The RIAA are idiots, apparently

That only works if you accept the fiction that the legal construct of "intellectual property" is reality. But there was nothing like that until recently. Things weren't that way before. It's not real and natural, it's been made up only recently by companies, lobbyists and all such.

If you make a copy, you make an unauthorised representation of something. You don't steal, let's say, a boxed set of CDs. You make a copy without compensating the owner of the original program, but so long as you don't claim authorship, you aren't stealing anything, which doesn't mean what you're doing is right, of course.

What if you record the music the restaurants household band of musicians plays, are you stealing it? I suppose you should at least put your head in the window or something.

If you do something with property to which you don't have any right, it's still not always stealing, so your last argument doesn't work.

Of course it's unfair to copy the records of someone's work once done without giving him anything in return, especially if he isn't willing to give it to you for free. However, when people are so willing to accept all the jargon of "intellectual property", "theft of digital property" and the like, along with all the corporate thinking behind it, I'm starting to worry. It's the same feeling I experience when people buy the government propaganda without a critical analysis.

Next, maintaining the whole system of intellectual, digital or whatever made up property costs tax money. I don't think it's totally right if taxpayers are de facto sponsoring the creation, upholding and execution of such laws. It's like feeding tax money to monopolies.

 

Again, you are assuming that I would have bought that song if it would not be available for download. I think we all agree this is unlikely

Hum. If I ask somebody on the street what time it is, I am gainig something, so I should pay him for the info. You could argue that a song is more valuable than a simple piece of information. Maybe; but how can you estimate that value? And moreover that varies from person to person; somebody might like the music very much (and then he'd decide to buy some further work from that artist, thus compensating him), somebody else might not care.

I think chevalier has touched on an important point in his post, too. Copyright is a societal convention: we do grant the artist some rights, in order that they be interested in producing more art, so the whole society would benefit. I think this has been screwed up completely in the recent times (i.e., copyright is used mostly to stop production of derivative art, dissemination of stuf which should be in the public domain since a long time ago, supporting monopolies, etc.) So I am not advocating eliminating copyright completely, but some reevaluation is in order.

 

Yes. Taking something that does not belong to you without its owner's consent is the very definition of stealing. In the case of an unauthorized (or copied) recording, you are stealing their service, effectively forcing them to re-perform the song at any time you wish without compensating them. Though it gets a little hazy as the performers do not have to spend time for the subsequent performances, you are still getting more than you paid for without consent. With the example of a restaurant band, you are paying the cost with your bill for the food; not an exact science, but it is figured in.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

No he's not; it simply doesn't matter. Basic micro-econ: You've gained an asset without losing another asset (probably cash), incurring a liability, or performing a valued service. To put it simply, you haven't earned it in any way, shape, or form. Music and art is currently valued as a private owning, not public, so the value must be compensated somehow; either by a credit to balance the debit, or a negative debit to erase it.

As a public owning, considerably fewer people would bother since they could not benefit from it. If you want more music, there must be a sacrifice.

No, he gave it to you freely, without terms, so you have no obligation to pay him. He has every right to refuse to tell you if he wished, but most people aren't that petty. But artists have to be petty because it's how they earn their living.

[ January 06, 2006, 23:15: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Man, I really agree with that. The consumer "owns" nothing any longer in our society. Everything belongs to the corporations. In many cases, not even the original artist "owns" the material any longer; it belongs to the record companies, or a production company.

The consumer gets almost nothing in return for his/her money. He is not respected, and he has not very many rights, if any, regarding his purchases. Most people don't own the cars they drive, they don't own their homes, they don't own their music, movies, software, games, even the clothes on their backs may be on a credit card, so they don't even own that much any longer. The banks, the credit card companies, the entertainment companies, they are the real owners of real "property." It means that all of us work to keep paying them. At some point there will be a consumer "revolution" against this kind of nonsense. But you are absolutely right about the "intellectual property" nonsense - that's just more "corporate speak" and another way to screw the consumer out of something he has paid for with hard earned money.

 

Yeah, it's like modern feudalism but in a slightly different form, more drastic sometimes. I wonder when cars, computers, various electronics and other such products will start having EULA's attached, like you can't unscrew the cover, change anything in the engine, use the MP3 player as a USB stick for your documents, whatever.

Correct, and we aren't any better off than we used to be. We're only more advanced (and I'm wondering if even this is actually true...). It's just property ownership shifting like that as corporate power grows. Soon we're all going to work for corporations and get everything from corporations... it's like a tribal or clan system, just with international clans and facade governments that still manage to cut their share (every single penny going anywhere being taxed down to one quarter of it).

 

He's probably referring to all that DRM crap.

Felinoid:

So everything has to be a zero sum game? How about the other way around: if I pay for music I have downloaded, the artist gets an asset (my money) without losing other asset (what exactly did he lose?). This is just to show that in my opinion, talking about music/Intellectual Property in purely economic terms is foolish.

And about the argument that considerably less music would be produced if we'd not have these restrictive copyrights: maybe, but I'm sure the average quality would be much higher. I don't think true artists are in it for the money, anyhow.

[ January 06, 2006, 23:38: Message edited by: khaavern ]

 

Or because such was the contract maybe? Because he had no choice?

We have a whole market of "intellectual property" rights, including companies which specialise in just that. That's just wrong.

How many terms of a software EULA can you negotiate per average?

 

Supposing you're drowning and I offer you a wheel for all the money you own. Do you still have choice?

And I'd like to hear more about your negotiating EULA terms...

My problem starts with the fact I don't get to own anything but I get a crappy license. My next problem is that my right to a back-up copy is being thwarted and yes, for example, the perfectly legal Warcraft III CD I'm going to use in a minute can't be copied and is already quite worn from sheer intensity of use. The price is my other problem. As well as the fact I'm expected not to lend it (and I'm not talking about lending for money) -- even though it's still actually legal for me to lend it if I don't play it myself at the same time (but there's a problem here if something doesn't require a CD to run), can't play with friends even if they come round for just one evening of a LAN party but don't buy their own copy etc etc.

Besides, don't the biggest companies advocating "intellectual property" themselves have a problem with copyright lawsuits? Product names, concepts, even whole parts of code? What were the beginnings of those big companies, did they even own the computers (along with software licenses) they compiled their first programs on?

[ January 07, 2006, 00:11: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Copyright laws and intellectual property are indeed new concepts. About as new as the ability to record music. A couple of hundred years ago nobody whined about royalties, yes; neither did anybody have a means of keeping a recorded performance in their shelf.

 

Music couldn't be recorded but notes could have been copyrighted. Or paintings or sculptures that everyone could copy. Artists were still getting paid (well, they weren't all rich but compare the old princes and nobles and bishops and all with modern record companies) and usurping authorship was still a bad thing. Books weren't copyrighted, either, unlike now.

 

BTA - When I put down $15.00+ for a music CD and take it home, it is mine. If I wish to make 15,000 copies and put them all in my garage because I have noting better to do, that should be my business. Now, if I distribute or draw income off of the CD that is another matter. But I have the right to control what goes on in the four walls of my home, as long as I do no harm to anyone else.

Remember what James Otis said in the one of the statements that is thought to have sparked the Revolution: "A man's home is his castle, and he should be treated as if he is a prince when he is in it by the government." Ah, but it's not really my home - it belongs to the mortgage company - which also owns the credit card company, which also owns the record company, which also owns...

 

His time and money. More specifically, the time he took to write the song, the time he took for that performance, the money for the recording studio, etc. Everything that went into making that recording, you're paying for a piece of it every time you download and pay for it. If you don't, you're stealing.

100% true, and I even wish that were the case right now. But what you and I consider quality is not global. Consider, if you will, rap music. How many of those are in it for the "music" and not the money? (I'd personally be glad to see that cr*p off the airwaves, but not everyone would agree with me.)
___________________________________________

Of course; a wheel is heavy and would sink me. I might take an inflated tire, but it's still a choice; even if it's between dying and not dying. Take the money to your watery grave if you want, but I don't care that much for money. Wait, what was this supposed to be about again? I seem to have missed the connection.

 

BTA, DMC - You guys are missing my point. It is not a bad thing in itself to borrow money to buy a home. It is that once the property is mine, I should be able do with it AT MY HOME as I please (as long as I don't distribute it (beyond my home) in any way. All this "intellectual property" stuff is a bunch of corporate baloney.

DMC - I can use BTA's argument regarding the government: If enough people don't like what the government is doing reagrding taxes and your home, they can vote for change. But, alas, for some reason - as is with the software, cd music situation - it never seems to change...I feel your pain, brother.

 

@dmc: Theft doesn't happen by someone gaining property but by someone losing it.

As for all the different systems, the main problem is what happens with the work and how far rights are removed from the author. Patronage didn't differ from modern hiring people to create "intellectual property" but it's not like Duke A was prevented from hiring Artist B to paint for him what Duke X had Artist Y paint for him, by anything else than the preference to have something better, different, unique.

@BTA: People won't change anything so long as they don't act together. So long as everyone thinks he won't achieve anything on his own. Your general boycott only works if a given company manages to drive everyone to despair so that people don't care what others do. Corporate customers wield more power than individual consumers, therefore this kind of reality also favours corporations in yet another way. We're getting thoroughly screwed by corporations from birth to death and it already looks like nothing's going to change this and it's only going to get worse. I'm not saying that corporations are all evil and all aspects but they've already got more power than they should ever have and they are only getting more. I can easily see high-ranking international corporate officers with diplomatic immunity and CEOs treated on par with prime ministers.

As for copyrights and patents and all such, it isn't so simple. What about the RIAA using Kazaa Lite to locate people who share files illegally? Using Kazaa Lite is a Kazaa EULA violation as the whole program is an illegal modification of Kazaa. The RIAA isn't protecting any rights, it's just doing lawsuit business.

[ January 07, 2006, 03:00: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

The only one of these that is truly similar to the copying of today is the copying of books. But mind you, before the existence of copyright laws printing equipment was few and far between, and before that everything was copyed by hand. It doesn't quite compare either.

Agreed there. It pisses me off.