one thing: warfare between megacorporations. Individual inventors are hardly protected these days - most of them work at the megacorporations, earning paltry salaries, and the moment they have a good idea, the megacorporation gets the rights to it because of their employment contract.

It's a nice idea in the abstract, perhaps, but it has real world problems. Remember that the point of Copyrights and Patents is to encourage people to share the useful arts. The moment these systems actually run contrary to their stated goal is the moment they should be dissolved.

 

[kylejack]

Intellectual Property is a poor term to use. This is just a generic label used to roll up different protection schemes in an attempt to make them all look the same. They are very different.

Trademark law, for instance, protects your name. There are, of course, fair use provisions. And if your name enters common vocabulary, the good of the people wins and you lose exclusive rights to the mark.

Copyright law protects your work. There are, of course, fair use provisions. It's really designed to protect you from commercial exploitation.

Patent law sucks, IMO, because it lacks the fair use provisions. If I think of a great invention that you've already thought of and patented, I can't even build it myself without running afoul of the law. This is true even if I've never met you, seen your version of the invention or heard of your patent. With 6 or 7 billion people on the planet, it's hardly surprising that more than one person can come up with a given invention. Giving sole rights to that invention to the first person is just the state propping up an unfair monopoly.

The modern patent system is basically good for one thing: warfare between megacorporations. Individual inventors are hardly protected these days - most of them work at the megacorporations, earning paltry salaries, and the moment they have a good idea, the megacorporation gets the rights to it because of their employment contract.

It's a nice idea in the abstract, perhaps, but it has real world problems. Remember that the point of Copyrights and Patents is to encourage people to share the useful arts. The moment these systems actually run contrary to their stated goal is the moment they should be dissolved.

Patents can be denied if they're seen to be exceedingly obvious, or on the basis of existing work.

 

[Montana]

I thought it was porperty in the since that if i create it using my body, which is my property... the fruit of that effort is also my property... an intellectual property... that i own just as much as i own myself... and thus, if i choose.. i can sell that property...
If you don't own your ideas... you don't own your self.

There is nothing stopping you from selling your ideas. It's just that once you do, the person who you sold them to can do with them what they will, including selling them on to others. Remember what Jefferson said:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called 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. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

The problem with claiming ideas as exclusive property is that no idea exists in a vacuum. You might purchase and own the materials and tools you use to build a thing in the physical world, but what about the ideas of those who came before you, the ideas that yours could not exist without? They don't belong exclusively to you, so neither can the end result -- you can't go into the hardware store and build something out of the materials on the shelves and then claim sole ownership of the whole merely because you applied effort in assembling it.

It also presents rather significant conflicts with the freedom of speech. A man can buy up all of a dead philosopher's copyrights and use them to prohibit the distribution of his words. Someone who once published terrible things can use copyright to prevent any further copies from being created to expose him.

However, despite all of the philosophical criticisms I can make of copyright, I think the most significant one is practical: Copyright worked a lot better in the 19th century, when the reproduction and distribution costs dwarfed the cost of authoring the work, than it does today when the opposite is true. Increasing the cost of a book by a few percent in order to cover its authoring is a sane idea. Increasing the cost of a download by a factor of over 1000 to do the same is plainly ridiculous, which is why so many skirt the law in order to avoid doing so. It is much better to find a different way to compensate authors and artists, without prohibiting others from using the works they purchase as they will, and allow competition in the market for distributing works.