Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[rockandrollsouls]

The DVD is mine. It contains bits of information that, when interpreted by the right hardware, presents the film that you made.

How are these bits of information, stored on my DVD, not mine?

If you paid for the DVD you obtain title to it. I believe then you could do as you choose with it...such as storing it on your computer. However, don't confuse this for distributing digital copies to people that do not have title for the DVD. That's completely different.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

If property is property, why is there a separate clause in the Constitution dealing with copyrights and patents?

Unfortunately, this is not as black and white as you would like to believe.

Please refer to my previous post where I dissect the copyright clause.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's awfully simple compared to the other government jargon you've cited. How could one interpret that? Do you know the difference between "exclusive right" and "right?" Do you know what context the founders meant this in? And, in the worst case scenario, assuming they did support socialization of such property, what do you consider limited times? What constitutes useful arts? How would a fiction book or song be considered useful arts? Were they referring to items such as medical discoveries and writings, or methods of farming which may be detrimental to the general welfare of the US if they were claimed as property? Could that be useful art and science?

If that's what the founders meant, which is what I think they did, there is a complete and total difference....a vivid black and white....between that kind of intellectual property and things like novels and writings and songs.

Unfortunately, the way you perceive "copyrights" are not as black and white as you make it seem.

I guess no one will answer this.

 

[WayBehind]

Yeah, WayBehind, it's hysterical alright. It's hysterical that some are doing their best to twist reality such that theft of the product of someone's hard work and talent, is not exactly that --- THEFT.

The hysterical part was saying that "stealing" intellectual property by copying it is IDENTICAL to stealing physical property. It is not exactly the same thing and I find it funny that people are fervently making that claim. Another thing I found funny was someone claiming that the market price is the price the artist places on their work. So if I say the text I'm typing right now is worth $10k, that's the market price? So if you copy it into a text file to show someone later, have you stolen it and now owe me $10k?

Overall this feels like a debate regarding religion that will ultimately lead nowhere.

 

[MGreen]

If you paid for the DVD you obtain title to it. I believe then you could do as you choose with it...such as storing it on your computer. However, don't confuse this for distributing digital copies to people that do not have title for the DVD. That's completely different.

Why is it completely different? And I'm not asking about the law as it is currently written. I'm asking for the justification based upon a philosophy of property rights.

Again, isn't the information stored on the DVD now mine? Why is it wrong, from the POV of property rights, for me to make a copy of this information and give it to someone else?

 

[powerofreason]

Read AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY. Debate over.

 

[WayBehind]

Please refer to my previous post where I dissect the copyright clause.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's awfully simple compared to the other government jargon you've cited. How could one interpret that? Do you know the difference between "exclusive right" and "right?" Do you know what context the founders meant this in? And, in the worst case scenario, assuming they did support socialization of such property, what do you consider limited times? What constitutes useful arts? How would a fiction book or song be considered useful arts? Were they referring to items such as medical discoveries and writings, or methods of farming which may be detrimental to the general welfare of the US if they were claimed as property? Could that be useful art and science?

If that's what the founders meant, which is what I think they did, there is a complete and total difference....a vivid black and white....between that kind of intellectual property and things like novels and writings and songs.

Unfortunately, the way you perceive "copyrights" are not as black and white as you make it seem.

Wow, get defensive much? I know nothing about copyright law, I merely asked the question as to why they felt the need to separate physical and intellectual property if they're the same as you claim. I do not know what is meant by useful arts, but I'm sure you could argue that music and books are useful tools for the education and happiness of the people. Again, not what I was getting at, so I'll shut up now.

 

[micahnelson]

Please refer to my previous post where I dissect the copyright clause.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Does current copyright and patent law promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?

Do the current terms for copyright and patent expiration benefit the public? There is a balance between a term so short that there is no economic incentive to invent and create, and a term so long that the public is securing the right to exclusive profit at the detriment of the advancement of the arts and sciences. Where are we on this scale?

(Remember, the reason for this clause is stated within the clause itself- promoting science and art, not private monetary gain.)

Are most copyrights held by inventors and artists, or by corporate persons not referred to in the constitution?

If the purpose of the copyright and patent offices are to further arts and sciences, doesn't it stand to reason that these entities should be reformed? A great example is the patenting of ideas strictly to block another entity from using it, or copyrighting common phrases with the hope of catching someone with a lawsuit.

 

[mstrmac1]

Very good point. But the answer to the question is simple... to use it to promote other things, or to use it to make money off of in an indirect manner.

Matt,

You and I both know this topic is abstract and the only one who really makes money on this are the lawyers. So.. we can go round and round, if you want.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Does current copyright and patent law promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?

Do the current terms for copyright and patent expiration benefit the public? There is a balance between a term so short that there is no economic incentive to invent and create, and a term so long that the public is securing the right to exclusive profit at the detriment of the advancement of the arts and sciences. Where are we on this scale?

(Remember, the reason for this clause is stated within the clause itself- promoting science and art, not private monetary gain.)

Are most copyrights held by inventors and artists, or by corporate persons not referred to in the constitution?

If the purpose of the copyright and patent offices are to further arts and sciences, doesn't it stand to reason that these entities should be reformed? A great example is the patenting of ideas strictly to block another entity from using it, or copyrighting common phrases with the hope of catching someone with a lawsuit.

I'm not referring to current law in regard to copyright and patent as I think it's all wrong and most of it is unconstitutional so we probably shouldn't debate based on that.

The clause does not state a reason for anything. We can not be sure what the founders meant science and useful art. Could you define useful art? Again, what would make a book or song "useful art?" Could "useful art" be referring to methods such as the art of farming? What about writings? Could the writings be medical writings or methods and not novels or books? Are there any examples or instance of fiction novels by authors being copyrighted at that time that we can look to? Also, keep in mind that there was composed music and song during that time and they do not specifically reference that in the clause. However, they were very specific on the items included. Also, the clause simply states the inventors and authors have the rights for a limited time....it doesn't place any restrictions on how many or the nature.

Again, please remember I'm looking at this simply from what the clause in the Constitution says...not current, distorted laws.

It is my personal opinion that, judging by the wording used in the Constitution and writings of the founders, the clause is there to prevent medical discoveries, scientific discoveries, and what I would consider useful arts such as farming methods and their corresponding writings from being claimed as property. The reason being is that this would be detrimental to the general welfare of the United States, while a novel or song is not.

 

[Ninja Homer]

I can run this down for you very simply. That court case doesn't refer to property rights. I stated in an earlier post that law in regard to copyright and property are different, but can go hand in hand like with digital music and film. You guys overlook property rights.

Umm... you didn't seem to break it down at all, so I'll do it.

There are 2 kinds of property: physical property and intellectual property.
There are 2 sets of laws to deal with these 2 types of property.
When you physically create something, you have property rights to that physical object, and property laws are used to deal with it.
When you create something that is an idea, such as a piece of art, invention, music, writing, etc., then first you have property rights of the physical object that you created your idea on such as paper or 8-track, and second you have copy rights to that idea, meaning that you have control over who can copy it, and copyright laws are used to deal with the second aspect of it.

You're absolutely right, there is some overlap with music and film. For example, the physical CD's and DVD's are physical property, so property laws are used to deal with it. There's also copyrighted material on them, so if somebody were to use the CD or DVD beyond what they are granted by the copyright owner, then it would be a violation of copyright. For example, I'm sure everybody has seen the warning at the beginning of some movies that says it can not be used for public broadcast... that's a term of copyright that is up to the copyright owner.

I'm guessing you probably agree with all of the above. Where we have a discrepancy is in the term that should be used for when somebody violates copyright by making a copy of something without the copyright owner's permission. You say it is theft, or stealing. I say, no, it's copyright infringement. I agree with you that it is still illegal. I agree with you that, morally, it is very similar to theft or stealing. However, the legal term is copyright infringement, and if we're going to have a discussion about it, it's easiest to stick with legal terms.

And, like I said in an earlier post, what the band can and cannot offer for free depends on their contract with their label. Even if, for example, Guns and Roses wanted to release all of their tracks for free, I'm sure there are clauses in their contract with their label prohibiting them from doing so. When you sign a contract like that, you're in much more than the business of making music. It will vary by contract, but rest assured that in most cases the band doesn't have the say on what music they can and can't release. You're delusional if you think this....the livelihood of the label depends on being able to sell the product (music) to turn a profit. You better bet that's all addressed in the contract.

I understand that perfectly well. However, I disagree with the current mainstream model of, "here's a song on the radio, now go buy the CD so you can listen to it over and over again." I choose to only listen to bands that offer their music freely, and I support them by going to their concerts and purchasing their merchandise. I choose not to illegally download music that bands don't allow people to download... and I also don't go to their concerts or buy their merchandise. If a song is any good, I'll hear it over and over again on the radio anyway, so I don't see the point in buying it or downloading it just so I can listen to it more. I don't like the recording industry's model, so I support bands that don't support it... free market at its best.

And, again, property rights and copyrights aren't the same thing. You guys can't seem to distinguish between them.

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Zolah]

Sure it does. It deprives them of the money you might have paid, had you not stolen their property from them by downloading it for free. Or, are you saying you've never bought a CD or paid to download an MP3?

I've already said that I won't be paying for the music I'm downloading if I couldn't download it. Most of the music I download probably isn't even available to buy from my local music store. If I couldn't download it, I simply would not have it - the record company isn't receiving my money regardless of what I do.

On a lighter note, I'm not saying I exclusively download music and avoid paying for music, I've got hundreds if not thousands of pounds worth of music that was bought and paid for at music stores, etc., heck I've paid for the same music a dozen times if you consider the Rolling Stones LPs that was bought on vinyl, then on 4-track, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, not to mention the greatest hits albums of music that I've already bought. I feel like I'm responsible enough to download Rolling Stones music for free instead of having to pay for the priveledge of downloading the same music that I have a dozen versions of in half a dozen formats just to be able to listen to it on an mp3 player. I've paid hundreds of pounds to go to concerts, for example Rolling Stones concerts, and I feel I can download the music for free, if not simply for the ease and speed of it. Torrent sites, etc. are the quickest, most efficient and cheapest way of getting music.

I don't think downloaders should be prosecuted, they are not depriving the distributers of any profit - as I've said I won't be buying the CDs anymore anyway.

Now, people who download content, or buy/rent content and copy it, with intent to redistribute it for their own profit, are breaking the law, these people are prosecuted, mostly cheap dvd sellers at markets and town squares, etc. I don't think anyone is arguing against that, they are clearly depriving the original distributers of profit and potentially attaining profit by deception and/or fraud by selling pirate copies of films to people thinking they're the real deal, etc.

But I definitely do not think that people without intent to make a profit from downloading stuff for free should be prosecuted - in any case it would most likely involve breaches of personal privacy to catch these people and would be a lengthy, costly waste of time in my opinion. Ultimately there's no real way to stop people from obtaining music for themselves for free, and I don't think government should be trying to stop anyone downloading music, certainly not by use of force.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Ninja Homer, Please refer to the post below. Also realize you are referring to laws that may or may not be unconstitutional. In fact, the only reference to copyrights in the Constitution is the copyright clause, and I dissect it below. The founders do not make any reference to intellectual property. Also, see my bold sentence, as it is a very interesting point. So, for all we know, there may not be two types of property. You may have been led to believe there are, but according to the clause below and writings of the founders, I don't believe this to be true. In fact, you and others here may be debating your point based on completely false information that doesn't relate to our supreme law at all. (And I don't mean the offensively, just a thought and observation.)

Does current copyright and patent law promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?

Do the current terms for copyright and patent expiration benefit the public? There is a balance between a term so short that there is no economic incentive to invent and create, and a term so long that the public is securing the right to exclusive profit at the detriment of the advancement of the arts and sciences. Where are we on this scale?

(Remember, the reason for this clause is stated within the clause itself- promoting science and art, not private monetary gain.)

Are most copyrights held by inventors and artists, or by corporate persons not referred to in the constitution?

If the purpose of the copyright and patent offices are to further arts and sciences, doesn't it stand to reason that these entities should be reformed? A great example is the patenting of ideas strictly to block another entity from using it, or copyrighting common phrases with the hope of catching someone with a lawsuit.

I'm not referring to current law in regard to copyright and patent as I think it's all wrong and most of it is unconstitutional so we probably shouldn't debate based on that.

The clause does not state a reason for anything. We can not be sure what the founders meant science and useful art. Could you define useful art? Again, what would make a book or song "useful art?" Could "useful art" be referring to methods such as the art of farming? What about writings? Could the writings be medical writings or methods and not novels or books? Are there any examples or instance of fiction novels by authors being copyrighted at that time that we can look to? Also, keep in mind that there was composed music and song during that time and they do not specifically reference that in the clause. However, they were very specific on the items included. Also, the clause simply states the inventors and authors have the rights for a limited time....it doesn't place any restrictions on how many or the nature.

Again, please remember I'm looking at this simply from what the clause in the Constitution says...not current, distorted laws.

It is my personal opinion that, judging by the wording used in the Constitution and writings of the founders, the clause is there to prevent medical discoveries, scientific discoveries, and what I would consider useful arts such as farming methods and their corresponding writings from being claimed as property. The reason being is that this would be detrimental to the general welfare of the United States, while a novel or song is not.

 

[mstrmac1]

this topic is as simple as ..... "do you believe in God"

 

[hypnagogue]

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.

Your first sentence is an error and starts your response off in the wrong direction. For example there is an extreme demand for air, but since it's in practically endless supply, it has no economic value. You further go on to say that if downloading could be made sufficiently risky, it would have an economic value. That's what I've said from the beginning. The MPAA and RIAA are trying to use the law to create artificial scarcity for a service which no longer has any market value, ie. the distribution of music. As I said earlier, let the record companies keep 100% of the proceeds of music distribution, it's still zero. They're trying to charge for something which is as free as air now.

 

[AutoDas]

Please refer to my previous post where I dissect the copyright clause.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's awfully simple compared to the other government jargon you've cited. How could one interpret that? Do you know the difference between "exclusive right" and "right?" Do you know what context the founders meant this in? And, in the worst case scenario, assuming they did support socialization of such property, what do you consider limited times? What constitutes useful arts? How would a fiction book or song be considered useful arts? Were they referring to items such as medical discoveries and writings, or methods of farming which may be detrimental to the general welfare of the US if they were claimed as property? Could that be useful art and science?

If that's what the founders meant, which is what I think they did, there is a complete and total difference....a vivid black and white....between that kind of intellectual property and things like novels and writings and songs.

Unfortunately, the way you perceive "copyrights" are not as black and white as you make it seem.

I guess no one will answer this.

That's funny. I didn't know my right to my property expired after a limited time (was it 25 years back then and now it's double?), but that could be because a copyright and patent are monopoly privileges.

 

[hypnagogue]

That's funny. I didn't know my right to my property expired after a limited time (was it 25 years back then and now it's double?), but that could be because a copyright and patent are monopoly privileges.

It is not the natural state of things that a man may own an idea. Is to imitate someone to wrong them?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

It is not the natural state of things that a man may own an idea. Is to imitate someone to wrong them?

Both of you, please read my post. As stated below, the copyright clause is the only truly Constitutional insight we have into the matter. It says nothing about ideas, so you're pulling that notion from policy makers...not the Constitution. In addition, songs and films are not ideas. Also, I render my judgment at the end.

AutoDaas, I think many people misinterpret the copyright clause. It does not reference property. Rather, I think it was intended to fall in line with my summary at the end. I believe it is used to prevent medical ideas, farming methods, science, and the corresponding writings to be claimed as property as this would be detrimental to the general welfare of the United States. This seems to fall in line with the wording in the Constitution and the founders writings. Also, please see my line in the bold. I think that simple observation explains a lot about the intent of this clause.

Ninja Homer, Please refer to the post below. Also realize you are referring to laws that may or may not be unconstitutional. In fact, the only reference to copyrights in the Constitution is the copyright clause, and I dissect it below. The founders do not make any reference to intellectual property. Also, see my bold sentence, as it is a very interesting point. So, for all we know, there may not be two types of property. You may have been led to believe there are, but according to the clause below and writings of the founders, I don't believe this to be true. In fact, you and others here may be debating your point based on completely false information that doesn't relate to our supreme law at all. (And I don't mean the offensively, just a thought and observation.)

Does current copyright and patent law promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?

Do the current terms for copyright and patent expiration benefit the public? There is a balance between a term so short that there is no economic incentive to invent and create, and a term so long that the public is securing the right to exclusive profit at the detriment of the advancement of the arts and sciences. Where are we on this scale?

(Remember, the reason for this clause is stated within the clause itself- promoting science and art, not private monetary gain.)

Are most copyrights held by inventors and artists, or by corporate persons not referred to in the constitution?

If the purpose of the copyright and patent offices are to further arts and sciences, doesn't it stand to reason that these entities should be reformed? A great example is the patenting of ideas strictly to block another entity from using it, or copyrighting common phrases with the hope of catching someone with a lawsuit.

I'm not referring to current law in regard to copyright and patent as I think it's all wrong and most of it is unconstitutional so we probably shouldn't debate based on that.

The clause does not state a reason for anything. We can not be sure what the founders meant science and useful art. Could you define useful art? Again, what would make a book or song "useful art?" Could "useful art" be referring to methods such as the art of farming? What about writings? Could the writings be medical writings or methods and not novels or books? Are there any examples or instance of fiction novels by authors being copyrighted at that time that we can look to? Also, keep in mind that there was composed music and song during that time and they do not specifically reference that in the clause. However, they were very specific on the items included. Also, the clause simply states the inventors and authors have the rights for a limited time....it doesn't place any restrictions on how many or the nature.

Again, please remember I'm looking at this simply from what the clause in the Constitution says...not current, distorted laws.

It is my personal opinion that, judging by the wording used in the Constitution and writings of the founders, the clause is there to prevent medical discoveries, scientific discoveries, and what I would consider useful arts such as farming methods and their corresponding writings from being claimed as property. The reason being is that this would be detrimental to the general welfare of the United States, while a novel or song is not.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

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.

- Nice attempt at justification. Just call it what it is - THEFT. You're obtaining something of someone else's without their permission. In order to have their permission to obtain their item they require you to purchase it. Doesn't matter if they lose money or actually make money from you taking it. You still took their property without their consent. PERIOD

 

[Zolah]

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.

- Nice attempt at justification. Just call it what it is - THEFT. You're obtaining something of someone else's without their permission. In order to have their permission to obtain their item they require you to purchase it. Doesn't matter if they lose money or actually make money from you taking it. You still took their property without their consent. PERIOD

Seems to depend on your definition of theft, I've stated mine, seems to be different from yours.

Take my example of Rolling Stones LPs from my last post for a second - if I've already paid for an album on a different format, do you think it's unreasonable that I would want to also download it for free because I now have an mp3 player to replace my CD player/Casette Player/8-track/4-track/record player. I've already paid the priveledge of owning the music to the Record company/artist/music store, several times in fact.

 

[AggieforPaul]

The rationalizations like "I'm gonna go c them in concert!!!111" or "I wouldnt have bought that CD anyway" are hilarious. Its still stealing.