Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[Matt Collins]

you damned well ARE stealing from them, and I don't see how music is any different. but dosnloading free music against the artist or the record companies' wishes is theft.

Yeah, WayBehind, it's hysterical alright. It's hysterical that some are doing their best to twist reality such that theft of the product of someone's hard work and talent, is not exactly that --- THEFT.

Why do yall have such a Luddite mentality on this?!?!?

Please try to think it through logically

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4

This video sums up the hysteria around piracy in my opinion.

To make this post a little less useless I will reiterate that my definition of theft is the deprivation of profit or physical goods for the owner or distributer. Downloading music does not deprive anyone of anything - and there is no way to enforce any laws against it, even if there was, as I said before, music would be recorded from the radio or from concerts. If there is no profit being made by downloading music, i.e by redistributing it, then there is no crime.

To be fair, the reason it is theft in the current setup is that royalty payments that would have been generated are negated in the process of copyright infringement.

 

[Matt Collins]

If you produce a product and someone takes it without paying for it, then why would you keep producing it?

Very good point. But the answer to the question is simple... to use it to promote other things, or to use it to make money off of in an indirect manner.

 

[Matt Collins]

It deprives them of the money you might have paid, had you not stolen their property from them by downloading it for free.

What if I go and download NSYNC's greatest hits?

I sure the hell wouldn't pay for it. Did NSYNC lose any money from me downloading it?


LOGIC... it's not just a good idea, it's the law...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do yall have such a Luddite mentality on this?!?!?

Please try to think it through logically

Ad hominems and rudeness don't help you, Matt. You have to understand that the current system is not capable of handling your (and in some ways my) ideals. Frame your points more persuasively and logically, and you won't get such hostile replies.

 

[MGreen]

Here's a recent and intriguing post at the mises.org blog, written by "Abhilash Nambiar":

Chad Rushing, I do not think intellectual property is property because it is not a scarce, finite or exclusive resource. The fact that I can watch a movie does not prevent you from watching the same movie. The fact that I can sing does not prevent you from singing the same song. So what is not property cannot be stolen.

I do agree though that the person who conceived the original concept does have an intimate relationship with his brain child that others may not appreciate. Yet intimacy cannot change what is not property to begin with into property. So theft cannot be said to occur.

Nevertheless one may conclude that the intimacy between a person and his idea must be respected. But that is a subjective value, which means a market mechanism can accommodate this if indeed making this accommodation aids in wealth generation (and I think it will) and if such accommodation does not aggress on anyone's private property (which I think is possible).

So an idea cannot be stolen. What is possible is to take false credit for someone else's idea. But that is not stealing unless this results in fraudulent transfer of private property. The market will definitely develop mechanisms to prevent that from happening and one of the ways to achieve that is by developing systems that will enable people to get due credit as well as monetary rewards for coming up with good ideas. If that service is highly sought after there will be more firms providing it, bringing the price down and making it highly affordable. So there.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What if I go and download NSYNC's greatest hits?

I sure the hell wouldn't pay for it. Did NSYNC lose any money from me downloading it?

LOGIC... it's not just a good idea, it's the law...

Your subjective opinions don't matter in issues of law, Matty.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Why do yall have such a Luddite mentality on this?!?!?

Please try to think it through logically

How is that music not property of the producer? If I produce crops, it is my property. Why, if I produce music or film, is it not my property? It has everything to do with property rights and nothing to do with privilege. Again, see the founders view on property and my previous post. Digital mediums and technological advancements do not change the nature of property.

Take my TV example. The owner of the property, the television show, is granting you access to their property for the time being. Just because they let you use the property doesn't mean you can claim title to it. If I lent you my guitar, and let you use it for a certain time, that doesn't mean you can claim title to it. The scenarios are identical....the medium of delivery doesn't change anything.

The fact of the matter is you're taking marching orders from the government, which is wrong. The medium of delivery on which property is placed does not change the nature of the property. You've been avoiding this left and right....I guess you can't disprove it.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch16s23.html

And this is the copyright clause

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's awfully simple compared to the other government jargon you've cited. How could one interpret that? Do you know the difference between "exclusive right" and "right?" Do you know what context the founders meant this in? And, in the worst case scenario, assuming they did support socialization of such property, what do you consider limited times?

Property is property. That's that.

 

[powerofreason]

If you produce a product and someone takes it without paying for it, then why would you keep producing it?

In a society without IP you need to constantly innovate to stay ahead. There's nothing unfair or wrong about that. No one steals anything.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What if I go and download NSYNC's greatest hits?

I sure the hell wouldn't pay for it. Did NSYNC lose any money from me downloading it?


LOGIC... it's not just a good idea, it's the law...

You don't get to decide whether it's ok or not ok to steal someone's property, Matt. They created the product; it is THEIRS and it is likewise their decision whether or not they want to offer it for free download. If they have not and yet, you still make the decision to download it, then you are stealing. This really isn't that difficult of a concept.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Any artist with a brain will tell you that downloading is an enormous boon, especially considering how much the record label takes away from them with little benefit

 

[WayBehind]

You might not want to get into a lengthy economic discussion because I'll school you. Property is PROPERTY. Read the words of the founders, just like I've posted in my previous post. Just because something is on a digital medium and technology enables it to be copied does not make it any less property. You do not have the right to someone else's property. Did you create the product? No. Then you do not have a right to it unless the person that holds title to the property passes title.

Also, youtube prohibits some property from being posted on its site, and some property owners prohibit youtube from posting their property. I think your blanket statement is a bit misled.

And, believe it or not, it is illegal to TiVo some things. And, in my opinion, rightfully so. Simple property rights. That TV show being broadcast is not your property. You do not have the right to claim title to it. For the time being, during that broadcast, the owner of that property is giving you access to it.

Again, just because we are technologically advanced now and can stream property in various ways doesn't mean property is any less property.

If property is property, why is there a separate clause in the Constitution dealing with copyrights and patents?

Unfortunately, this is not as black and white as you would like to believe.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Here's a recent and intriguing post at the mises.org blog, written by "Abhilash Nambiar":

Using that logic, we should only pay for a movie once and distribute it to everyone who wants it

Complete and total nonsense.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

If property is property, why is there a separate clause in the Constitution dealing with copyrights and patents?

Unfortunately, this is not as black and white as you would like to believe.

Please refer to my previous post where I dissect the copyright clause.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's awfully simple compared to the other government jargon you've cited. How could one interpret that? Do you know the difference between "exclusive right" and "right?" Do you know what context the founders meant this in? And, in the worst case scenario, assuming they did support socialization of such property, what do you consider limited times? What constitutes useful arts? How would a fiction book or song be considered useful arts? Were they referring to items such as medical discoveries and writings, or methods of farming which may be detrimental to the general welfare of the US if they were claimed as property? Could that be useful art and science?

If that's what the founders meant, which is what I think they did, there is a complete and total difference....a vivid black and white....between that kind of intellectual property and things like novels and writings and songs.

Unfortunately, the way you perceive "copyrights" are not as black and white as you make it seem.

 

[MGreen]

Using that logic, we should only pay for a movie once and distribute it to everyone who wants it

Complete and total nonsense.

Explain why it's nonsense. And how are "we" getting a copy of the movie? I could certainly think of safeguards to prevent copies leaking out, until individuals are able to buy copies of the DVD. Once the DVD belongs to a person, that DVD is his and he can make copies if he wants. Right now, that makes sense to me.

 

[WayBehind]

You are talking about mediums that generate royalties for the copyright owners. It's not even close to stealing. You fail.

Huh? If I own a DVR and record the Daily Show, how does Comedy Central make any money? I'm not sure how TiVo works; do they keep track of what you record and charge you a fee that they send to the owner of the program? And I wasn't aware that youtube pays royalties to those who put up a music videos, if that is indeed how it works. It still wouldn't change the argument in that you're getting something for nothing unless you're one of the .001% that look at and click through the tiny banner ads and then buy something.

 

[powerofreason]

Using that logic, we should only pay for a movie once and distribute it to everyone who wants it

Complete and total nonsense.

Yes! Movies would truly be art then, instead of the throwaway crap we get nowadays. They could sell physical copies fans could pay for, accept donations, become famous for their work, and best of all we could all enjoy the ideas without paying some arbitrary fee!

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Explain why it's nonsense. And how are "we" getting a copy of the movie? I could certainly think of safeguards to prevent copies leaking out, until individuals are able to buy copies of the DVD. Once the DVD belongs to a person, that DVD is his and he can make copies if he wants. Right now, that makes sense to me.

But what right do you have to the copy? That's not your property. You cannot claim title.

Unless you are referring to backing up your property, in which case I think it's perfectly acceptable. If you paid for the dvd, and want to store a copy to watch on your computer I believe you can do so because that DVD is your property.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

If property is property, why is there a separate clause in the Constitution dealing with copyrights and patents?

Unfortunately, this is not as black and white as you would like to believe.

Please refer to my previous post where I dissect the copyright clause.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

How could one interpret that? Do you know the difference between "exclusive right" and "right?" Do you know what context the founders meant this in? And, in the worst case scenario, assuming they did support socialization of such property, what do you consider limited times? What constitutes useful arts? How would a fiction book or song be considered useful arts? Were they referring to items such as medical discoveries and writings, or methods of farming which may be detrimental to the general welfare of the US if they were claimed as property? Could that be useful art and science?

If that's what the founders meant, which is what I think they did, there is a complete and total difference....a vivid black and white....between that kind of intellectual property and things like novels and writings and songs.

Unfortunately, the way you perceive "copyrights" are not as black and white as you make it seem.

 

[MGreen]

The DVD is mine. It contains bits of information that, when interpreted by the right hardware, presents the film that you made.

How are these bits of information, stored on my DVD, not mine?