Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[dannno]

Theres plenty of good radio stations, imo (in my area, anyways).

Especially online radio stations.

The free market has a way of providing content that the consumers want

Ya, the free market still appears at the fringes. At least for now.

 

[dannno]

I got the point, but still if the band thinks they don't want their creation get pirated even if that means losing public exposure, then do you think it's a good practice to force that favor on them?

As long as I'm not taking any of their property or profiting from their creation, then they don't have any decision in the matter.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

As long as I'm not taking any of their property or profiting from their creation, then they don't have any decision in the matter.

Do you feel the same way about books and DVDs, danno?

 

[Kludge]

You should be able to, for now. Replicating something diminishes the value of product (that is, distribution [uploading;"sharing"]), and perhaps it's an injustice, but there is no way to measure losses or enforce IP rights laws without violating privacy privileges. If producers want to protect their intellectual property, they need to think up new methods to protect themselves.

Should you, though? No, but if you're an uncaring jackass, what do you care? Same with products like "adblockers"....

 

[rpfan2008]

Hey cummon dannno, it's us who don't have any decision regarding their product at first place. At least this is how I see this, lately.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

You can record music off the radio, and spread it around, no one tends to have a problem with that.

The only reason they don't have a problem with it is because they can't monitor it - they have no way of knowing it's happening.

Oh and they did have a major problem with it - they tried to prevent both video tape and blank audio cassette cartridges from being sold to the public. That didn't work, so they tried to get a tax placed on each sale as a royalty to them for lost revenues and didn't get that either.

BigMusic are just a bunch of parasites...

-t


The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.

- Hunter S. Thompson

 

[dannno]

Do you feel the same way about books and DVDs, danno?

If somebody wants to xerox a book or a portion thereof and give it to someone else, then yes.

If you want to xerox the book and sell it, then that is a bit different.

 

[extrmmxer]

I think it's fraud & stealing from the consumer when an individual hears a song and likes it, then decides to go buy the CD. Only to learn that the one song is the only one that is good or they like. The individual bought the entire CD assuming the rest of the songs will be equally as good if not better. Or you're familar with a band and buy their newest CD only to realize the band decided to change and expirement with their music and it sucks. I think the consumer is mislead. People loved Guns & Roses in the early 90's finally was able to buy a new CD last year. Guess what. They got ripped off because it's nothing like the old G & R.

Same goes for a movie & video games. A consumer spends the money to buy a blu-ray or a PS3 game and realizes it sucks.

The ability to download these items is the best scenerio for these items. I download a game demo on my PS3 and if I like it, I'll buy it. I'll download a movie (torrent) if I like, I'll buy it. The ability to download and view or listen to something protects the consumer from fraud or being mislead.

 

[TonySutton]

I listen to Indie music. I refuse to support the corporate music industry.

 

[wizardwatson]

We keep coming back to this. IP rights are not only stupid, they are anti-liberty people.

www.stephankinsella.com/ip/

And Danno, if someone can xerox a book and give it to a friend and that's ok, why tag on "but selling the copy is not ok." First, why not? Second, who the hell is going to buy a book when you can get a copy for free?

IP rights are retarded. Our government spends billions of dollars subsidizing research then spends billions more so everyone can keep their discoveries a secret. Does this make sense?

Imagine what the world would be like if all information was free? If every book was digitized and available for kids to read. If every scientific periodical was available to read before your shop tries to reinvent or reproduce what someone has already done.

Copyrights and patents don't advance progress they hinder it, and on top of that, there is no rational legal foundation for copyrights or patents.

Go ahead and try to find one.

 

[mediahasyou]

The Intelectual Monopoly

Intellectual property laws are unlibertarian because they are protect intelectual monopolies.

As a libertarian, I support competition. When a patent is used, that patent destroys any potential competition for that product.

Piracy has a history of stimulating markets. Specifically, the American economy was able to establish a manufacturing industry after smuggling machine tool plans out of Britain.

Materialistic property can be owned. However, intellectual property cannot be owned. Knowledge cannot be owned.

Intellectual property is irrational. No one would ever claim they could sue me if I memorized a recipe out of a copyrighted cook book and then told the recipe word for word to a friend.

for more libertarian input, go to mises:
http://mises.org/story/3298

 

[jclay2]

Honestly, all the content that is "protected" in the world would still be produced if there wasn't IP monopoly. Without IP monopoly, the price drops dramatically and all of a sudden the world of information, productivity, and innovation is thrown down on everyone. Its like Wizardwatson said, "Imagine what the world would be like if all information was free? If every book was digitized and available for kids to read. If every scientific periodical was available to read before your shop tries to reinvent or reproduce what someone has already done."

 

[misterx]

If you download instead of buying, that's pretty much the same thing as theft. I hesitate to say it's exactly the same because you aren't taking any physical property that they will have to replace. On the other hand, if you only download things that you just flat out wouldn't buy anyway, then there's nothing wrong with it. You are not causing anyone to spend more money manufacturing anything, since there is no physical property involved. As long as you were never going to buy it anyways, it has no negative impact on anyone. It actually has a positive impact, because you might find something new that you really like, and then go buy all that band's albums because you downloaded something that you never would've given a chance otherwise. On other occasions, you might introduce a friend to something new that they might want to buy. Of course, all of this presumes that you know the difference between what you would and would not otherwise buy, and that you don't lie to yourself to have an excuse for getting something for free. It's a fine line, and a lot of people are quick to blur it.

 

[lucius]

Take a page from their system--"Do What Thou Wilt..." Arrgh Mateys...

 

[mediahasyou]

Thinking Does Not Need Incentives

In the market, there must be an incentive to work, thus there are profits.

IP is different. Humans are social creatures. When humans socialize, critically think, or philosophize chemicals are released in the brain to continue such activities.

You are all doing it right now...for free. We are sharing knowledge freely.

 

[Mahkato]

Wikipedia is living proof that unrestricted information grows a lot more quickly than that which is protected.

 

[fr33domfightr]

I'm learning about intellectual property on my own to prepare for the pro-intellectual property arguments in my law class (my professor even suggested perpetual patents...considering that's unconstitutional, I find it interesting that a law professor would suggest such a thing not that it'd be the first time), and was wondering if there were good arguments on why downloading music illegally is not unethical/immoral/or whatever else would make it be a "bad" thing.

How isn't it theft? I know one person had to buy the music somewhere along the lines, but to distribute it to potentially thousands of people when the record company only received the $10 for the original purchase, why or how isn't it stealing??

Your instructor's suggestion of perpetual patents is bad because it thwarts scientific development. Having limited patents enables others to modify and improve on past inventions.

When talking about "downloading," I think its important to frame the question correctly. Your initial question, "why downloading music illegally is not unethical/immoral/or whatever else would make it be a "bad" thing." You're already saying its "illegal," but that might be an issue to be argued. It's probably better to ask, "Is downloading music from peer-to-peer sites on the Internet unethical?" Do you see the difference? Remember this too, that not all artists work for RIAA Record Labels.

In this regard, I've got some ideas for you. I've heard people in the music industry pick up on the software license idea and apply that. So they'll say, "when you buy music, you don't own it, you're actually buying a license to LISTEN to it." On the users side, they'll then say, "then if my RECORD album gets scratched, then why can't I download the song, since I already purchased THE RIGHT to listen to the song?" or "why can't I get a free replacement?" or "why can't I buy a discounted replacement?" Or, "since I'm downloading an inferior quality song, compared to the high quality CD, who does it harm?"

Remember this, the RIAA is a trade association, who represent Record Labels, NOT Artists.

Other arguments might be similar to this: "If I buy a Newspaper, shouldn't I be allowed to let others read it?" "If I'm in my car and giving someone a ride, shouldn't I be able to play a CD, even if others listen without paying?" "What's illegal about sharing?"

The RIAA is to music as the MPAA is to movies. VCRs were considered illegal too, once. See info on the BetaMax. In the end, the movie industry made huge sums of money off VCRs and VHS players.

I hope that helps. Go here for music related ideas: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/


FF

 

[Kludge]

I think it's fraud & stealing from the consumer when an individual hears a song and likes it, then decides to go buy the CD. Only to learn that the one song is the only one that is good or they like. The individual bought the entire CD assuming the rest of the songs will be equally as good if not better. Or you're familar with a band and buy their newest CD only to realize the band decided to change and expirement with their music and it sucks. I think the consumer is mislead. People loved Guns & Roses in the early 90's finally was able to buy a new CD last year. Guess what. They got ripped off because it's nothing like the old G & R.

Same goes for a movie & video games. A consumer spends the money to buy a blu-ray or a PS3 game and realizes it sucks.

The ability to download these items is the best scenerio for these items. I download a game demo on my PS3 and if I like it, I'll buy it. I'll download a movie (torrent) if I like, I'll buy it. The ability to download and view or listen to something protects the consumer from fraud or being mislead.

Definitely. This helps me with impulse buying, in particular. Wall Street Raider and the Dominions series have been the only two games I've played consistently for over 5 years. Both were originally pirated, and both were purchased within weeks. I actually purchased an extra copy of Dominions 3 to encourage future production.

Advertisers manipulate consumers into buying something they'll regret. Color theory and giving items to "reliable" previewers (Apple is notorious for the latter), to name just a couple examples. There have been some interesting movement in "pay-if-you-want" pricing. Prince, Radiohead, and a few others have released music for free (if only temporarily), and indie bay12games releases games for free but non-naggingly requests donations.

 

[rpfan2008]

Wikipedia is living proof that unrestricted information grows a lot more quickly than that which is protected.

For some people creating 'information' is the only source of income, their only 'skill'. Don't you think they have the right to sell/trade it for their needs? You might argue everyone has the 'right to information/knowledge' but does that mean the creator should be deprived of the necessary credits/gains? World is about exchange of goods/services but when you refuse to accept finding/creating knowledge as a valid product worth selling don't you think you're a bit biased towards people who who owns/deals in physical goods? "All food in the world is meant to be consumed", that's true but for free??


And btw

Wikipedia is living proof that unrestricted information...

is BS.

 

[dannno]

We keep coming back to this. IP rights are not only stupid, they are anti-liberty people.

www.stephankinsella.com/ip/

And Danno, if someone can xerox a book and give it to a friend and that's ok, why tag on "but selling the copy is not ok." First, why not? Second, who the hell is going to buy a book when you can get a copy for free?

IP rights are retarded. Our government spends billions of dollars subsidizing research then spends billions more so everyone can keep their discoveries a secret. Does this make sense?

Imagine what the world would be like if all information was free? If every book was digitized and available for kids to read. If every scientific periodical was available to read before your shop tries to reinvent or reproduce what someone has already done.

Copyrights and patents don't advance progress they hinder it, and on top of that, there is no rational legal foundation for copyrights or patents.

Go ahead and try to find one.

I don't disagree with you, but I can also see a logical argument for intellectual property rights, at least to some extent, but I agree your scenario is probably optimal.

I mean, linux optimizes the performance of your computer over windows... one of those is intellectual property and the other is not..