Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[powerofreason]

I've thought about this in relation to drug research and development. What I've imagined is that I discover a cure for cancer. But instead of marketing this to the masses, I open a small treatment center and will charge $1M for the cure. If I treat one person a year, that's not a bad income. This could become a family secret, until it's independently discovered.

I'm really interested in getting that book... Which one is better? Anyone willing to write a mini-review?

Against Intellectual Monopoly is the new one that just came out. Read the review on Mises.org. I do think that it is a more complete argument against IP than the other book. Read the PDF if you like you don't need to buy it if you don't want to.

 

[powerofreason]

Idk why I quoted that other dude too. Posting from ipod ftl.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Oh thanks, did not see the free .pdf before.

Mises Institute FTW, free books!

 

[tonyr1988]

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..

Linux is copyrighted. Linus Torvalds owns it - you cannot use "Linux" without his permission.

You also cannot use the Linux code without appropriate restrictions. It is under the GPL license. You cannot use the source code unless it is under the rules of the GPL.

Piracy is not theft, and downloading music is not copyright infringement. Uploading music is copyright infringement, though.

 

[Matt Collins]

Piracy is not theft, and downloading music is not copyright infringement. Uploading music is copyright infringement, though.

Hilarious avatar

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Uhhh, I know you're probably not going to come back, but you don't seem to get it. YES. I would LOVE for yahoo, MSN or google to advertise and distribute my song so that I became more popular as a musician!!

You seem to think that musicians make money off record sales. They don't. Maybe a few cents for each album. The record companies make money off record sales. Bands make their real money from touring. So if I pirate 30 Bob Dylan albums and go see his show, he will be more wealthy than if I bought the 30 albums. The 30 albums cost me over $400, almost all of it going to the record company, and but the artist gets a large percentage of the money I spent on the concert ticket.

In other words, if you want to give an artist money, go see them live, don't buy their stupid albums because all the money is going to the record label!! Save your money and go see shows.. Support the artist, not the record label!

This is absolutely true. One of the first things I learned in music biz class is that the label always tries to screw the artist in the area of royalties.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh thanks, did not see the free .pdf before.

Mises Institute FTW, free books!

+1 Mises Institutes' success is one of the things that's made me rethink my position on this issue.

 

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

 

[ARealConservative]

You should be able to illegally download music Because it requires a massive invasion of privacy to stop anyone from doing so.

How does one even know it is illegal? Maybe I bought a copy and my disc is all scratched, or I am downloading it from my work server.

 

[dannno]

You should be able to illegally download music Because it requires a massive invasion of privacy to stop anyone from doing so.

How does one even know it is illegal? Maybe I bought a copy and my disc is all scratched, or I am downloading it from my work server.

Yep, so many arguments against the OPs position that he has to take. I don't know what I would if I were him.

 

[Matt Collins]

Just because you say it is?

Have you ever taken an upper level college copyright law course? I have taken two. I also work in the music industry.

Regardless of who's hands it may play into, it can be discussed from a moral perspective.

How so?

"I think drugs should be legal, but I still find drug usage immoral."

"I think pirating music should be legal, but I still find it to be immoral."

But in that you fail to realize though that the idea of copyright is 100% a government created fiction.

 

[Matt Collins]

Don't you think it would be nice for every law to be mirroring morality?

No.... After all, who's morality will you mirror?

 

[fr33domfightr]

Matt's right in that its a copyright infringement issue. The OPs can try and argue whichever way he wants, but his class was a Law class, so the legal argument is probably better. Hell, I'd argue copyrights for lifetime of the author plus 50 years (or whatever it is now), is extremely long!!

The downloading versus uploading is not understood by most people. The RIAA would have you believe "downloaders" were getting sued, but actually it was those "uploading" (offering files for download). The funny thing about it is, no actual copy is produced by the uploader. It is the "downloader" that creates the duplicate copy.


FF

 

[Matt Collins]

Theft is theft. Law should consider theft a crime. Justice should be lenient depending upon the situation and type of theft.

Of course. But we are not talking about theft.

For example... downloading something is quite different than uploading something. The latter is much a greater crime than the former.

Neither are crimes. But uploading / distributing / sharing / transmitting is a civil infringement / tort.

What is the intent of the uploader?

Intent is irrelevant.

This should be a gross misdemeanor crime or a felony crime depending upon intent, conspiracy to commit <enter other felony crime>, and level of criminal organization.

You obviously know nothing about copyright law. Do you work in the music or film industries by chance?

What if person who could never afford to buy software (or music) downloaded some and used (listened) it? Who was harmed? No one. In fact, both involved parties, the user and the software (music) maker, benefited by the user getting the software (music) and the maker getting his software (music) more mainstream by gaining a user (listener), which may buy the software (music) when possible because they are a user (listener) of it, so there is a free honest marketing effect to it also.

Glad you understand this.

But it should be a misdemeanor state crime regardless because it is theft.

It's not theft, and "IP" is handled at the federal level, not the state level.

It is a different flavor of theft whereas there was no loss of anything real

Then it's not theft!!!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft:
THEFT: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Now if you pirate software in a business environment, there should be harsher penalties because crime was committed for profit.

The potential liability is indeed greater, but it's still not a crime (in most cases) as it's civil and not criminal.

But we shouldn't mandate that everything needs to be locked down, nor should we monitor everyone to make sure they aren't committing crime, nor should we entrap people by providing easily traveled avenues to criminal paths.

I completely agree 100%

 

[Matt Collins]

You should be able to illegally download music

Remember downloading is NOT illegal; but uploading / sharing / distributing is unlawful.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt's right

I usually am

The funny thing about it is, no actual copy is produced by the uploader. It is the "downloader" that creates the duplicate copy.

It is my understanding that the sharing / distribution / duplication has been decided that it happens on the uploader's computer.

 

[ARealConservative]

Remember downloading is NOT illegal; but uploading / sharing / distributing is unlawful.

sharing is not necessarily unlawful

 

[powerofreason]

sharing is not necessarily unlawful

Well its not immoral in any case, which is what we all ought to be concerned with. The chances of any one file sharer being caught by the federal goon squad is pretty minimal.

People need to realize the reason why we have property rights in the first place. Property rights must exist because tangible things are not in infinite supply. If they were property rights would not be necessary and we would not have them. Intellectual property can be replicated without effort and thus property rights are not necessary. If I write a book and add at the beginning that no one can copy this book, it doesn't matter. Its not a valid contract. Ideas cannot be owned. Think about it. IP is a load of nonsense.

Read "The Book That Changes Everything"
http://mises.org/story/3298

 

[Matt Collins]

sharing is not necessarily unlawful

You're right. But for the arguments of this specific discussion I left that part out because I didn't want to confuse everyone (or type enough to explain it).

There is something out there called the fair use defense; sharing among friends, known contacts, in educational settings etc is generally "allowed" by way of common-law precedent.

 

[Matt Collins]

The chances of any one file sharer being caught by the federal goon squad is pretty minimal.

I'd say it's down right impossible since the Feds don't police it (currently). Remember it's a civil issue in most cases so the damaged party, the copyright holder, is responsible for bringing suit.

People need to realize the reason why we have property rights in the first place. Property rights must exist because tangible things are not in infinite supply. If they were property rights would not be necessary and we would not have them. Intellectual property can be replicated without effort and thus property rights are not necessary.

I don't think you get it... Ask yourself what happens to price when supply is infinite.

Then ask yourself who is going to produce something when they can sell it for almost nothing?

Remember, IP laws can indeed spur competition in many instances at many times.

If I write a book and add at the beginning that no one can copy this book, it doesn't matter. Its not a valid contract. Ideas cannot be owned. Think about it. IP is a load of nonsense.

Except that federal code is not a contract, it's statutory which stems from the Constitution.