Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

Thread: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    London
    Beans
    481
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzingrobot View Post
    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?
    Please mark your thread as solved if you get a satisfactory solution to your problem.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Beans
    326
    Distro
    Xubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by johnluke728 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterMadness View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzingrobot View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by lykwydchykyn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by evilsoup View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Beans
    470
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by eriktheblu View Post
    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.
    KDE is the best

  4. #24
    monkeybrain2012 is offline Grande Half-n-Half Cinnamon Ubuntu
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    874

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Across The Pond
    Beans
    885
    Distro
    Xubuntu 16.04 Xenial Xerus

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzingrobot View Post
    *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.
    "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." Will Rogers

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Beans
    3,421

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by eriktheblu View Post
    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?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beans
    2,336
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by evilsoup View Post
    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?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Beans
    326
    Distro
    Xubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterMadness View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by monkeybrain2012 View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Beans
    326
    Distro
    Xubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by lykwydchykyn View Post
    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.
    Last edited by eriktheblu; May 30th, 2013 at 11:32 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    France
    Beans
    14
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by eriktheblu View Post
    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

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •