Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[Bman]

Except its not taking pennies.

It's still taking so how are you exactly justifing your action.

 

[Bman]

I don't think you've read Against Intellectual Monopoly yet, have you? It pretty much destroys your arguments and it is a very enjoyable read as well. I recommend you follow up with watching Kinsilla's (sp?) presentation at Mises.org. No one is a "bleeding hear liberal" if they are against I"P" law.

How so. Aren't you taking something from someone to redistribute it?

 

[Bman]

I don't think you've read Against Intellectual Monopoly yet, have you? It pretty much destroys your arguments and it is a very enjoyable read as well. I recommend you follow up with watching Kinsilla's (sp?) presentation at Mises.org. No one is a "bleeding hear liberal" if they are against I"P" law.

That's the damn dumbest thing I've ever read. If what you wanted were to happen it would ONLY benefit those who were rich enough to start mass production. No one would ever be able to climb from the bottotm because their rewards for productivity could only ever come from someone established above them.

This isn't freemarket crap. This is a move that would be so empowering to the rich that we might as well all start bowing to Kings again. There's a reason for IP and quite frankly your good intention is blind to why IP was created in the first place.

Free markets do not reign over the individual and that is what you would be trying to accomplish. The funny thing is that this would not create a free market. This wiould only secure keeping the bottom at the bottom and the top at the top.

FAIL!

 

[powerofreason]

That's the damn dumbest thing I've ever read. If what you wanted were to happen it would ONLY benefit those who were rich enough to start mass production. No one would ever be able to climb from the bottotm because their rewards for productivity could only ever come from someone established above them.

This isn't freemarket crap. This is a move that would be so empowering to the rich that we might as well all start bowing to Kings again. There's a reason for IP and quite frankly your good intention is blind to why IP was created in the first place.

Free markets do not reign over the individual and that is what you would be trying to accomplish. The funny thing is that this would not create a free market. This wiould only secure keeping the bottom at the bottom and the top at the top.

FAIL!

You're really really [Personal insult redacted]. All the Austrian free market economists DO NOT support IP. IP is government interference in the markets period. You're stubborn and you don't want to read the book, so I'll guess you'll stay ignorant forever. Your call.

 

[powerofreason]

It's still taking so how are you exactly justifing your action.

If I'm taking then who I am taking from and what are they losing? Thats the definition of stealing, isn't it?

 

[ShannonOBrien]

Has Ron Paul ever spoken about this?

 

[hypnagogue]

All the Austrian free market economists DO NOT support IP.

Actually Mises has a segment in Human Action where he defends Patents and Copyrights. Personally, I disagree with him, but then again, the information revolution hadn't yet taken place in his time. Circumstances were significantly different.

There's one thing I do want to make abundantly clear; copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement.

Definition of Theft

Legal Definition of Copyright Infringement

Forget what the RIAA and MPAA have told you. You couldn't possibly find a more biased opinion. What these two organizations are trying to fight is the fact that the production of individual copies of both audio and video no longer have an economic value. Both products can be created by nearly anyone for next to zero cost. You could give them 100% of the proceeds and they'd still have nothing.

 

[Kludge]

Has Ron Paul ever spoken about this?

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-181741.html

Intellectual property claims are valid, but consumers should be protected from over-reaching and everyone should be protected from privacy violations.

 

[powerofreason]

Actually Mises has a segment in Human Action where he defends Patents and Copyrights. Personally, I disagree with him, but then again, the information revolution hadn't yet taken place in his time. Circumstances were significantly different.

I should have said modern Austrian economists.

 

[powerofreason]

Here is the link to the pdf version of the recently released free book, Against Intellectual Monopoly. Its split up by chapter. I posted it earlier in the thread but a lot of people probably missed it. It answers every conceivable objection and question.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

 

[hypnagogue]

I've always thought the solution to these copyright and patent issues fairly straightforward. We need to limit the scope of patent and copyright to goods produced for sale and not simply for personal use. Patent and copyright laws were not written to create scarcity in abundant goods, they were written to ensure that inventors would be rewarded economically. If someone creates something without an economic value, why should they be economically rewarded?

 

[Ninja Homer]

And I have to laugh at another poster who said to support bands that give their music away for free. Well how do you plan on doing that if you are stealing their product. It is simply laughable. Because what you fail to see is that without that original revenue from album sales. There will be no tours. There will be no t-shirts. There will be nothing. Damn idiots not even in the industry trying to say how it should be run.

First of all, how can it be "stealing their product" if the band gives you permission to tape their shows and give copies to others?

Second, if you're going to portray yourself as an expert in the industry, you better know what the hell you're talking about, especially when there are links given in the very post that you are arguing against that prove that post right.

Take a look at this list of bands that allow free taping and distribution of their music:
http://www.furthurnet.org/bandlist/
So by your reasoning, those bands will never make any money and will never make it in the music industry. Since you failed to look at the links in the past, I'll just list some of the bigger ones here.

These bands ALL allow their shows to be recorded and shared freely. Despite your reasoning, I think 1 or 2 of them have fared quite well in the music industry.
AC/DC
Beastie Boys
Beck
Bela Fleck
Ben Folds Five
Big Head Todd and the Monsters
The Big Wu
Bjork
The Black Crowes
Blind Melon
Blues Traveler
Bob Marley and The Wailers
The Brian Setzer Orchestra
Counting Crows
The Cowboy Junkies
Crosby, Stills and Nash
The Cure
Dave Matthews Band
David Gray
Dire Straits
Dream Theater
Fugazi
Galactic
Genesis
George Clinton & Parliament Funkadelic
Gov't Mule
Grateful Dead
Guster
GWAR
Ben Harper
Jimi Hendrix
Husker Du
Indigo Girls
Jazz Mandolin Project
Jefferson Airplane
Jefferson Starship
Jimmy Eat World
Joe Satriani
Janis Joplin
Leftover Salmon
Los Lobos
Medeski, Martin and Wood
moe
Willie Nelson
Particle
Pearl Jam
Phish
Primus
Public Enemy
R.E.M.
Radiohead
The Smashing Pumpkins
The Smiths
Sonic Youth
The Spin Doctors
String Cheese Incident
Talking Heads
They Might Be Giants
Toad the Wet Sprocket
Umphrey's McGee
Violent Femmes
Roger Waters
Ween
Weezer
Widespread Panic
Keller Williams
Yes
Neil Young
Warren Zevon

 

[extrmmxer]

First of all, how can it be "stealing their product" if the band gives you permission to tape their shows and give copies to others?

Second, if you're going to portray yourself as an expert in the industry, you better know what the hell you're talking about, especially when there are links given in the very post that you are arguing against that prove that post right.

Take a look at this list of bands that allow free taping and distribution of their music:
http://www.furthurnet.org/bandlist/
So by your reasoning, those bands will never make any money and will never make it in the music industry. Since you failed to look at the links in the past, I'll just list some of the bigger ones here.

These bands ALL allow their shows to be recorded and shared freely. Despite your reasoning, I think 1 or 2 of them have fared quite well in the music industry.
AC/DC
Beastie Boys
Beck
Bela Fleck
Ben Folds Five
Big Head Todd and the Monsters
The Big Wu
Bjork
The Black Crowes
Blind Melon
Blues Traveler
Bob Marley and The Wailers
The Brian Setzer Orchestra
Counting Crows
The Cowboy Junkies
Crosby, Stills and Nash
The Cure
Dave Matthews Band
David Gray
Dire Straits
Dream Theater
Fugazi
Galactic
Genesis
George Clinton & Parliament Funkadelic
Gov't Mule
Grateful Dead
Guster
GWAR
Ben Harper
Jimi Hendrix
Husker Du
Indigo Girls
Jazz Mandolin Project
Jefferson Airplane
Jefferson Starship
Jimmy Eat World
Joe Satriani
Janis Joplin
Leftover Salmon
Los Lobos
Medeski, Martin and Wood
moe
Willie Nelson
Particle
Pearl Jam
Phish
Primus
Public Enemy
R.E.M.
Radiohead
The Smashing Pumpkins
The Smiths
Sonic Youth
The Spin Doctors
String Cheese Incident
Talking Heads
They Might Be Giants
Toad the Wet Sprocket
Umphrey's McGee
Violent Femmes
Roger Waters
Ween
Weezer
Widespread Panic
Keller Williams
Yes
Neil Young
Warren Zevon

Great list ..... But where's Metallica?

Did you notice the decline in Metallicas popularity when they tried to fight D/L during the Napster deal. They've never been the same band since. I think a lot of fans look at them differently because of that ordeal. I'd bet Metallica regrets taking the D/L issue as far as they did.

 

[AutoDas]

I've always thought the solution to these copyright and patent issues fairly straightforward. We need to limit the scope of patent and copyright to goods produced for sale and not simply for personal use. Patent and copyright laws were not written to create scarcity in abundant goods, they were written to ensure that inventors would be rewarded economically. If someone creates something without an economic value, why should they be economically rewarded?

Value can only be legitimately rewarded by a free market. People invent for a variety of reasons besides a profit motive. Maybe it's to make their lives easier or to find a cure for a disease.

 

[freedominnumbers]

Imagine a situation were say LG develops a molecular duplication device (internet) and RND Mettalurgy invests 100 million a year creating new types of alloys which they market but don't reveal the creation process for (music). Now imagine Joe Alamo Reproduction Company comes along and infinitely reproduces RND's alloys in their shiny new LG duplicator without paying RND Mettalurgy for the rights to do so.

RND Mettalurgy loses it's economic and productive interest in the alloy and goes out of existence being unable to recoup it's millions in development costs. There are no more new alloys produced because it is known in the industry that because of infinite duplication with the LG duplicator there is no economic security for the developer.

Where does this go from here? Does a painter's picture not belong to the painter whose mind and hand created it? Does the photographers skillful technique in capturing one of a kind pictures not matter?

If a creator has no right to their creation than the result of any new creation would be a mad rush of every joe to be the first to exploit this new creation for their personal gain. What sense is it that the most devious among us would most benefit from the individual skill and labor of the creator while that creator loses his interest upon creation.

Tragedy of the commons.

 

[freedominnumbers]

I've always thought the solution to these copyright and patent issues fairly straightforward. We need to limit the scope of patent and copyright to goods produced for sale and not simply for personal use. Patent and copyright laws were not written to create scarcity in abundant goods, they were written to ensure that inventors would be rewarded economically. If someone creates something without an economic value, why should they be economically rewarded?

The entire situation is economic.

If there was no economic value there would be no demand. There is no question that demand is through the roof for illegal downloads. The reason people choose illegal downloads is because it produces the greatest economic and pleasure benefit with an acceptably low risk.

If illegal downloads were somehow made sufficiently risky so as to outweigh the economic benefit for the majority of the downloading population tomorrow you can bet that a large portion of the population would move to the next cheapest/easiest way of satisfying their demand, likely Itunes or another $1 download site.

 

[AutoDas]

LG was never guaranteed they'd they would invent such a device so how can you say the lost any money? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think making such huge risks for little gains is a smart choice in a free market. I think corporations just patent anything they realize could be the next logical step in progression so they have to take these giant risks. In a free market I would bet to see much more gradual changes that doesn't have such a high risk involved.

No one says an entertainer's work should be free. Copyrights and patents would not exist in a free market.

 

[powerofreason]

Imagine a situation were say LG develops a molecular duplication device (internet) and RND Mettalurgy invests 100 million a year creating new types of alloys which they market but don't reveal the creation process for (music). Now imagine Joe Alamo Reproduction Company comes along and infinitely reproduces RND's alloys in their shiny new LG duplicator without paying RND Mettalurgy for the rights to do so.

RND Mettalurgy loses it's economic and productive interest in the alloy and goes out of existence being unable to recoup it's millions in development costs. There are no more new alloys produced because it is known in the industry that because of infinite duplication with the LG duplicator there is no economic security for the developer.

Where does this go from here? Does a painter's picture not belong to the painter whose mind and hand created it? Does the photographers skillful technique in capturing one of a kind pictures not matter?

If a creator has no right to their creation than the result of any new creation would be a mad rush of every joe to be the first to exploit this new creation for their personal gain. What sense is it that the most devious among us would most benefit from the individual skill and labor of the creator while that creator loses his interest upon creation.

Tragedy of the commons.

You need to do some reading as well. Thats not how IP works in reality. Read some history, read Against Intellectual Monopoly, and see how IP holds back industries severely.

A painter's picture does indeed belong to the painter. If I copy it the copy belongs to me.

 

[Matt Collins]

Like it or not you people who are downloading music are

A.) Actually doing something that is illegal. I was trying to be polite but if we want to call things what they really are well lets start doing it. You my friend are a Thief! If I sell something and you take it from me without my consent you are a THIEF!!! Get that concept in your brain.

Again this is incorrect. It's unlawful to share /distribute / transmit copyrighted, but downloading it is not. And it's copyright infringement, not theft.

B.) You are ruining a business. As long as illegal downloading continues you will never see the Beatles, The Doors, Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, KISS or a multitude of other bands who were able to remain successful for many years. WHY? Because people are stealing their resources and they cannot afford to bring you a product of that nature..

Again this is a logical fallacy because 1 unlawful upload does not equate top 1 lost sale.

If you think what I am saying is wrong well you are just a complete fool and an idiot and I do not thank you at all for thinking you are helping my profession.

Actually you shouldn't call names because it makes you look bad. Especially when you are ignorant of the current topic. I have taken two copyright law courses in college and have written a great deal about IP. I also work in the music industry. I know what I am talking about.

At the end of the day you are a petty thief.

Again this is incorrect.

 

[Matt Collins]

Whats wrong with touring to make money? isn't that what they did in the 1950's to make money? They certainly didn't make it off the records.

Exactly. The Beatles made most of their money doing live shows until Sgt Pepper; that changed everything. From then on the idea of an act making money off of their records became prevalent.