Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[Bodhi]

Why should we be able to illegally download music?

We shouldn't, but the simple fact is people have access to the internet and many don't respect the intellectual property of others.

 

[wizardwatson]

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..

Well, the post was directed at everyone, only the 2nd and 3rd lines were directed at you. There are arguments for it, but they all center around government enforcement and the fact that its in the constitution which is supposed to be a voluntary contract.

IP privileges can exist within a group of people who wish to honor them but there's no legitimate right to use force against someone outside of a contract/government who doesn't wish to grant the privilege.

 

[dannno]

Why should we be able to illegally download music?

We shouldn't, but the simple fact is people have access to the internet and many don't respect the intellectual property of others.

Why should i respect it if it is BS?


Sorry OP, I guess this thread isn't really helping.


R-E-S-P-E-C-T isn't going to win you the debate.

 

[TonySutton]

I don't see any of the open source folks struggling to survive. Sharing works!

 

[wizardwatson]

I don't see any of the open source folks struggling to survive. Sharing works!

But open source people never produce anything that works, like the linux server that this html-producing php page that I'm viewing in Firefox is running on - does.

Oh wait.

 

[Xenophage]

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??

If someone is playing a song on a stereo, and you happen to walk up and take a listen, your auditory nerves further replicate an analogue of the signal and your brain creates a copy in your long term memory. In what way is this willful act of reproducing music across different media fundamentally different from MP3 sharing? In what way is this immoral? In what way is this theft?

Can someone own information? Can someone own a pattern?

If I recite a poem to a friend by memory, have I infringed on copyright? What if I write the poem down and show it to my friend instead? Is copyright infringement dependent on the medium of transmission (in this case, sound waves or visible light)?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

If someone is playing a song on a stereo, and you happen to walk up and take a listen, your auditory nerves further replicate an analogue of the signal and your brain creates a copy in your long term memory. In what way is this willful act of reproducing music across different media fundamentally different from MP3 sharing? In what way is this immoral? In what way is this theft?

Can someone own information? Can someone own a pattern?

If I recite a poem to a friend by memory, have I infringed on copyright? What if I write the poem down and show it to my friend instead? Is copyright infringement dependent on the medium of transmission (in this case, sound waves or visible light)?

That's *THOUGHT CRIME* Boy!

This is simply intolerable! - We must fix the situation immediately! So where is the legislation for forced brain wiping?

 

[RCA]

Can this not be settled with contract law? No contract, no claim?

 

[wizardwatson]

Can this not be settled with contract law? No contract, no claim?

Of course. But current IP law says, for instance with patents, "you don't have the right to invent or create this machine".

That translates into, "I can use the force of government to prevent you from inventing or creating this machine even if you thought of it independently."

In other words IP law is meant to function outside contract. But it has no basis "in law" outside of a contract. Thus using legal force to enforce IP outside of a contract is a perversion of the law.

 

[Austin]

Look to Nine Inch Nails for a point of view within the music industry.

http://torrentfreak.com/nin-uploads-new-album-on-torrent-sites-080303/
http://torrentfreak.com/nin-confirms-bittorrent-uploads-080305/
http://mog.com/youngmanonacid/blog/1189756

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Of course. But current IP law says, for instance with patents, "you don't have the right to invent or create this machine".

That translates into, "I can use the force of government to prevent you from inventing or creating this machine even if you thought of it independently."

In other words IP law is meant to function outside contract. But it has no basis "in law" outside of a contract. Thus using legal force to enforce IP outside of a contract is a perversion of the law.

Actually, you are allowed to take a patent and create ONE of whatever it describes. You can't sell it however.

-t

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

First off understand that law and morality are two separate lines, sometimes they intersect sometimes they don't.

Copyright (and other IP) is a limited government granted monopoly. That means it's not natural and an artificial construct. So ask yourself, is it immoral to speed? Most people would say "not as long as you are safe while doing so". Why? Because no one gets harmed but more importantly speed limits are artificial government constructs. And copyright infringement is the same way in many cases. Infringing on someone else's copyright is not in and of itself damaging to the copyright holder / original author. And the very idea about copyrights is arbirary; Congress would be well within their power to abolish all "IP" tommorrow if they so choose.


But to get a bit more specific "downloading" copyrighted material is not illegal or unlawfull. The act of sharing, distributing, copying, transmitting, or uploading these copyrighted works is the unlawful act. Remember a copyright is an exclusive "right to copy" by the one who holds that right. When you offer songs on your computer for someone else to download you are the one infringing on someone else's exclusive right to copy; not the person doing the downloading.

How isn't it theft?

It isn't theft; it's copyright infringement. You'll (hopefully) discover the two are NOT one in the same.

 

[wizardwatson]

Actually, you are allowed to take a patent and create ONE of whatever it describes. You can't sell it however.

-t

Hmmm, didn't know that. Still arbitrary though.

 

[gaazn]

Every time you sing a song and not pay the owner royalties, it is theft!

 

[Matt Collins]

But I don't think 'republishing' or sending out copies(multiplying the original copy you bought) of the product is an ethical way of handling it.

It's not an ethics issue. It's a legal issue pure and simple. The RIAA marketing department wants you to think its somehow a moral / ethical issue when it is not.

 

[Matt Collins]

Every time you sing a song and not pay the owner royalties, it is theft!

If you download instead of buying, that's pretty much the same thing as theft.

sorry, but that is theft

Actually it's not. It's copyright infringement. Big difference between the two.

Look up the definition of theft... it'll say something like "Taking something that isn't yours and depriving the original owner".

In cases of copyright infringement the original owner doesn't have anything taken from them, and a copy is just being made. That isn't theft, it's copyright infringement.

 

[Matt Collins]

Can someone own information?

You cannot copyright information, just the expression thereof.

In other words the listings in a phone book are not copyrightable; but they way they are laid out can be (so long as it's "creative" enough).

 

[Matt Collins]

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

Perhaps, but they are indeed constitutional.

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

No not exactly. There is competition to be the first one to patent an idea, isn't there?

And once the patent is up, there is competition on who can exploit that patent the cheapest, correct?


The patent system don't eliminate competition, it encourages it in some regards. Granted of course during the patent process you are correct that competition is stifiled. That's why it's only supposed to be for "a limited time" like the Constitution says. The problem we run into today is when Congress becomes subservient to the content industry and make patents, copyrights, trademarks etc have a life of infinity-1.

Piracy has a history of stimulating markets.

Absolutely

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.

No because information is not able to be copyrighted. But the expression of that information is.

 

[Matt Collins]

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

The Founders I would believe disagree with you.

who the hell is going to buy a book when you can get a copy for free?

Books are available for free now on Google. Music is available for free and so are movies. So is software.

But no one buys any books, music, movies, or software anymore do they?

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.

Again the Founders would disagree. Also research the Statue of Anne.

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

As the content providers of the world buy off more legislation look for them trying to enforce their IP via the arm of the government.

They had control until PCs became prolific. Now that they are everywhere they don't have the ability to control and stifle the exchange of information. And the only way they can is to turn the US into a police state which wouldn't bother them at all.

Be very wary about this.... remember a new cabinet level copyright czar is on their way.

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

When I was in college as an audio engineer I was forced to memorize that quote.