Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[powerofreason]

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.

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.

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

Apparently you've never heard of open source software, which tends to be a lot better than the stuff windoze or other companies make. Ubuntu > Windows

If you believe IP laws spur competition, you really need to read Against Intellectual Monopoly, which btw is free to download and read. Granting monopolies does not spur competition. Do you really think there will be no more musicians if IP is done away with? Nonsense. They can still have concerts and be supported financially be their fans in a number of different ways. And don't mention the Constitution, I already said I don't care about the legal crap.

And then you say this:

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

Thats the thing. Supply of an .mp3 IS infinite, whether you like it or not. You want to circumvent the free market price and artificially pump it up. Yet, the free market cannot be altered in any way by government to make our lives better, thats what Austrian economics teaches us.

 

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

 

[powerofreason]

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

 

[Matt Collins]

Apparently you've never heard of open source software, which tends to be a lot better than the stuff windoze or other companies make. Ubuntu > Windows

Actually I have Ubuntu on one of my machines.

Do you really think there will be no more musicians if IP is done away with?

Of course not. But what about drug companies? What about chemical engineers? What about situations where a great deal of resources are invested in order to attain the finished product? Why would someone or some company invest that much in research and development just to have someone else across the street copy it and make profit on it without the burden?

Thats the thing. Supply of an .mp3 IS infinite, whether you like it or not. You want to circumvent the free market price and artificially pump it up.

Not at all actually. I make a living engineering concerts. I think that the recording industry has their heads up their asses and have for decades.


But I am not always talking about just copyrights. Patents are the next thing, possible even more important than copyrights.

 

[Matt Collins]

What if I intend to spread a trojan through distributing pirated digital media with an intent of creating a bot army with intent to commit a DDOS attack on critical network hubs creating chaos and loss of money, property and life for anti-American political purposes?

Intent and action are two entirely different things.

I intend to be Emperor of the EU one day... but I won't take any action to get there.

Not even close. Fuck the RIAA and the propagandists in Hollywood. I work for much worse people... big energy and big telecom.

HA HA HA.

Yeah there are two industries that are essentially one with the government

In regards to me thinking the crime is a state issue, I would argue that since the crime occurred in the state it should be a state issue. One could argue that since the transmission occurred over state lines then it is a federal crime, but one could argue that they only downloaded from the nearest network hub a few blocks away whereas the rest of the network did the transmissions crossed state lines. If we are to say this is a federal crime, then any crime that uses any phone or internet connected computer is a federal crime. Do we want to go there?

Again it's not a crime an all IP laws (with the exception of some trademark law) is federal in the US.

If the person knowingly intended to download a pirate copy of digital media then they knowingly took a product of someones labor that they did not pay for that required a payment to become an owner of it by the producer of the product (a.k.a. stealing or theft).

Incorrect because in order to have theft the original owner must be deprived of whatever was "stolen".

Since the original owner is deprived of nothing, then it isn't theft.

I do not think they should get more than a $10000 fine and a month in jail, a misdemeanor crime. In reality, the typical punishment would be much less than the maximum. It's not an effective deterrent, rather the consistent act of a moral obligation of our society to publicly recognize that stealing is wrong without ruining peoples lives who truly committed no harm.

Again its a tort or lawsuit in most cases. There is no prosecution and there is (usually) no crime committed.

Please understand the difference between civil and criminal cases.

I would tell the law officials and press for prosecution of theft and/or racketeering.

They'd laugh at you and tell you to get an attorney. The attorney would then see how much you were actually damaged, and advise you to file suit if it warranted .

I do not think law enforcement should be blindly and actively searching for file sharers. I do think they should be investigating claims where the law has been broken and once warranted through probable cause, start collecting information by expanded means for prosecution, then prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, and then let the jury decide justice and the judge assign the punishment.

Again you fail to understand that IP is civil and not criminal.

 

[powerofreason]

Actually I have Ubuntu on one of my machines.

Of course not. But what about drug companies? What about chemical engineers? What about situations where a great deal of resources are invested in order to attain the finished product? Why would someone or some company invest that much in research and development just to have someone else across the street copy it and make profit on it without the burden?


Not at all actually. I make a living engineering concerts. I think that the recording industry has their heads up their asses and have for decades.


But I am not always talking about just copyrights. Patents are the next thing, possible even more important than copyrights.

Pharmaceuticals are often cited as a main reason in support of patents. Read this, and it will change your mind. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf (its the chapter on pharms only)

I'm in the process of reading it right now, its very informative.

 

[AutoDas]

It's usually patents and copyrights that infringe on the people's liberty to do with what they want with their own property. Restitution is always paid under the 'statutory' rate so I just can't imagine IP surviving in a free market and it's a shame because people always like to say IP is a capitalist construct.

 

[Matt Collins]

Restitution is always paid under the 'statutory' rate

Actually it's not.

If one has registered their copyright in advance with the federal government then they are entitled to statutory damages. If they don't then they are only entitled to actual damages.

 

[Bman]

What, exactly, are you stealing?

Lost sales is not stealing. I had absolutely no intention of buying that CD I just downloaded. I downloaded it because it was there. Nobody lost a cent. Nobody is worse off. And now I am listening to and appreciating the artist's music. If they ever come to town, I will go to their show. Now the band has just profited 100 fold off this transaction of so-called "theft", I think the music industry is in fact stealing from the artists by being over protective of their work.


Sorry OP, I have no logical arguments for you. Downloading music is not theft. If I were putting out a CD, I would encourage people to make copies. I have known many bands who encourage people to make copies of their music so that they become more widely known and appreciated. This will get them bigger venues and larger revenues than anything they would get from sales of CDs.

While I wouldn't call downloading a song illegal, I would say it is very illegal to publish the material for someone to download. While what you say may be true as far as a downloaded song having positive effects it can also have negative effects.

My only advice is if you like something enough to have it pay where money is due. Otherwise it won't exist. THe record companies are a ripoff. There's no doubt about it but that ripoff gives them the ability to sign numbers of bands who won't make it. And now they cannot. Which is why all you see is Urban nonsense for music and the artist releasing other products such as perfume and clothing.

Download away but your quality of music will suffer for it. Blowback baby. It's called Blowback.

 

[powerofreason]

While I wouldn't call downloading a song illegal, I would say it is very illegal to publish the material for someone to download. While what you say may be true as far as a downloaded song having positive effects it can also have negative effects.

My only advice is if you like something enough to have it pay where money is due. Otherwise it won't exist. THe record companies are a ripoff. There's no doubt about it but that ripoff gives them the ability to sign numbers of bands who won't make it. And now they cannot. Which is why all you see is Urban nonsense for music and the artist releasing other products such as perfume and clothing.

Download away but your quality of music will suffer for it. Blowback baby. It's called Blowback.

Not true....

 

[powerofreason]

Monopoly is bad mmkay

 

[powerofreason]

and just for fun

 

[AutoDas]

Actually it's not.

If one has registered their copyright in advance with the federal government then they are entitled to statutory damages. If they don't then they are only entitled to actual damages.

What "actual damage" has been done? No one's property has been damaged.

 

[trey4sports]

dissappointed

im quite dissappointed in the answers ive seen so far.
property is property whether it be physichal or intellectual.

as a group that puts heavy emphasis on property rights it disturbs me to see such lack of respect for them on this paticular subject

 

[Andrew-Austin]

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



How so?


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

Pardon my French, but what the fuck are you talking about? Wow great credentials, I work at a grocery store.

Morals are subjective, in some people's OPINION it can be wrong to pirate music, just like in some peoples OPINION ingesting drugs is immoral. Hence why we can discuss different views on the moraliy, not legality, of the issue.

Yes I'm aware intellectual property is a fiction, as I've said elsewhere. This is beside my point. Or are you one of those fellas who thinks the government should legislate every moral issue? I don't think you are, and neither am I.

Let me try and put it like this:
When you go to a restaurant, do you always tip your sever? Probably, and so do I. Now if you were on a date with some cute gal, and you decided to not leave any tip at all, she might say "that is wrong, you should always tip your waiter something". Now were you in any way obligated to tip the waiter? No, its just HER moral view.

Someone might say the same of downloading their favorite band's album via shareware. Were the obligating to pay? No, but...

im quite dissappointed in the answers ive seen so far.
property is property whether it be physichal or intellectual.



as a group that puts heavy emphasis on property rights it disturbs me to see such lack of respect for them on this paticular subject

Umm, no there is a seismic different, I suggest you look farther than the term "intellectual property" itself. Its not property just because its called that.

Ideas are not property.

 

[freedominnumbers]

When it comes to IP I'm of the mind that the creator owns his knowledge and the product it creates. Ultimately that creation has been fashioned from nature. If only that one person or company possesses the know how or ability to understand the creation than they have exclusive control over that creation. They have no compulsion to share their knowledge or allow it's distribution if they don't choose to.

Now, if a 2nd party through their own ability can recreate the work based on their own creative knowledge without the knowledge of the original creator than I'm of the mind that they also have the same right to that creation.

If a third party comes along without the ability or understanding to create that work on their own and simply copies the work of an original creator they have not created that work and have no right to it. Effectively what they have done is stolen from the creator his creative knowledge and in doing so destroyed his exclusive right to the distribution of that knowledge.

This is basically a tragedy of the commons situation where the resource destroyed is creative knowledge rather than fish or coconuts.

The end result is that for every 1 creator you may have 500 who, not possessing the ability to create, steal the knowledge of the creator and so dilute the value of his creation that his economic and productive interest in it are destroyed. That's wrong on two fronts, first while a precise value can't be assigned it's unquestionable that an economic harm has occurred to the creator and second, assuming that the creation was not solely a labor of love, the original creator, knowing his work will have no economic or productive value after it's imminent theft, will simply choose to no longer create which will cost everybody that little bit of wealth that will never be created.

 

[TruckinMike]

DANNO -----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!

Ok Danno, if thats your choice, if you think marketing with no copyright protection is the way to go then why do it? And why sign with those blood sucking leeches (record companies) in the first place? Its your choice, right? No gun to your head? ---- Oh thats right, you want something from them, you want the perks that a major label can bring, but don't care an ass hair about them making anything in return on their investment in YOU..."...almost all of it going to the record company" Yes i see where you are coming from -- And I get it alright, But it appears that you don't.

Here is an exercise for you- Invest in my trucking business and I won't pay you any dividends. That should sound fair to you. If it doesn't maybe you should rethink your position.


And Matt Collins, this is not your copyrights class, debate club, nor is it philosophy 101. My point was simple(3rd grade simple). People should own the fruits of their labor and/or own what they have purchased...ie - rights to a song.

TMike

 

[yaz]

Is there a book arguing that piracy should be legal that I can read?

 

[Matt Collins]

What "actual damage" has been done? No one's property has been damaged.

Actual damages is considered someone making money off of your copyrighted material without your permission. And if you can show damage of any way financial this is usually included too.

 

[Matt Collins]

Pardon my French, but what the fuck are you talking about? Wow great credentials, I work at a grocery store.

By your choice of words that seems quite evident.

Morals are subjective, in some people's OPINION it can be wrong to pirate music, just like in some peoples OPINION ingesting drugs is immoral. Hence why we can discuss different views on the moraliy, not legality, of the issue.

Because debating the morality is a logical fallacy. It is an amoral issue. Should you remove your emissions control on your car? Should you run a red light if it is broken and there is no one else around? Should you speed if it's safe to do so?

None of the above answers to those questions have any relevance to morality whatsoever and neither does copyright.


The only people who think so are either ignorant and unable to think though to the logical conclusion, or have fallen victim to the content industry's marketing scheme that it's somehow "wrong" or "immoral" to infringe on a copyright.

When you go to a restaurant, do you always tip your sever? Probably, and so do I. Now if you were on a date with some cute gal, and you decided to not leave any tip at all, she might say "that is wrong, you should always tip your waiter something". Now were you in any way obligated to tip the waiter? No, its just HER moral view.

Tipping is not a legal issue, it's a personal moral issue. Copyright law is not a moral issue it's a legal issue.

I suggest you look farther than the term "intellectual property" itself. Its not property just because its called that.

Ideas are not property.

I don't necessarily disagree.