Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

[linuxlover42]

I've recently been exposed to a huge number of websites centered around many people's belief that DRM should be abolished and music should be free to everyone. These sites range from logical arguements to all out rage speeches about the nazi record companies and their evil ways. My question is, why should music be free? Many professional musicians get most of their money from record deals and producing albums and getting them out into the world is almost the only way to achieve any real fame as a musician. Why should we not pay for the hard work (it may be fun but musicians still work hard) that these people put in? I understand that record companies pocket a huge share of the earnings but isn't this a problem in the setup of modern record companies. Believe me, I have no love for modern record companies because their greed has spawned a generation of musicians who know nothing about sophisticated music; nevertheless, why should we not pay for someone else's hard work?

Opinions (please keep your posts civilized, I don't appreciate hate speeches)

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

both piracy and DRM are wrong
DRMing your content is like saying i am using DRM take that pirates, someone is going to say challenge accepted
DRM prevents stuff from being usable on certain devices/software
piracy takes potential profits way
some people pirate so they don't have to worry about drm
a true pirate will pirate regardless
it does not really matter how much drm is used it will get cracked in the end, they would make more if there was no DRM on anything, as long as they market it as drm free

[linuxlover42]

I do agree that DRM can be a royal pain in the backside and I tend to agree it's not a good thing. But piracy is still wrong and I don't understand those people who truly believe that all music shoul be free, if you want free music, go listen to Pandora or go on youtube and find one of the millions of talented artists who feel the need to share their talent with the world on that site (or just look up music videos)

[fontis]

An artist once said that the purpose of his art was not to profit, but to enlighten the world with art.
There are millions of musicians, painters, poets and other artists out there who release all their content "free". And they all can live perfectly fine with it.
The reasoning I asked was because they instead held exhibitions. Patrons would pay the artist to perform live and they would gain money in that way, much like every musician does now.

The only thing which would differ, financially speaking, would be to remove the record companies from the whole equation. And they are the real ones who make money on the records anyway, not the artist. And this whole DRM battle and the likes of it comes not from the majority of the artists, but from the label companies who want to maintain their cash flow.

The truth is that most of the western world is extremely consumption oriented. So the point of all of this is just to simply max out profit in every single way.

That being said. I support my favorite artists by giving money to them, not to the label companies.

[monkeybrain2012]

Your argument falsely assumes that DRM actually stops piracy, well it doesn't and never will. It only hassles the legit customers, it may backfire if it gets too far because at some point even paying customers may get pissed off to the point that he or she would simply download, that was what happened with Apple music.

BTW, my favourite local bands make money by live performance, if you buy a ticket you get a free CD, and believe me, the CD is more like a promo, there is nothing like live music.

[WinterMadness]

I've recently been exposed to a huge number of websites centered around many people's belief that DRM should be abolished and music should be free to everyone. These sites range from logical arguements to all out rage speeches about the nazi record companies and their evil ways. My question is, why should music be free?
How can you justify the ownership of information?


Many professional musicians get most of their money from record deals
Thats not really true, record labels make more money off of record sales than musicians do. Musicians tend to make money off of merch sales and such, oddly enough now record labels want to get into that, and musicians can keep a small fraction of THOSE sales... give me a break...


Why should we not pay for the hard work (it may be fun but musicians still work hard) that these people put in?
We dont reward hard work (people who do manual labor often make minimum wage and work over nights), we reward ownership of property and manipulation of finances. Im trying to keep this vague so that I dont spark a political conversation here.

[buzzingrobot]

Here's my take:

If I make something -- a song, a book, a painting, an apple pie, whatever -- then I, and I alone, get to decide if, and how, anyone else has access to it. In other words, I hold all the rights to the thing I created. No one else has any rights to it unless and until I transfer those rights to them.

The legal concepts of copyright and intellectual property were intended to protect those rights. They don't create them. Laws only acknowledge , protect, or inhibit the exercise of rights. They can't create them.

Nothing mystical exists that gives anyone else a creator's rights in something he or she has made. The anti-IP and anti-copyright crowd seems to argue that when someone makes something everyone else on the planet magically owns it. That's wish-fulfillment nonsense.

On the other side, we have the corporate abuses of IP and copyright which, in their own way, are as destructive of a creator's rights and the principles underlying copyright and IP law.

*Both* camps are cynically crafting and leveraging ideology in pursuit of their own selfish, materialistic, objectives.

[Grenage]

DRM is optional, and the vast, vast majority of the population neither know of or care about it.

If you don't like it, don't shell out. The main problem is that there is rarely a DRM free alternative, because DRM is generally applied to unique products, such as music, novels, and other media.

[mastablasta]

aaargh!

i use drm on my products. but the drm is counting more on good of the people (is there much of that still arround?) rather than hinder any access or anything like that. it can be easilly removed with a bit of knowhow.

[lykwydchykyn]

The music industry as we know it came into being as a result of the technological limitations of the first few generations of sound recording and reproduction systems, specifically that sound recordings were tied inextricably to a physical medium. This physical medium cost money to produce and could be sold per-copy for a profit. The entire 20th century music industry was built on this.

Digital technology, combined with the internet and ubiquitous computing, pretty much wiped out these limitations. You can copy an album with a couple mouse clicks and send it across the world in microseconds.

Now you have a multi-billion-dollor industry representing millions of jobs that has had its profitability rug yanked out from under it.

Their basic choices were:

- build a completely new industry that doesn't rely on the old technological limitations
- Try to recreate and enforce the old technological limitations on the new technology

Since almost nobody has yet managed to figure out option one, they went for option two. This is DRM.

Hopefully you can see why people are against DRM. Introducing artifical limits to technology so that one sector can make money is bound to irritate people.

I just want to say, too, that as a former recording artist, composer, and producer, I find most anti-IP explanations of how the music industry can continue without copyright laws and so forth painfully naive and short-sighted. Philosophically I tend to agree, but historically there aren't a whole lot of unpaid amatuers whose work is remembered.

[eriktheblu]

From a historic perspective, musicians have never really considered records to be a good source of revenue. The records themselves are the property of the record company who initially footed the bill for production and distribution. They take the financial risk, and they in turn are the primary beneficiary of the profits. Musicians traditionally employ recordings as a means of advertising in order to draw customers to performances (their primary means of revenue).

To say that piracy hurts musicians is a bit misleading the vast majority do not see much in the way of profits from record sales, and free distribution of the material creates greater awareness and interest in attending performances. There are exceptions, but they are not common.

The primary victim in piracy is the record company. I consider piracy to be inappropriate, but the means employed to combat it are worse. For the most part the traditional entertainment industries have failed to adapt to the new distribution medium and instead attempt to legislate and litigate their way to profitability.

The primary motivation to pirate is not cost, but availability. The cinema is an obsolete model that only maintains its existence through special deals of exclusivity. Were major film producers to immediately release their product online (for a fee) piracy would drop, profits for the producers would increase, and the cinemas would bankrupt unless they dramatically adapted their business model.

The only adaptation I see is in smaller firms which fully embrace digital distribution (my favorite example is when Freddie Wong endorsed the Pirate Bay torrent of his VGHS series).

[aysiu]

Those who really want to reward artists and be anti-DRM should vote with their wallets.

Know a musician who's getting a fair cut from the recording industry (i.e., has a well-negotiated contract) or has her own record label? Buy tracks from that artist the traditional way (MP3, CD, etc.).

Know a musician who's getting screwed over by the recording industry (the percentage royalties is way skewed), donate to the artist directly.

I found a free album on Jamendo that I loved. I went to the band's website and donated (via PayPal, I think), and the band was very grateful and sent me a personal email of thanks. I didn't donate much, but that little bit meant a lot to the band.

I know there are people with principles here, and I hope they live out those principles.

My guess, though, is that a lot of these people who claim to be against the recording industry are also freeloaders who don't want to pay musicians money... just because it's so easy to get the music for free. I don't know what percentage these people are, but I know they exist.

More details here:
Are you sure the music you’re downloading isn’t hurting the musicians? (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/are-you-sure-the-music-youre-downloading-isnt-hurting-the-musicians/)

[LillyDragon]

That was a very interesting read, aysiu! It's really amazing how far from black and white music piracy is, just when I thought I understood the situation as well as I thought anyone could.


From a historic perspective, musicians have never really considered records to be a good source of revenue. The records themselves are the property of the record company who initially footed the bill for production and distribution. They take the financial risk, and they in turn are the primary beneficiary of the profits. Musicians traditionally employ recordings as a means of advertising in order to draw customers to performances (their primary means of revenue).

To say that piracy hurts musicians is a bit misleading the vast majority do not see much in the way of profits from record sales, and free distribution of the material creates greater awareness and interest in attending performances. There are exceptions, but they are not common.

The primary victim in piracy is the record company. I consider piracy to be inappropriate, but the means employed to combat it are worse. For the most part the traditional entertainment industries have failed to adapt to the new distribution medium and instead attempt to legislate and litigate their way to profitability.

The same can apply to novel authors as well, since the publisher takes the risk of mass-producing and distributing copies of the author's work, so they rightfully get the larger cut for operating costs. While these writers still get a royalty check now and then, they obviously don't publish for the money; it's all about geting more exposure for their works, and maybe the prestige of having published a book. Anyone who wants a larger cut of the profits can opt for self-publishing instead.

[WinterMadness]

Here's my take:

If I make something -- a song, a book, a painting, an apple pie, whatever -- then I, and I alone, get to decide if, and how, anyone else has access to it. In other words, I hold all the rights to the thing I created. No one else has any rights to it unless and until I transfer those rights to them.

Why? Why do you get to own anything? What is ownership?

This question is more rooted in philosophy than politics, so I think its well within the rules here.




Nothing mystical exists that gives anyone else a creator's rights in something he or she has made.

What about a mystical force that allows a person to own things? Where does that come from?

[|{urse]

Piracy is wrong. Fair Use is not. If I buy a DVD or pay for a digital download I should be able to make as many copies of that as I wish. All this bull about piracy being some sort of freedom or a right is sophomoric, at best.

What really ticks me off is when DRM subverts Fair Use. Which it does.. in new, exciting ways every day..

[buzzingrobot]

The same can apply to novel authors as well, since the publisher takes the risk of mass-producing and distributing copies of the author's work, so they rightfully get the larger cut for operating costs. While these writers still get a royalty check now and then, they obviously don't publish for the money; it's all about geting more exposure for their works, and maybe the prestige of having published a book. Anyone who wants a larger cut of the profits can opt for self-publishing instead.

Most of the writers I've known are considerably more interested in money than they are in exposure. Exposure doesn't pay the mortgage. Advances and royalties do. Exposure is only a means to that end.

Analog means of production and distribution required amounts of capital and staff that were, and are, out of range for almost everyone, especially wanna-be authors and musicians. Even in those circumstances, a successful and profitable artist can leverage his or her popularity by, for instance, threatening to move to a different publisher or recording corporation.

Digital reproduction and distribution removes publishers and recording corporations from the mix. Hence, DRM and other distortions. It's only natural that a corporate culture that emphasizes maximizing profit -- requires it in the case of publicly held businesses -- would take that route.

Artists who are financially dependent on the proceeds of marketing their work also have an interest in maximizing profit. I suspect the biggest roadblocks they face in marketing and distributing digitally are, one, lack of access to advertising in traditional mass media, and, two, the notion apparently held by many that they ought not to have to pay for anything distributed via the internet. For all the enlightened discussion of this issue, an awful lot of people are only interested in the costs-me-nothing part.

[buzzingrobot]

Why? Why do you get to own anything? What is ownership?

This question is more rooted in philosophy than politics, so I think its well within the rules here.

What about a mystical force that allows a person to own things? Where does that come from?

I think the philosophical spin on this is not very interesting or important. But, I'd argue that rights to something come into existence only when that thing comes into existence. It seems to me that it is considerably less "mystical" that the person who made the thing also controls all the rights inherent in the thing.

If I bake a pie tonight, it's my pie. It doesn't belong to any of the other several billion people on the planet.

Also, reasons other than profit sustain an artist's interest in retaining rights to his work. E.g., ensuring that a play or music is performed correctly, making sure that when people buy a book with his name on the cover that he is, in fact, the author.

The ease with which digital products can be copied illicitly, altered, or simply faked means people have even more reason to carefully guard their rights to control their work.

[LillyDragon]

Most of the writers I've known are considerably more interested in money than they are in exposure. Exposure doesn't pay the mortgage. Advances and royalties do. Exposure is only a means to that end.

Ah, I was only thinking of the novelists doing that in a part-time sense. I never gave much thought to the authors who write full-time and need the money to pay the bills. Didn't know about advances either, interesting. ^^ Thanks for the correction.

[lykwydchykyn]

I find it interesting how many people insist that artists don't make money on royalties. I don't know where you guys get this, I have several friends in RL who do quite handsomely from royalties from books, music, etc. Even my incomprehensibly obscure and short-lived recording career provides me with the occasional royalty check.

[WinterMadness]

I think the philosophical spin on this is not very interesting or important. But, I'd argue that rights to something come into existence only when that thing comes into existence. It seems to me that it is considerably less "mystical" that the person who made the thing also controls all the rights inherent in the thing.

Philosophy is how we discover what is true. All knowledge comes from philosophy. Science is a philosophy of empiricism, mathematics is a philosophy of rationalism. Beliefs that reject these two are also philosophies. Even political science and such are forms of philosophy. Philosophy is not a group of hipsters sitting around talking about how subjective everything is. The only way, I repeat, the only way to justify property ownership is through philosophy. If the philosophy of it doesnt make sense, then property ownership doesnt make sense, and society should abandon the idea. There is no philosophical spin here, this is a philosophical discussion in its purest sense, and the philosophy of the matter is of the highest importance. Every right that anyone has ever talked about came from philosophy, because its a philosophical topic.



If I bake a pie tonight, it's my pie. It doesn't belong to any of the other several billion people on the planet.

Prove it. Also, I'm fairly keen on logical fallacies, so I'm just going to let you know that if you ever say "because the government says so", I will jump all over that.

Also, if you're in an argument about whether or not property ownership legitimately exists, why on earth would your opponent say that YOU dont own something and everyone else does? If someone is saying property rights dont exist, they dont exist, they arent saying they exist for groups and not individuals, or for some people. I dont understand how you could take what I said to mean everyone ELSE (or a subset of them) owns your pie but you dont.


Also, reasons other than profit sustain an artist's interest in retaining rights to his work. E.g., ensuring that a play or music is performed correctly, making sure that when people buy a book with his name on the cover that he is, in fact, the author.


The ease with which digital products can be copied illicitly, altered, or simply faked means people have even more reason to carefully guard their rights to control their work.

Why does an artist have a right to say how works are played, even if the artist "invented" the work?

[evilsoup]

If I bake a pie tonight, it's my pie. It doesn't belong to any of the other several billion people on the planet.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to accept this as given.

If I build a chair, then nobody else has a right to take it away from me. Do I also have the right to stop anyone else from copying the design of the chair and making their own?

[eriktheblu]

The same can apply to novel authors as well, since the publisher takes the risk of mass-producing and distributing copies of the author's work, so they rightfully get the larger cut for operating costs.
Writing generally isn't an art that attracts customers to public performance. The traditional models differ sufficiently enough that they are not interchangeable.


Why? Why do you get to own anything? What is ownership? ...What about a mystical force that allows a person to own things? Where does that come from?
Philosophically, we must base or facts on an assumption at some point in the reasoning. For me, this self evident truth is that people are endowed by virtue of their existence with self ownership. I own my thoughts, my body, and by extension my labors. By further extension I own the results of my labors. I am further able to negotiate an exchange of my property or labor with others for mutually beneficial results. It gets a bit more involved when it comes to the origination of materials, but let us stick to this premiss.


Why does an artist have a right to say how works are played, even if the artist "invented" the work?
When I write a song, I can keep it to myself and not share with anyone else. In order to exchange it for value, I must contract with others at a mutually agreeable conditions. Those conditions may include prohibitions on redistribution. If I do not agree to the conditions, I have no obligation to share as I own my labors.


If I bake a pie tonight, it's my pie. It doesn't belong to any of the other several billion people on the planet.
In some circumstances not entirely true. If you came to my house and baked a pie on my stove using a cup of sugar borrowed from my neighbor, all 3 parties would have some claim on the resulting pie. It would be the mutually agreed upon contract that would determine the distribution (I actually don't want any pie, but you are welcome to use my stove because I enjoy your company).


I find it interesting how many people insist that artists don't make money on royalties. I don't know where you guys get this, I have several friends in RL who do quite handsomely from royalties from books, music, etc. Even my incomprehensibly obscure and short-lived recording career provides me with the occasional royalty check.

Most of the musicians I've worked with never saw a royalty check, and only received revenue from CDs they produced and distributed themselves (making them a de facto record company and not just musicians). There are many musicians with high record sales from traditional distributors that will receive royalties, and those that produce and distribute their own material without as many middle men retain a lot of profit. These are uncommon and non-traditional examples. The traditional music distribution model is obsolete and will eventually implode, which is why they are restructuring to a litigative and legislative based model.

New models which employ less expensive production means (a professional quality capable setup probably costs less than the hobbyist's instrument collection) and wide low cost market reach have demonstrated quite successful. This is the real threat to the traditional record industry, not piracy.


If I build a chair, then nobody else has a right to take it away from me. Do I also have the right to stop anyone else from copying the design of the chair and making their own? You have the right to not share the design, or set the conditions for the sharing of the design.

[WinterMadness]

Philosophically, we must base or facts on an assumption at some point in the reasoning. For me, this self evident truth is that people are endowed by virtue of their existence with self ownership. I own my thoughts, my body, and by extension my labors. By further extension I own the results of my labors. I am further able to negotiate an exchange of my property or labor with others for mutually beneficial results. It gets a bit more involved when it comes to the origination of materials, but let us stick to this premiss.


When I write a song, I can keep it to myself and not share with anyone else. In order to exchange it for value, I must contract with others at a mutually agreeable conditions. Those conditions may include prohibitions on redistribution. If I do not agree to the conditions, I have no obligation to share as I own my labors.


Yeah, we have to make assumptions, but these assumptions are (allow me to borrow a computer science term here...) "low level", i.e "The universe exists". The reason we do this is because we need something to work with otherwise everything is unknowable. Statements like property ownership exists is far too "high level" to make an assumption about because it clearly comes from other beliefs, for example, one of those beliefs is that the universe exists. Property ownership cant be an axiom, so, no, its not self evident, and its hardly, if at all justified.

Futhermore, there are a lot more problems with the idea that anyone can own property when you believe in such a thing as human nature, because the historical record is on the side of communities who share everything and were nomadic.

Philosophical ideas must exist in an ecosystem of other beliefs and they all have to work together, which is one reason why I dont believe humans (or any animal for that matter) can own property.

[monkeybrain2012]

I own my underwear, it is my property. Some of you may own a car, a house, those are yours. But it would be stretch to say that an idea, a mathematical theorem or a musical score is a personal property, or all the oil fields in Central America etc and that restricting others to access these things would be a "natural right". It is certainly not self evident to make the extrapolation from my underwear to the oil fields of Central America and many things in between.

[Buntu Bunny]

*Both* camps are cynically crafting and leveraging ideology in pursuit of their own selfish, materialistic, objectives.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. It's always the problem, in all arenas, because there are always folks out there who get high on getting away with something.

[lykwydchykyn]

Most of the musicians I've worked with never saw a royalty check, and only received revenue from CDs they produced and distributed themselves (making them a de facto record company and not just musicians). There are many musicians with high record sales from traditional distributors that will receive royalties, and those that produce and distribute their own material without as many middle men retain a lot of profit. These are uncommon and non-traditional examples. The traditional music distribution model is obsolete and will eventually implode, which is why they are restructuring to a litigative and legislative based model.

Your average "band-signed-to-a-label" rarely recoups and makes royalties from an album. That is only one segment of the larger "art industry" (which could include music of all types, books (fiction or non-fiction), movies, photography and digital art, etc.). Point is, it's a gross overstatement to say that NOBODY makes money from royalties on their art. Some do, some don't. Some people I know make enough to take the kids out for tacos once a quarter, others I know are gazillionaires from royalties. I get no royalties from the pop album I recorded, but I do get royalties (alas, taco money) from some compositions I did for a music library (stuff that gets used in TV commercials, movie trailers, radio spots, etc).

I don't think copyright and IP law should be about moral rights; it should be based on a pragmatic goal: what sort of society do we want to live in? One where the arts can be profitable for artists, where companies will invest millions in high-quality productions, where artists will spend their whole energies and time producing quality content; or one where every artist is more-or-less an amatuer working on a shoestring budget, or where art has to become a vehicle for advertising, or where artists have to focus on compelling merchandise instead of compelling art? And if we want the former, what are we willing to sacrifice for it?

[buzzingrobot]

For the sake of argument, I'm going to accept this as given.

If I build a chair, then nobody else has a right to take it away from me. Do I also have the right to stop anyone else from copying the design of the chair and making their own?

I'd say you have a right to make that copy and sit on that chair. You do not have a right to copy the design and market or distribute replicas, either claiming them as your own design or as the original product.

In any case, sophistic discussions of rights aside, the law generally provides that you will be sued for blatantly copying and marketing someone else's product. I think that's very fair. But, even if, philosophically, someone can demonstrate that it is not, it doesn't really mean much. There's a philosophy out there to support any position.

Does it make sense that I should have the right to copy the text of a current novel and market it under my own name?

[eriktheblu]

Property ownership cant be an axiom, so, no, its not self evident, and its hardly, if at all justified.
Perhaps we had a slight miscommunication, but my assumption is that self ownership is self evident. Ownership of property beyond self is derived from that.


Futhermore, there are a lot more problems with the idea that anyone can own property when you believe in such a thing as human nature, because the historical record is on the side of communities who share everything and were nomadic.
I am aware of human nature, which is why the recognition of property rights is pertinent. I'm not certain which communities you reference or which historical record, but that claim contrasts with my understanding of history.


I own my underwear, it is my property. Some of you may own a car, a house, those are yours. But it would be stretch to say that an idea, a mathematical theorem or a musical score is a personal property, or all the oil fields in Central America etc and that restricting others to access these things would be a "natural right". It is certainly not self evident to make the extrapolation from my underwear to the oil fields of Central America and many things in between.

My model is based on the ownership of labor, not matter. Take the house for example:
I own my house because I exchange money for it. I acquire that money as compensation for my labor from my employer
The previous owner(s) purchased it in similar fashion back to the builder.
The builder purchased lumber from the saw mill, who rendered it from law lumber acquired from loggers.

The loggers are the originators of materials. They take possession of what we can consider preexisting matter to which there is no human claim (alternatively, you can use metal ores for the car, or the land used to grow cotton for the underwear). I cannot justify a 'right' to originate materials when that origination is done to the exclusion of others. It is therefore proper to create a social contract to ensure just access to materials origination (e.g. I will observe your claim to that bit of land if you do not object to my mining activities and we both contribute to create a security force to prevent barbarians from fouling all our good efforts).

With purely intellectual property, the origination origination cannot reasonably be determined to deprive others of access to unclaimed matter (i.e. my thinking does not preclude you from thinking, where my harvesting of fish does impair your ability to harvest those same fish). There is no purer example of labor than thought, therefore no clearer ownership than intellectual property.

[eriktheblu]

it's a gross overstatement to say that NOBODY makes money from royalties on their art. I endorse this statement.


I don't think copyright and IP law should be about moral rights; it should be based on a pragmatic goal: what sort of society do we want to live in? One where the arts can be profitable for artists, where companies will invest millions in high-quality productions, where artists will spend their whole energies and time producing quality content; or one where every artist is more-or-less an amatuer working on a shoestring budget, or where art has to become a vehicle for advertising, or where artists have to focus on compelling merchandise instead of compelling art? And if we want the former, what are we willing to sacrifice for it?

Here I must vehemently disagree. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of people. Governments haven't the wisdom to promote and shape culture; that is the business of artists. Governments do not shape society; they represent it.

To secure the property rights in the matter of IP it is quite proper for the government to enforce contracts including contracts of exclusivity. My objection is delegating of governmental powers to non-governmental and unaccountable parties to enforce those laws. I object to modification of the contract without the consent of all involved parties.

If you wish to alter the level of government resources dedicated to piracy violations, I consider that a legitimate (although wasteful) course of action. The threat of government imposed violence on those who circumvent encryption in order to watch a movie on an unapproved device is wholly inappropriate.

Respect for art will not change based on regulation. The pragmatic way to ensure the perpetuation of art that you seek is by adapting to the realities of the market, not by forcing compliance with obsolete models.

[MdMax]

Respect for art will not change based on regulation. The pragmatic way to ensure the perpetuation of art that you seek is by adapting to the realities of the market, not by forcing compliance with obsolete models.

+1

[Deviljho]

DRM encourages piracy, piracy encourages DRM. It's an ouroboros situation.

[buzzingrobot]

What sort of society do we want to live in?

Opinions differ.

So....

Efforts to determine what is right or wrong by reference to what people want are always doomed to fail because people never agree about what they want.

Inevitably, this state of affairs leads to people who imagine they actually know "The Truth" trying to impose their will on everyone else. That's my definition of Evil.

Meanwhile, "art" and the market have little to do with each other. It's wrong to imagine that "artists" don't want to make money. Lack of ability to finance one's creative efforts is typically the greatest impediment to the creation of "art", whatever that is.

[|{urse]

DRM encourages piracy, piracy encourages DRM. It's an ouroboros situation.

Or it's the perfect paradigm to perpetuate a (profitable) litigious free for all. These lawyers know exactly what they are doing, we all know what a mix-tape is and it's never been a 'bad' or 'harmful' thing.. sharing music with friends.. that's how artists reach their audience and the industry encouraged it just to turn on their customers.

I think that so long as you aren't mass distributing other peoples works without consent to the public at large for a fee, there should be no fine for bootlegging a movie, cd etc.. here in my town (Coolsville, I'm the Mayor) we still call cheap or inferior things "bootleg" and we buy the better quality one if we like something we saw but no-one here is a "Pirate" and we already spend inordinate amounts of money on first run films, t-shirts, concerts and popcorn.

[fontis]

Philosophically, we must base or facts on an assumption at some point in the reasoning. For me, this self evident truth is that people are endowed by virtue of their existence with self ownership. I own my thoughts, my body, and by extension my labors. By further extension I own the results of my labors. I am further able to negotiate an exchange of my property or labor with others for mutually beneficial results. It gets a bit more involved when it comes to the origination of materials, but let us stick to this premiss.

Interesting.
Does this mean that every factory worker who has ever produced any piece of material owns that property?
Do I own the cars I build at the factory? They are after all fruits of MY labor.
Also, arguing against this you could claim that I may have crafted it, but the underlying bits were not mine to begin with (the metal, or in the pie argument, the sugar etc). But this would assume that the ownership of the material belonged to someone else. And who gave that person the right to superseed my right to own said property?(metal, etc)

In the end, it's true. Nobody owns anything, everyone owns everything. At least, philosophically speaking.

[buzzingrobot]

Does this mean that every factory worker who has ever produced any piece of material owns that property?

No. The factory worker agrees to produce something for an employer in exchange for payment. The employee transfers (sells) his rights to the things he makes in much the same way an author transfers certain of his rights to a book to a publisher in exchange for publication, marketing, distribution, and, perhaps, an advance.

Obviously, in many businesses, the transfer of rights from employees to employers is formally acknowledged. In others, it is not. It's specious, though, to argue that a guy who makes shoes in a shoe factory owns the shoes he makes.

[fontis]

No. The factory worker agrees to produce something for an employer in exchange for payment. The employee transfers (sells) his rights to the things he makes in much the same way an author transfers certain of his rights to a book to a publisher in exchange for publication, marketing, distribution, and, perhaps, an advance.

Obviously, in many businesses, the transfer of rights from employees to employers is formally acknowledged. In others, it is not. It's specious, though, to argue that a guy who makes shoes in a shoe factory owns the shoes he makes.


Why?
The factory worker has as much claim to the things he creates (if not more) than the owner of the factory because the factory worker is essentially crafting it (creating something from 'nothing'). Essentially it's a hustling deal, because the employer pays the employee to create something (this much I can agree with) - however the rights to said created object can never be transferred from the employee to the employer because that would imply that the employee is the owner of the materials used to create said object - or even the object itself (which can't happen since arguing that the fruits of one labor is owned by oneself through the extension of one's own crafted creations).

And since it's wrong to assume that anyone has any claims to anything in the universe except to ones own body etc, you can't claim it reasonable at all.
The definition of ownership outside oneself is simply absurd and unnatural in its essence. That's why arguing FOR it always becomes such a weird thing, and it's essentially impossible to speak of rights of such manners because the arguments will be arbitrarily based on false assumptions multiple times in an attempt to justify the argument.

[malakbal]

Musicians should promote their own music, rather than allowing record companies to do it for them. Or at least hire their own team to do so, this would ensure they get a much bigger cut of the dosh than they are getting now!

Record companies are in it to make good money, not good music!

[PJs Ronin]

No matter which side you fall on, pirate and be damned or more power to the artist, I fear the end result will be the same. I see artists who produce a 'unitary thing', like a sculpture, painting or ceramic will continue to be able to set an agreed price before their work is handed to someone else. But for artists engaged in music or film the future is a lot more bleak. The old paradigms of royalties/fees continuing for a piece of work (music/film) that has been physically placed into the public domain (even with 'ownership' still attached) are ending as technology rolls forward with increasing strength and adaptability. I make no comment as to whether this is a good or bad thing, it is simply something that is approaching with all the inevitability of the ocean's tide.

[Paqman]

My question is, why should music be free?

I don't think anyone with half a brain is seriously suggesting that there's no value in music. The issue is that the nature of digital downloads means the economics aren't the same as producing a tangible commodity like a disc. So should we be paying per unit, or are other models such as subscription-based all-you-can-eat services (similar to the way we pay for TV) more appropriate?

[Paqman]

Record companies are in it to make good money, not good music!

I suspect if you talked to a record company exec they'd refute the idea that the two are mutually exclusive. What gives the impression is that music designed for broad appeal is lucrative, but often formulaic. Just like anything subject to taste really (films, clothing, interior furnishings, etc, etc).

[buzzingrobot]

Why?

As I said, by accepting payment for labor, the employee agrees that the results of that labor belong to the employer.



...it's wrong to assume that anyone has any claims to anything in the universe except to ones own body...


Says who, other than you?

One can create all sorts of imaginary ways to live. But, the only ones that count, the only ones that exist, are shaped by the actual behavior of actual people. Otherwise, we're trying to impose an ideology, by persuasion or by force, on other people.

[aysiu]

It'd make me sad if artists stopped selling digital or CD copies of their songs and went full-on subscription-only (think Pandora, Spotify, Google All Access) so that you basically could never have song files... or had to stream-capture some shady-quality version in a similar fashion to the way we used to tape-record songs off the radio.

[Paqman]

It'd make me sad if artists stopped selling digital or CD copies of their songs and went full-on subscription-only (think Pandora, Spotify, Google All Access) so that you basically could never have song files... or had to stream-capture some shady-quality version in a similar fashion to the way we used to tape-record songs off the radio.

I think people like to collect "things", so that won't go away completely. To go back to my TV allegory, people will watch TV (a streaming medium), but the stuff they like they'll also go and buy the box set of. In the future there may be no "box" and you just buy the license to it and keep it in a digital locker online, but I wouldn't bet on physical media vanishing completely either.

[Jay Car]

DRM is optional, and the vast, vast majority of the population neither know of or care about it.

I am always amused by folks on forums who not only presume to know the thoughts (or lack thereof) of "the vast, vast majority of the population," but also feel rightfully self-appointed to speak for all those poor ignorant souls.

But back to the topic, I've found that one way to bring the "OMG Pirates!" conversation back to Earth is to send people to Rob Reid's wonderful TED Talk. Just search for "Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod" and enjoy.

Having been around for more than a few decades, I actually remember when the content industry had *Miss Pittypat moments over every single new thing that they didn't understand and couldn't control...things like the player piano (though that one was before my time), the radio, cable TV, DVRs, etc. The VCR was actually likened to the Boston Strangler once, and when TV was new, the movie industry was sure it was going to kill them.

It seems that very little has changed throughout history. For example, here's an interesting article showing how desperate the "IP" mobsters can get, and how truly stupid the whole "IP" conversation can become: "And When Even The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Copying — What Then?" (http://torrentfreak.com/and-when-even-the-death-penalty-doesnt-deter-copying-what-then-110807/)

*Miss Pittypat was an overly nervous little character in Gone With the Wind who would feel faint and need her smelling salts at the slightest sign of change in her tiny little world.

[eriktheblu]

Why?
The factory worker has as much claim to the things he creates (if not more) than the owner of the factory because the factory worker is essentially crafting it (creating something from 'nothing').
Incorrect. The factory worker does not create the finished product since matter cannot be created or destroyed. He transforms pre-existing materials into a more useful form. That transformation, and not the end product is the fruit of his labor. He exchanges that talent for agreed upon compensation.



And since it's wrong to assume that anyone has any claims to anything in the universe except to ones own body etc, you can't claim it reasonable at all.
The definition of ownership outside oneself is simply absurd and unnatural in its essence. That's why arguing FOR it always becomes such a weird thing, and it's essentially impossible to speak of rights of such manners because the arguments will be arbitrarily based on false assumptions multiple times in an attempt to justify the argument.

Two people cannot simultaneously digest the same food, or drive the same car to different destinations. Exclusive access to material goods is a natural animal behavior, and the basis of all social contracts. You are exhibiting it every time you access this forum to post. Whether or not you can justify the principle of assuming control of material is irrelevant to the realities of survival. The fact that you don't claim to own things does not change the fact that you do own things.

[fontis]

Incorrect. The factory worker does not create the finished product since matter cannot be created or destroyed. He transforms pre-existing materials into a more useful form. That transformation, and not the end product is the fruit of his labor. He exchanges that talent for agreed upon compensation.

Neither does the artist, he is merely using pre-existing materials and transforming them also (words, paint, canvas, etc)



Two people cannot simultaneously digest the same food, or drive the same car to different destinations. Exclusive access to material goods is a natural animal behavior, and the basis of all social contracts. You are exhibiting it every time you access this forum to post. Whether or not you can justify the principle of assuming control of material is irrelevant to the realities of survival. The fact that you don't claim to own things does not change the fact that you do own things.

You can claim to own as much as you like, it still doesn't justify your claim to any property. If the point would be to use as you would see fit, in terms of survival, then you surely do not need to own 5 PC's etc, because they are absolutely trivial to your survival.

[mike acker]

the new paradigm already seems evident: media will not be downloaded to customers' machines; rather it will be streamed to registered players. thus the customers would never be in possession of permanent copies of any media; only licences to stream/play media on registered devices .

i suspect CDs or downloads will still be offered by some publishers as there will probably be buyers for such products. hope so, anyway. I like 60s rock anyway and most of that stuff has long since been published on CD. Amazon has tons of it.

what seems perfectly clear however is that attempting to sieze complete control over digital files of any kind will be about as successful as trying to stamp out pot. Whac-a-Mole, anyone?

[eriktheblu]

Neither does the artist, he is merely using pre-existing materials and transforming them also (words, paint, canvas, etc) Should he have ownership thereof, he would also own the resulting art.


You can claim to own as much as you like, it still doesn't justify your claim to any property. No, the justification is by mutual agreement via social contract.


If the point would be to use as you would see fit, in terms of survival, then you surely do not need to own 5 PC's etc, because they are absolutely trivial to your survival. By fulfilling the entirety of the hierarchy of needs we facilitate survival. Continued survival of the entire species is intimately linked to improving our living conditions. I do not need 5 computers, but it is quite plausible that I could employ 5 or more to improve not only my personal situation, but that of my community as well. Are you suggesting that because it is not linked to immediate survival, I somehow forfeit exclusive access?

[buzzingrobot]

Continued survival of the entire species is intimately linked to improving our living conditions.

Well, our survival is linked to not trashing the system that sustains us, but other animal species survive quite nicely without constant efforts to improve their living conditions. It's only when some outside event alters the system that supports them that their viability comes into question. Our knack as a species seems to be adopting ways to improve our own individual living conditions at the cost of damage to the system that supports the species. (We aren't actually unique in that. Deer, for example, will happily reproduce themselves until the food supply can't sustain them and the equation is resolved by starvation.)

[eriktheblu]

Well, our survival is linked to not trashing the system that sustains us,
Systems that sustain us include communities with housing, climate control (heating and cooling), delivery of safe drinking water, elimination of disease, curing of injuries, efficient food production (less than 1% involved in some states), and an effective means of transporting goods and services.


but other animal species survive quite nicely without constant efforts to improve their living conditions. Other animal species also do not enjoy the same geographical diversity as us. They evolve to to a specific climate and do not thrive outside of it. We have managed to adapt to most environments on the planet, and have the unique ability to adapt to living off of the planet.


It's only when some outside event alters the system that supports them that their viability comes into question. And those outside events effect us as well, but we are able to recover due to technologies available and the charitable nature of our communities.


Our knack as a species seems to be adopting ways to improve our own individual living conditions at the cost of damage to the system that supports the species. (We aren't actually unique in that. Deer, for example, will happily reproduce themselves until the food supply can't sustain them and the equation is resolved by starvation.) You assume that the natural environment is the best system to support the species; this is not the case. By modifying our environment, we are better suited to endure climate extremes. We are able to bring the necessities of survival to areas where they are not normally present. We are able to maximize acquisition of subsistence by developing crops and livestock which give higher yields. We have prolonged our average lifespans by decades.

Deer do not grow crops; they won't truck in loads of walnuts to neighboring counties during a famine.

[buzzingrobot]

You assume that the natural environment is the best system to support the species...

Don't believe I did. You're reading too much into my comment.


Deer do not grow crops; they won't truck in loads of walnuts to neighboring counties during a famine.

No, but a deer population can over-populate itself beyond of the capacity of the system that supports it to provide enough food. It's self-evident that we alter that system in ways other animals cannot, but that doesn't mean we can get away with everything.

[ZarathustraDK]

I'd argue that intellectual property (not property, mind you) is bunk.


If I bake a pie tonight, it's my pie. It doesn't belong to any of the other several billion people on the planet.

The pie is material, ie. composed of a depletable resource which you would have to reacquire in order to make more pies. This, in my mind, would justify demanding payment for a pie.

An information-based "thing", however, is a non-depletable resource. It is, once created/arranged, impossible to exhaust. Several reasons why such a creation should be free and not "for money" presents itself:

The capitalistic reason. Since the product is infinitely reproducible at basically no cost, the supply will go towards infinity and consequently the price will go towards zero.
The Utilitarian reason. If the information is useful in any way to somebody (we're talking benevolent ways here, not stuff like fraud with personal information), and costs nothing to reproduce, then it should be spread as much as possible to do the most good.
The Deontological reason. Information can be considered intrinsically good and good without qualification as it is just another word for wisdom. Because of this, it should be spread for no other reason than that it is morally correct to do so.
Lack of labor and materials. People pay for labor and materials. Hand-crafted furniture costs more than Ikea-furniture since it generally requires more labor and more exotic materials. Copied information is, by extension, the most extreme Ikea you'll get; while handcrafted furniture would be analogical to, say, a live performance.
Spoiled child argument. Many other occupations do not enjoy the ability copy their own work and sell it for money, should they be outraged?
Well of Eternity. Would we have the same discussion if this was about an oven that could copy infinite amounts of bread, thus solving the worlds famine-related problems? How about a non-depletable medicine-cabinet? Information simply happens to be a directly (not indirectly) non-essential (to life) aspect that we can succesfully copy at no cost, that doesn't necessarily mean we should treat it any differently.
You'd make Jean Luc Picard a sad puppy if you can't copy things...http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/replicator.jpg


There's a plethora of moral philosophies out there, and I'm having a hard time finding any of "the greats" arguing against free information as moral good when applying their philosophies to the problem at hand. Verily, the few philosophical advocates I could think of that would support such a construct are not benevolent examples; stuff like Macchiavelli, assorted war-philosophies and economic philosophies that work on an "our country (aka. the good guys) vs. their country (the guys we want to give us their money)"; not really good inputs for a debate since it would assume a premise of mutual distrust in a forum perpetrated to doing the Right Thing(tm) (well, at least I assume we want to figure out what the right thing to do is, and that's why we're having this discussion).

In the end, the only obstacle to the horn of plenty liberally mentioned above and conducting ourselves in a benevolent manner towards our fellow man, is having the inventor benefit/receive recognition for his work. How hard can it be?

We're already creating information "for free" at places like universities. People are paid to do so, usually funded by the government through tax (at least where I live), or through tuition. The software equivalent for production-software would be open source software. We're almost doing it right (IMHO) with Kickstarter, implementing a bounty-based (demand-based) development of stuff/information. I just wish this mode of development spilled into arts/music/movies too. Let people decide what they wish to see made, not the other way around.

Contrast that with the pains we're currently have to endure: DRM, software phoning home, millions if not billions down the lawyer-well in frivolous IP-lawsuits, people being financially ruined for downloading a couple of cd's, locking up information beneficial (hell, even life-saving) to other people because they can't pay the fee (roundup-ready GMO-seeds for instance), the list goes on. All these things we could be rid of if people would just secure the demand before they go and create the supply and THEN retroactively acquire the payment.

But no. Not gonna happen. As a whole we're entitled buggers who all believe that whatever we put our minds to, our solution is the best, and people should pay for us going out of way to do so after the fact. Add to that an already well-entrenched system that reinforces the former with lobbyists, armies of lawyers and other assorted scum in order to control the politics relating to their business-field, and you have the recipe for an informational dark age. /rant

But people like to just call me a pirate :-/

[buzzingrobot]

The pie is material,,,


So is a book or a song or whatever.

Authors don't sell ephemeral and no-physical thoughts. They sell things they make. Sometime those things are made of ink on paper. Sometimes those things are made of electrons.

Ditto music.

[eriktheblu]

Don't believe I did. You're reading too much into my comment.
I don't know how "Our knack as a species seems to be adopting ways to improve our own individual living conditions at the cost of damage to the system that supports the species." could be a reference to the highway system, or grocery logistics train. My understanding has been that employing those systems generally contributes to their further improvement (as markets tend to shift supply toward demand). But, I will concede you did not specify the natural environment. What system then were you referencing and in what way does improving our living conditions damage said system?


No, but a deer population can over-populate itself beyond of the capacity of the system that supports it to provide enough food. It's self-evident that we alter that system in ways other animals cannot, but that doesn't mean we can get away with everything. We can't get away with everything, but we can tolerate more with technological improvements than we could without. This increases the likelihood of perpetuation of the species as a whole.

[buzzingrobot]

What system then were you referencing and in what way does improving our living conditions damage said system?



Climate change, to name the most obvious.

Technology -- use of tools -- is, at heart, a way to alter the natural system. The results can be beneifical, or not. The ways I leverage technology to improve my life do not necessarily improve the life of anyone else. They may, or they may not, or they may make someone else's life worse.

I'm not a tecnhnological Luddite, by any means, But, I don't see any reason to have blind faith that technology, in and of itself, is a panacea. Tools are used as humans see fit, and humans don't always make good decisions.

[ZarathustraDK]

So is a book or a song or whatever.

Authors don't sell ephemeral and no-physical thoughts. They sell things they make. Sometime those things are made of ink on paper. Sometimes those things are made of electrons.

Ditto music.

Yet it is not the paper, binding, ink nor electrons you and I wish to obtain, but the information that those things convey. If that wasn't true it'd follow that we'd be content with a blank book, a cup of ink and a blank harddrive, which I gather we are not.

Information is ephemereal. If it wasn't there'd be a limit to how much information you could potentially copy before using up your store of pre-information-matter (whatever that looks like).

[buzzingrobot]

Yet it is not the paper, binding, ink nor electrons you and I wish to obtain, but the information that those things convey. If that wasn't true it'd follow that we'd be content with a blank book, a cup of ink and a blank harddrive, which I gather we are not.

Information is ephemereal. If it wasn't there'd be a limit to how much information you could potentially copy before using up your store of pre-information-matter (whatever that looks like).

Talking about "information" isn't particularly useful.

That kind of "information" only exists in our heads. The only way to transfer what's in my head to another head, short of jabbering on about it, is to create a physical thing that uses some sort of symbology or coding to represent that "information". The only way to *preserve* the "information" that's in my head is also to create that thing.

[ZarathustraDK]

Talking about "information" isn't particularly useful.

That kind of "information" only exists in our heads. The only way to transfer what's in my head to another head, short of jabbering on about it, is to create a physical thing that uses some sort of symbology or coding to represent that "information". The only way to *preserve* the "information" that's in my head is also to create that thing.

And that's what you do when you copy something. But if I decide to use my own paper, ink or harddisk to do so then those physical things belong to me. How I arrange my ink on the paper or the magnetic field on my harddisk should be of no concern to you, even if it has a 1:1 semblance of similar objects in your possession.

[WinterMadness]

As I said, by accepting payment for labor, the employee agrees that the results of that labor belong to the employer.




Says who, other than you?

One can create all sorts of imaginary ways to live. But, the only ones that count, the only ones that exist, are shaped by the actual behavior of actual people. Otherwise, we're trying to impose an ideology, by persuasion or by force, on other people.


the only reason your world view exists is because its forced on everyone. When the state exists, it creates property ownership essentially in an arbitrary way.

Also, you said something about self ownership. Self ownership does not exist because ownership does not exist. If self ownership existed, then slavery is justified by selling oneself. If you cant sell yourself, then can you really claim to own yourself?

[eriktheblu]

Climate change, to name the most obvious.
So then it is the natural environment you were referencing.

Climate change is actually quite discrete. Average temperature fluctuation seems to be less than 1 degree over the last 100 years. Extreme weather patterns are not unknown to the regions currently effected. Any predictions of future climates cannot possibly be obvious because the future cannot be observed, and the predictions based on concepts that are unknown to most.

Further the potential damage cause has not been sufficiently demonstrated (to me at least) to be more detrimental to the perpetuation of our species then the complete elimination of the climate impacting behavior, and the likely subsequent complete societal breakdown.


Technology -- use of tools -- is, at heart, a way to alter the natural system. The results can be beneifical, or not. The ways I leverage technology to improve my life do not necessarily improve the life of anyone else. They may, or they may not, or they may make someone else's life worse.

I'm not a tecnhnological Luddite, by any means, But, I don't see any reason to have blind faith that technology, in and of itself, is a panacea. Tools are used as humans see fit, and humans don't always make good decisions.
Examples of true malice are rare in contrast examples of mutually beneficial labor. All tools are designed to improve living conditions (yes, I actually mean all). Most humans behave in a manor that will perpetuate the species; those that do not are generally removed from the community in some fashion in accordance with the social contract.

[eriktheblu]

If self ownership existed, then slavery is justified by selling oneself. If you cant sell yourself, then can you really claim to own yourself?

Slaves are captured and pressed into service; there is no mutual contract. In such a situation the slave 'owner' is not obligated in any manner to the other party.

People can sell themselves; this is how modern employment and financing work.

[fontis]

So then it is the natural environment you were referencing.

Climate change is actually quite discrete. Average temperature fluctuation seems to be less than 1 degree over the last 100 years. Extreme weather patterns are not unknown to the regions currently effected. Any predictions of future climates cannot possibly be obvious because the future cannot be observed, and the predictions based on concepts that are unknown to most.

Further the potential damage cause has not been sufficiently demonstrated (to me at least) to be more detrimental to the perpetuation of our species then the complete elimination of the climate impacting behavior, and the likely subsequent complete societal breakdown.


Examples of true malice are rare in contrast examples of mutually beneficial labor. All tools are designed to improve living conditions (yes, I actually mean all). Most humans behave in a manor that will perpetuate the species; those that do not are generally removed from the community in some fashion in accordance with the social contract.

lol, there is abundant evidence showing that our presence on this planet is affecting the climate and thus changing it.
It's just crazy to think otherwise.

It is true that the planet does go through cycles of climate change, but nothing at the level we are witnessing now. Furthermore, the biggest changes have always followed a radical event - which forced a shift in the climate. WE, are that radical shift atm.

It's quite a simple equation really. We are adding more **** to the atmosphere than the planet can deal with, whilst destroying the ecosystem that supported the planet to begin with.

[WinterMadness]

Slaves are captured and pressed into service; there is no mutual contract. In such a situation the slave 'owner' is not obligated in any manner to the other party.

People can sell themselves; this is how modern employment and financing work.

If one "sells" themselves, then they no longer own themselves, and this is not a society that is compatible in any way with human nature and this is well supported by psychology, anthropology and history. What you advocate allows slavery.

Modern employment is not the same as selling yourself. Modern employment is more like renting yourself, or prostitution.

[eriktheblu]

lol, there is abundant evidence showing that our presence on this planet is affecting the climate and thus changing it.
It's just crazy to think otherwise. The presence of evidence does not endow people with the aptitude to interpret it. Casual non-expert observation does not reveal obvious changes.

Adopting a condescending tone toward a straw man does not make it obvious either.


It is true that the planet does go through cycles of climate change, but nothing at the level we are witnessing now. Furthermore, the biggest changes have always followed a radical event - which forced a shift in the climate. WE, are that radical shift atm. If a region sees years with heavy storms, and years with more moderate storms, increase in frequency of the heavy storms can be easily overlooked by the casual observer.

[ZarathustraDK]

Thread is getting off-topic, the topic is piracy and intellectual property, not climate change...

[eriktheblu]

If one "sells" themselves, then they no longer own themselves, and this is not a society that is compatible in any way with human nature and this is well supported by psychology, anthropology and history. What you advocate allows slavery. There is no possible way to accomplish self contracted slavery. If a person somehow managed to contract for slave-like working conditions and terms, it would still not be slavery if the agreement was entered into voluntarily. A slave cannot hold others accountable to the terms of a contract.


Modern employment is not the same as selling yourself. Modern employment is more like renting yourself, or prostitution. Selling time, labor.... what other parts of self are transferable (and worth selling)? If I trade you a portion of my harvest, but maintain some for myself, is that selling or renting? Rent, is just another form of sale.

[buzzingrobot]

And that's what you do when you copy something. But if I decide to use my own paper, ink or harddisk to do so then those physical things belong to me. How I arrange my ink on the paper or the magnetic field on my harddisk should be of no concern to you, even if it has a 1:1 semblance of similar objects in your possession.

You have no rights to do anything with anything I made unless I -- the original owner of all rights associated with what I make -- transfer them to you. You come into legal possession of, e.g., a book only because you buy it or borrow it from someone who owns it legally. By that acquisition, certain of the author's rights in the book transfer to you, via the publisher. Those rights do not include making and distributing copies of the book in competition with the author and the publilsher.

One can construct all kinds of diaphonous sophomoric philosophical notions to support what anounts to a natural desire to get stuff for free. These extreme reactions are obvious reactions to the obvious abuses by the music and entertainment industries. I'm not interested in self-serving fantasies in the pursuit of greed, on either side. If creative people can't make money from trhe work they do, there will be considerably less of that work done; certainly almost none of the usual throwaway adolescent pop entertainment so dear to the hearts of the anti-IP folks

[sffvba[e0rt]

Thread is getting off-topic, the topic is piracy and intellectual property, not climate change...

I don't have time to go through this whole thread to clean it up, but can we please stay on topic now?


404

[ZarathustraDK]

You have no rights to do anything with anything I made unless I -- the original owner of all rights associated with what I make -- transfer them to you. You come into legal possession of, e.g., a book only because you buy it or borrow it from someone who owns it legally. By that acquisition, certain of the author's rights in the book transfer to you, via the publisher. Those rights do not include making and distributing copies of the book in competition with the author and the publilsher.

Those are the very topics we are arguing. You cannot pre-empt the argument by declaring that that's the way it currently is, put on the sunglasses, and say "Deal with it". If you are not willing to discuss the nature of information, the root-causes for what and why, then we may as well have a shouting-match doing nothing but going "boo!" and "Yaaay!".


One can construct all kinds of diaphonous sophomoric philosophical notions to support what anounts to a natural desire to get stuff for free. These extreme reactions are obvious reactions to the obvious abuses by the music and entertainment industries.

That's an assumption on your part. An assumption that conveniently denies not only the cheapskates, but also the genuine philanthropists their chance to argue any kind of radical change to the current way of doing things. I might as well say "you're just exploiting your natural desire to acquire wealth from as little work as possible", it wouldn't be fair to cut you off from the debate simply on the grounds of your stance or occupation.


If creative people can't make money from trhe work they do, there will be considerably less of that work done; certainly almost none of the usual throwaway adolescent pop entertainment so dear to the hearts of the anti-IP folks

Two things:
1. I did offer an alternative method to income in my original post. Secure the demand before making the supply through a bounty-based approach.
2. If less is made, so what? How does the loss of mass-produced "for money" artistic expression in any way compare to the personal financial ruin and loss of human life in otherwise _innocent people_ due to overpriced patented medicine (to name just one debilitating effect of the current system)?

[carla2013]

Those are the very topics we are arguing. You cannot pre-empt the argument by declaring that that's the way it currently is, put on the sunglasses, and say "Deal with it". If you are not willing to discuss the nature of information, the root-causes for what and why, then we may as well have a shouting-match doing nothing but going "boo!" and "Yaaay!".



That's an assumption on your part. An assumption that conveniently denies not only the cheapskates, but also the genuine philanthropists their chance to argue any kind of radical change to the current way of doing things. I might as well say "you're just exploiting your natural desire to acquire wealth from as little work as possible", it wouldn't be fair to cut you off from the debate simply on the grounds of your stance or occupation.



Two things:
1. I did offer an alternative method to income in my original post. Secure the demand before making the supply through a bounty-based approach.
2. If less is made, so what? How does the loss of mass-produced "for money" artistic expression in any way compare to the personal financial ruin and loss of human life in otherwise _innocent people_ due to overpriced patented medicine (to name just one debilitating effect of the current system)?

can you give me an example of "a bounty-based approach"?

[eriktheblu]

can you give me an example of "a bounty-based approach"?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palmer-the-new-record-art-book-and-tour?ref=live

[ZarathustraDK]

can you give me an example of "a bounty-based approach"?

Yeah Kickstarter is the obvious example, though it should be amended in such a way that the information produced by funding a project became public domain. Some of the projects like the Arduino-board did this.

Another example would be research going on at universities. They hire ph.d's and post-grads with tuition-income to produce research that is available to all.

[MissMonicaE]

This is rather late, but Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig is a very good read on the general subject of intellectual property rights.