Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Piracy

[TheBuzzSaw]

I have been studying issues surround intellectual property for quite some time, and I am thoroughly convinced that there is no such thing as intellectual property. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) continue to influence the government to implement more and more artificial barriers to protect their ancient business models. They treat ideas and information as tangible items, yet refuse to accept the consequences associated with doing so.

First off, let me start with a quote:

Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

This completely contradicts the philosophy behind "intellectual property". The greatest misunderstanding about piracy (propagated by the RIAA/MPAA) is that "piracy = theft", but that is simply not true.

Piracy can only occur with information. It represents an illegal duplication of copyrighted information. Twenty years ago, piracy generally involved photocopiers (copying pages from books, sheet music, etc.). Today, thanks to computer systems, music, movies, whole books, etc. can be passed around effortlessly.

Theft can only occur with physical goods. It involves removing said good (in part or whole) from the possession of the owner. When theft occurs, the owner is denied access to and usage of the stolen item. The thief enjoys the benefits but cannot widely distribute those benefits (unlike with piracy). If a thief steals a TV, he still cannot watch it if he lends it to his friend for the weekend. There is only one unit going around.

The problem with today's companies is that they work hard to enjoy the best of both worlds. They treat their digital products like physical items (equate piracy to theft, "one pirated song = one lost sale", etc.) yet exploit the benefits of information (impose nonnegotiable contracts, license the product, control how the customer uses it, etc.). They seem to forget that after we purchase something, we are free to do whatever we want with it. Yes, they are free to void warranties, refuse rebates, etc. but many things (like software) include huge contracts that cannot even be read until opening the package (and "opening the package" is usually what agrees to the EULA). What gave these companies the idea that they could sell us something and tell us how to use it? If I want to use Jimmy Dean sausages as lawn decorations, dang skippy, I will do it! I do not care that sausages were "meant for being eaten" (though I do love sausage and would continue to eat them).

This same issue comes up when people decide to modify their video game consoles. Thanks to lack of foresight, the DMCA lets companies prosecute their fans if they dare make their purchased product more useful.

The biggest beef I have with the entertainment industry as a whole is the idea that they can charge someone absurd amounts of money for one instance of piracy. People's lives are ruined over one download. Yes, piracy is bad, and there should be consequences for breaking the law, but $10,000 fine for illegally downloading a 99 cent song? The penalty for stealing the real CD off the rack is less severe! The problem comes from the industry's attempt to calculate damages.

In other news, a photographer named Lane Hartwell freaked out because she saw one of her photographs used in a YouTube music video. No, this was not a big name artist making big bucks on the video. This was a free music video made just for fun, but this photographer is filing lawsuit. The creators of the video tried to accommodate her by giving her credit, but she refused to budge. She (like millions of other artists) called it "stealing" (even though no theft took place) and demanded compensation (even though the video made no money). Rather than accept it as free marketing for her talents and politely asking for proper credit and bragging to her friends, she chose the path of litigation. I hope she realizes that I never heard of her up until now, but she has been introduced as a whiner. That can't be good for her image. Oh, and for the record, she already profited from the photograph; it was for a particular web site, and they already paid the license fee. Regardless, she ranted on her blog about "hurting the artists", "making a living", "putting food on the table", etc. (yes, despite having been paid for the freakin' photograph already).

Can intellectual property survive the Information Age?
Will copyright continue to be enforced by artists?

... more to come later...

 

[RDK]

Freedom of information.

Honestly, once stuff like music and movies are in public domain, there's literally no stopping it, so why even try? They're chasing a pipe dream if the MPAA thinks it can stop piracy.

And BTW, just to get it out there, yes, I do pirate movies, music, and games, mostly because I'm tired of spending $7 to go get two hours of my life taken away from me at the movie theatre that I'll never get back on crappy-a$$ movies. If I genuinely like the movie, I'll go pay to see it at theatres, but I honestly think the movie industry is highway robbery nowadays.

 

[Caturdayz]

Intellectual property is a ridiculous concept, try as you might you are not going to stop people from downloading that song or getting a free copy of that movie. It will eventually die out, it is entirely ineffective as more and more people are downloading there will be no reason for it, you will not be able to prosecute everyone, they're not doing a good job now, everyone I know downloads music, myself included and the RIAA hasn't come and kicked down my door yet.

No, enforcement will diminish and then cease.

 

[AltF4]

Information wants to be free! Open source ftw!

The RIAA (and the MPAA to a lesser extent perhaps) is an obsolete entity in its death throes. They are desperately trying to justify their own existence, when their very nature is based on an outdated and unnecessary business model.

Their problem is that they are trying to hold on to this notion of intellectual property. They are trying to sell "songs" instead of selling experiences.

No matter how much pirating goes on, no matter how popular the internet becomes in sharing files, bands will always have people come to concerts. Why? Because it is a completely different and unique experience that cannot be downloaded.

Similarly with movies. No matter how many people "pirate" movies online, the theaters will always have people in their seats. This is because they offer an experience that you just cannot get through downloading.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Piracy can not and never will be stopped. As long as there is information and a way to get it, there will be an illegal way to get it. AltF4Warrior is totally right. The ability to download music doesn't hinder CD sales (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34300-2004Mar29?language=printer).

 

[gringo66]

i completely agree with altf4warrior. I personally do not download movies on to my computer. Have i seen downloaded movies on a computer? yes i have. have i seen bootlegged movies? yes i have. but id most def choose to go to the movie theatre and watch the movie there, then to watch the movie at my house. Why? because its a way funner experience.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Im going to be very honest with this, i only support (buy the CDs) of artist i feel really deserve it, if i like one song by "band X" im not going to go buy a 20$ CD for that one song, is that wrong? Perhaps. But if i find "band Y" has 7 songs i like i will go buy the CD to enjoy the rest of there music as the band has won me over and i feel obligated to buy there CD (or image if you will because i could very easily Download the CD thanks to torrents)

The question still floats though, am i a piret? definitly, but i dont feel taking one song away from these millionairs gives them the right to attack me and file law suits.

This is how i justfy my actions, am i wrong?

 

[AltF4]

Ever wonder what happened to all that fuss with the record companies suing music downloaders? Remember how it was all over the news about how people were being sued for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Ever wondered what happened with all that and why it dropped out of the news so fast?

Yea, they got overturned in court. That's because the argument they tried to use was "it's no different than stealing the music from a normal store" but in that case they could only charge the actual damages, which would inevitably amount to a couple hundred dollars. Not even enough to cover court costs.

The record companies don't care about you or the music. They only care about money. They will do anything and everything to try to keep making money even at your own expense.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Ever wonder what happened to all that fuss with the record companies suing music downloaders? Remember how it was all over the news about how people were being sued for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Ever wondered what happened with all that and why it dropped out of the news so fast?

Yea, they got overturned in court. That's because the argument they tried to use was "it's no different than stealing the music from a normal store" but in that case they could only charge the actual damages, which would inevitably amount to a couple hundred dollars. Not even enough to cover court costs.

The record companies don't care about you or the music. They only care about money. They will do anything and everything to try to keep making money even at your own expense.

exactly, that just adds to the reasons why i only buy Music for Bands im REALLY into, not just this weeks hit

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Yea, they got overturned in court. That's because the argument they tried to use was "it's no different than stealing the music from a normal store" but in that case they could only charge the actual damages, which would inevitably amount to a couple hundred dollars. Not even enough to cover court costs.

Really? From my understanding, they were failing the lawsuits altogether because judges made it abundantly clear that these were cases of copyright infringement, not stealing.

 

[AltF4]

Well, I don't want to say all. It's on a case by case basis. Originally (probably not anymore) they used the "just like stealing" argument.

Now it's become a copyright infringement issue, so that's correct as well.

I just was referring to that first wave of famous "busts" that were going around a couple years ago.

 

[RDK]

Everyone remember that big hubbub a few years ago that Metallica made over people downloading their music?

It's stuff like that that pisses me off. They don't even make music anymore and they're still making money off their songs, but yet they have the balls to get pissed at people "stealing sales" from them.

The people that truly suffer from this are up-and-coming artists that nobody really knows about. They truly need the money. In that case, you should probably support them, until they become a household name.

However, if someone is as successful as Metallica gets pissed off about mp3 pirating, then that's just wrong.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

The people that truly suffer from this are up-and-coming artists that nobody really knows about. They truly need the money. In that case, you should probably support them, until they become a household name.

But even this is backwards thinking for young artists. A popular quote being tossed around by a famous author (forgot the name) is that "obscurity is a greater threat than piracy". Honestly, these new artists need file-sharing on their side more than anyone else! Several new bands have already demonstrated that by releasing music for free online, they become popular much more quickly, and they can monetize things such as concerts, exclusive content, access to the band members, paraphernalia, etc.

 

[RDK]

But even this is backwards thinking for young artists. A popular quote being tossed around by a famous author (forgot the name) is that "obscurity is a greater threat than piracy". Honestly, these new artists need file-sharing on their side more than anyone else! Several new bands have already demonstrated that by releasing music for free online, they become popular much more quickly, and they can monetize things such as concerts, exclusive content, access to the band members, paraphernalia, etc.

You're 100% correct in this regard. In today's world, any publicity is good publicity.

I'm just trying to share the viewpoint that if you think an artist, of any kind (films, songs, etc.) has earned your money, you should at least go out and purchase the album or watch the movie.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Granted, this only applies if they have prepared the appropriate business model. If a new band is selling their songs, then yeah, they should not be pirated.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Let me start with this, just because Jefferson said it doesn't make it true, Jefferson also owned slaves and had more then his fair share of other issues.


Now then, however much you might dislike intellectual property, it's fundamental to a functioning capitalist system. Without control of one's creations (and thus the ability to gain income from it) there is no incentive to produce, which means essentially no producers.

That means that you have the right to have a song... that doesn't exist and will never exist. Granted, there are pro bono artists out there, they are less prolific in general due to other careers and they're less common.

Furthermore, from a philosophical prospective, we take our concept of property from John Locke. The idea is that one has property in something when they mix it with their labor (assuming of course, that someone else has not already mixed the thing in question with their labor). Once they have property they are free to do with it what they wish (barring legal restrictions of course). This is absolutely fundamental to our system of government, and it applies just as well to intellectual property.

The reason is simple, when one comes up with an idea, that is applying labor. Since it is their property, they have a right to give it to others, keep it to themselves, or give terms open the divulging. In the third case, like any other exchange, the person who is getting access to the idea is free to not agree to the exchange and thus not be bound.

Why can the creator do this? Because they mixed their labor with the idea, they are not obligated to give the idea away because this violates free choice, and thus they are free to require conditions before giving the idea. It's both a good and a service, and if you want it, you must agree to what they ask.

Physical and intellectual property are little different from a legal and philosophical prospective (for the reasons that I pointed out). so why should stealing them be treated any differently?


Granted I do have an issue with EULAs, from a legal prospective it's forcing you to agree to a contract before you have the ability to see it. As such, framing it as fraud (specifically bait and switch) could work legally. Really, legislation is needed to assure that consumers have the ability to see all "use contracts" before they "agree to them". Forcing a person to agree to a contract before they agree to it is fraud, plain and simple.

 

[ComradeSAL]

You're 100% correct in this regard. In today's world, any publicity is good publicity.

I'm just trying to share the viewpoint that if you think an artist, of any kind (films, songs, etc.) has earned your money, you should at least go out and purchase the album or watch the movie.

I disagree. If you want to give money away, why give it to the RIAA, who is just going to piss away their diminishing profits on more lawsuits? Remember, only a small portion of your money actually goes to the artist that made the work.

Last year I estimated that I had pirated about 500$ worth of music and anime, so I donated 500$ to Heifer International. According to the website, that's enough to buy a cow to send to a 3rd world family. This year I learned of an even better organization through smashboards: Turame. I'll probably donate there this year.

Now, honestly, which is going to do more good, the nickels and dimes that actually make it to the artist, or my cow?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Let me start with this, just because Jefferson said it doesn't make it true, Jefferson also owned slaves and had more then his fair share of other issues.

Who cares that Jefferson was the one that said it? Did you even read the quote? It is completely true. Ideas are not subject to the same restrictions of physical property.

Now then, however much you might dislike intellectual property, it's fundamental to a functioning capitalist system. Without control of one's creations (and thus the ability to gain income from it) there is no incentive to produce, which means essentially no producers.

False. Artists would have you believe this because they lack to creativity to attempt another business model. You only argue that we need IP for a "functionaling capitalist system" because it is all you have ever known. Well, modern businesses are challenging that mentality and making quite a fortune doing it.

And there will always be incentive to create. Have you ever been TheForce.net? There several full-length Star Wars movies made by fans. They made the entire movies knowing full well they would not be allowed to profit from them. Artistic creativity is in our blood! There are always incentives to create. There are several musicians out there now who give their music away for free but still make plenty of money.

That means that you have the right to have a song... that doesn't exist and will never exist. Granted, there are pro bono artists out there, they are less prolific in general due to other careers and they're less common.

It's a new system. The Internet is relatively new. Give it time.

Furthermore, from a philosophical prospective, we take our concept of property from John Locke. The idea is that one has property in something when they mix it with their labor (assuming of course, that someone else has not already mixed the thing in question with their labor). Once they have property they are free to do with it what they wish (barring legal restrictions of course). This is absolutely fundamental to our system of government, and it applies just as well to intellectual property.

As I mentioned above, businesses are already learning how to monetize their labor without having to sell their information directly. Using the information (a non-scarce good since it can be freely duplicated) to promote a product or service (a scarce good that cannot be duplicated) has proven to be more effective, and it makes the customers much happier as well. This whole idea of selling something to someone and telling them how/where/when they can use it is absurd. If I buy something, it is mine to do with as I please. This is why it makes far more sense to not set yourself up for failure by attempting to combat piracy.

The reason is simple, when one comes up with an idea, that is applying labor. Since it is their property, they have a right to give it to others, keep it to themselves, or give terms open the divulging. In the third case, like any other exchange, the person who is getting access to the idea is free to not agree to the exchange and thus not be bound.

This entire idea is just ridiculous. Have you not seen what happened when the world tried to implement this system? Honest paying customers were the ones who suffered. Sure, this system would work in a world where everyone was 100% honest. Sadly, many people decide to take stuff for free. However, instead of deal with pirates as an isolated group, the honest people are the ones who have to put up with things like DRM. The system you are presenting is nice in theory, but in practice, it is horrible.

Why can the creator do this? Because they mixed their labor with the idea, they are not obligated to give the idea away because this violates free choice, and thus they are free to require conditions before giving the idea. It's both a good and a service, and if you want it, you must agree to what they ask.

You are viewing this strictly from the creator's point of view. Humans thrive off social interaction. It is our nature to share positive experiences with one another. Last century, the RIAA had nothing to worry about because records were individual physical copies. Now, all they sell is contracts dictating how we live our lives.

Physical and intellectual property are little different from a legal and philosophical prospective (for the reasons that I pointed out). so why should stealing them be treated any differently?

They are not a "little" different. They are immensely different. Believing they were similar is what got us into this mess. You cannot steal an idea. Let us imagine you invent the word "sturplegate". I am in your office one day to take your garbage can out, and I notice "sturplegate" written on a piece of paper on your desk. I am now person #2 who knows of this idea. I stole nothing from you, whether I had "permission" to see it or not. The only way to dispossess you of the idea (thus making it "mine") would be to bludgeon you so badly that you could not remember the idea (I'd probably just kill you). Calling infringement "stealing" only brings to light your desperate attempt to give piracy more moral sting.

Granted I do have an issue with EULAs, from a legal prospective it's forcing you to agree to a contract before you have the ability to see it. As such, framing it as fraud (specifically bait and switch) could work legally. Really, legislation is needed to assure that consumers have the ability to see all "use contracts" before they "agree to them". Forcing a person to agree to a contract before they agree to it is fraud, plain and simple.

But EULAs will never go away as long as there are people like you defending IP rights.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Who cares that Jefferson was the one that said it? Did you even read the quote? It is completely true. Ideas are not subject to the same restrictions of physical property.

Obviously, I was just using that as my starting point, since you presented it as if quoting him held some intrinsic value.

False. Artists would have you believe this because they lack to creativity to attempt another business model. You only argue that we need IP for a "functionaling capitalist system" because it is all you have ever known. Well, modern businesses are challenging that mentality and making quite a fortune doing it.

Examples?

For the most part their distribution models still hinge on intellectual property but in a different form.

It's a new system. The Internet is relatively new. Give it time.

The reason they're less prolific and fewer in number is you don't make money by doing things for the public good.

As I mentioned above, businesses are already learning how to monetize their labor without having to sell their information directly. Using the information (a non-scarce good since it can be freely duplicated) to promote a product or service (a scarce good that cannot be duplicated) has proven to be more effective, and it makes the customers much happier as well. This whole idea of selling something to someone and telling them how/where/when they can use it is absurd. If I buy something, it is mine to do with as I please. This is why it makes far more sense to not set yourself up for failure by attempting to combat piracy.

Goods and services are still part of IP...

You for instance, cannot make and sell an X-box.

Furthermore, the distribution model still hinges on a degree of ownership.

This entire idea is just ridiculous. Have you not seen what happened when the world tried to implement this system? Honest paying customers were the ones who suffered. Sure, this system would work in a world where everyone was 100% honest. Sadly, many people decide to take stuff for free. However, instead of deal with pirates as an isolated group, the honest people are the ones who have to put up with things like DRM. The system you are presenting is nice in theory, but in practice, it is horrible.

Ok, so I suppose "it's my property because I said so" is so much better?

Unless you have some justification for property you have no justification for ownership of anything, that includes that computer you're typing on.

Once property is established a person has a right to protect it, if they desire. If you like a different distribution model, then it is your right as a consumer to monetarily support (aka, buy from) people/groups that use this distribution model and encourage your friends to do the same.

That's how things change in this model.

You are viewing this strictly from the creator's point of view. Humans thrive off social interaction. It is our nature to share positive experiences with one another. Last century, the RIAA had nothing to worry about because records were individual physical copies. Now, all they sell is contracts dictating how we live our lives.

So, we are social creatures justifies violating our contracts? And stealing?

The fact that we share positive experiences does not justify this

They are not a "little" different. They are immensely different. Believing they were similar is what got us into this mess. You cannot steal an idea. Let us imagine you invent the word "sturplegate". I am in your office one day to take your garbage can out, and I notice "sturplegate" written on a piece of paper on your desk. I am now person #2 who knows of this idea. I stole nothing from you, whether I had "permission" to see it or not. The only way to dispossess you of the idea (thus making it "mine") would be to bludgeon you so badly that you could not remember the idea (I'd probably just kill you). Calling infringement "stealing" only brings to light your desperate attempt to give piracy more moral sting.

But I have not surrendered rights to the idea, hence you have no right to actually use the idea, whether you have seen it or not.

Non-use, since it is something that holds to every situation, is valid as something to hold to all who gain access to your idea unless specified otherwise.

But EULAs will never go away as long as there are people like you defending IP rights.

I have no desire for them to go away. All I care about is ability to see what precisely I'm agreeing to before I agree to it.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Obviously, I was just using that as my starting point, since you presented it as if quoting him held some intrinsic value.

He was only one of the founding fathers of our country. Also, since when do people have to be perfect to say something intelligent? I should just listen to nothing you say because you have many personal issues to work out. >_>

Examples?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070930/214524.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/162842435.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080115/095022.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050214/1311237.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041230/1415204.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/173833576.shtml

For the most part their distribution models still hinge on intellectual property but in a different form.

No. They don't. The only copyright laws we need in this country is ensuring creators receive credit for their ideas. Granting them control over how their ideas are used is bad.

The reason they're less prolific and fewer in number is you don't make money by doing things for the public good.

Ever heard of Ubuntu? They are sitting on a gold mine right now and doing tons of good. They sell service and equipment only. The Linux OS they give away for free drives the value of those goods way up. They give away the OS for free despite pouring hundreds of work hours into improving it.

Goods and services are still part of IP...

In your mind, perhaps.

You for instance, cannot make and sell an X-box.

Yes, I could. Oh, but you're referring to the IP laws blocking me. Do you honestly think I could produce an XBox of superior quality that people would actually want to buy? Even if I could, that would be an indicator to Microsoft that they need to increase the efficiency of their production. The big problem with IP is that it makes companies lazy. Competition is very healthy for an economy.

Furthermore, the distribution model still hinges on a degree of ownership.

OK.

Ok, so I suppose "it's my property because I said so" is so much better?

Unless you have some justification for property you have no justification for ownership of anything, that includes that computer you're typing on.

Once property is established a person has a right to protect it, if they desire. If you like a different distribution model, then it is your right as a consumer to monetarily support (aka, buy from) people/groups that use this distribution model and encourage your friends to do the same.

That's how things change in this model.

Oh, don't worry. The market will drive that direction. Every company who tries to sit back and tell customers what to do will eventually be overrun by a different business who (heaven forbid) gives customers what they want. This whole idea of selling people contracts was strongly pushed by the Internet. We are finally given a tool that moves data around freely, and the artists want it shut down to defend their crumbling, ancient business models. The ones who are embracing it are figuring out how to USE that to their advantage.

So, we are social creatures justifies violating our contracts? And stealing?

The fact that we share positive experiences does not justify this

It's not stealing. Get over it.

But I have not surrendered rights to the idea, hence you have no right to actually use the idea, whether you have seen it or not.

Non-use, since it is something that holds to every situation, is valid as something to hold to all who gain access to your idea unless specified otherwise.

Stop me. Thanx to crappy IP laws, many bigger companies today stockpile ridiculous patents for the sole purpose of attacking other businesses. You speak of IP as if it grants wonderful blessings to creators, but all it does is cripple innovation. Microsoft spends all its time suing people for patent infringement even though they copied ideas for everything they make today. They combat piracy like it's the end of the world, yet piracy is what got them to where they are today. I'll just take your idea, patent it first, and blast you with it.

I have no desire for them to go away. All I care about is ability to see what precisely I'm agreeing to before I agree to it.

I have plenty of desire for them to go away. This is another reason I love Linux. They give you the software and say, "Feel free to tinker with what's inside. It's your software."

 

[adumbrodeus]

He was only one of the founding fathers of our country. Also, since when do people have to be perfect to say something intelligent? I should just listen to nothing you say because you have many personal issues to work out. >_>

*sigh*

Nice straw man fallacy...

I didn't say that his personal issues made his statements invalid.

I merely pointed out that just because Jefferson said it doesn't make it true.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070930/214524.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/162842435.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080115/095022.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050214/1311237.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041230/1415204.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/173833576.shtml

Already answered this...

For the most part their distribution models still hinge on intellectual property but in a different form.

No. They don't. The only copyright laws we need in this country is ensuring creators receive credit for their ideas. Granting them control over how their ideas are used is bad.

What does credit do?

Control is what allows people to make money which is why people put these ideas on the market.

Look, they have no obligation to tell you their ideas, nobody needs to put the music out there, or tell you some great philosophical truth.

Like if you're trying to get information directly from a person, they can ask for compensation.

All IP laws do is make this impersonal.

Ever heard of Ubuntu? They are sitting on a gold mine right now and doing tons of good. They sell service and equipment only. The Linux OS they give away for free drives the value of those goods way up. They give away the OS for free despite pouring hundreds of work hours into improving it.

Counter-examples only work if the other person stated it applies in every case... which I didn't.

Ubuntu is the exception, not the rule.

Yes, I could. Oh, but you're referring to the IP laws blocking me. Do you honestly think I could produce an XBox of superior quality that people would actually want to buy? Even if I could, that would be an indicator to Microsoft that they need to increase the efficiency of their production. The big problem with IP is that it makes companies lazy. Competition is very healthy for an economy.

Obviously I was referring to the IP laws blocking you...

That's why I said it was part of IP...

As for why IP laws exist for products, there is no incentive for innovation is competition can exactly copy you. If you do all the legwork they're in a better position to profit and it's their gain.

So why the heck would I spend valuable money on research and development if it increases my competitor's market share?

Sure, competition is healthy, but ability to replicate products discourages R&D, hence competition is in substitutes.

Oh, don't worry. The market will drive that direction. Every company who tries to sit back and tell customers what to do will eventually be overrun by a different business who (heaven forbid) gives customers what they want. This whole idea of selling people contracts was strongly pushed by the Internet. We are finally given a tool that moves data around freely, and the artists want it shut down to defend their crumbling, ancient business models. The ones who are embracing it are figuring out how to USE that to their advantage.

If you think that it will end you're dreaming, the contracts will get less restrictive, but creators will find a happy medium with the consumers.

Sorry, an IP-free utopia will not exist.

It's not stealing. Get over it.

Obviously because you say it isn't stealing it isn't stealing...

Stop me. Thanx to crappy IP laws, many bigger companies today stockpile ridiculous patents for the sole purpose of attacking other businesses. You speak of IP as if it grants wonderful blessings to creators, but all it does is cripple innovation. Microsoft spends all its time suing people for patent infringement even though they copied ideas for everything they make today. They combat piracy like it's the end of the world, yet piracy is what got them to where they are today. I'll just take your idea, patent it first, and blast you with it.

Any system can be abused but one deals with the abuse, not scrap the entire system. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, there is no incentive to develop without IP laws, except pro bono, which is relatively rare, and therefore simply not enough.

I have plenty of desire for them to go away. This is another reason I love Linux. They give you the software and say, "Feel free to tinker with what's inside. It's your software."

How exactly does that relate to my quote?

You were attacking my viewpoints saying that they would mean EULAs would never go away, I said I have no particular desire for them to go away... and you just say that you don't like them again.

I ask again, in what way does that respond to what I said?

 

[AltF4]

Go and read this.

It's kind of long, but it sums the argument up as well as I can imagine. At least from a software standpoint. Music and movies are slightly different, but analogous.

 

[The Executive]

Go and read this.

It's kind of long, but it sums the argument up as well as I can imagine. At least from a software standpoint. Music and movies are slightly different, but analogous.

Agreed 100%.

The way I look at IP is this: It's a fluke. These laws (along with the DMCA) apply only to copyrighted intangible material that can be pressed and produced an infinite amount of times for little to no cost. The production cost-to-profit ratio is absolutely absurd and it disrupts the balance in a capitalistic society. Not to mention in areas such as the music industry buying tangible or intangible media results in my money going to the distributor and not the creator of the intangible item I am paying tangible money for. I would much rather download the item cost-free and mail a sufficient-value check to the creator or give my funds to an organization like a charity that will actually use them for something beneficial.

 

[blazedaces]

Alright, in another thread there was a sort of request to have this bumped somehow.

Now, I'm going to deliberately be devil's advocate, but let's just see how things go...

Now, there's clearly a good argument for why software should be "free" or, if not free, at least open-source, but what about movies and music?

Many musicians have a hard time starting out and making enough money as they do (I'm just assuming this to be true but if you have knowledge to the contrary please correct me). When it comes to music and movies there is no hiding of code, everything is sold as is. People can learn from movies, but there's no reason to manipulate a movie or change a piece of music. It's not like it benefits anyone, like it does with software, to change it to certain specifications when the need arises.

While movies and music can be represented digitally and transferred over the world wide web, there has to be some kind of line drawn that separates what is and isn't considered "intellectual property". What about books? What about games? Where do they lie in this spectrum?


Also, shouldn't the artist/creator/writer have a say in how he wants to try and make money? Doesn't the creator have a "right" to make up the rules on the shareability of his creation?

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

God bless you for bumping this.

I'm only going to respond to what I have a ready argument for, which would be the music.

Many musicians have a hard time starting out and making enough money as they do (I'm just assuming this to be true but if you have knowledge to the contrary please correct me). When it comes to music and movies there is no hiding of code, everything is sold as is. People can learn from movies, but there's no reason to manipulate a movie or change a piece of music. It's not like it benefits anyone, like it does with software, to change it to certain specifications when the need arises.

The music industry is rapidly moving towards digital distribution. Artists receive far less of a cut for a digital copy than they do for a hard-pressed one. If some suits are pocketing most of my cash I ostensibly am giving to an artist, I would much rather download the music elsewhere (at the price of reduced quality and format, it's not like this is completely beneficial) and mail a check directly to the artist in proportion to how much I downloaded and how much I think they deserve for putting effort into creating their work. Radiohead has taken this approach, as have a number of indie bands who know their profits from this are about the same as signing on to a record label and having their profits pocketed.

 

[SkylerOcon]

In addition to The Executive's post, artists make little in regards to actual CD distribution anyway. All there money comes from royalties and tours. Who do you think cares if we pirate music? The FBI? Hardly. They hardly ever crack down on illegal downloads from the internet because it's most likely that many FBI agents pirate too.

Trying to get somebody in trouble for getting a few songs without paying is just like them listening to that song on a friend's iPod and then being arrested for it. You're still getting the song for free.

The only thing I think that it's not right to ignore copyright laws with is actual inventions. These are practical and in most cases, needed for modern day life.

 

[blazedaces]

In addition to The Executive's post, artists make little in regards to actual CD distribution anyway. All there money comes from royalties and tours. Who do you think cares if we pirate music? The FBI? Hardly. They hardly ever crack down on illegal downloads from the internet because it's most likely that many FBI agents pirate too.

Trying to get somebody in trouble for getting a few songs without paying is just like them listening to that song on a friend's iPod and then being arrested for it. You're still getting the song for free.

The only thing I think that it's not right to ignore copyright laws with is actual inventions. These are practical and in most cases, needed for modern day life.

Yes, this brings up a very good point. What about patents? They are a form of intellectual property are they not? It's a copyright of an idea (essentially). So should these fall under the umbrella of being completely free for use by anyone?

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

Yes, this brings up a very good point. What about patents? They are a form of intellectual property are they not? It's a copyright of an idea (essentially). So should these fall under the umbrella of being completely free for use by anyone?

-blazed

I'm confused. Are we talking about the patents themselves, or the inventions which are patented?

Also: pseudo-off topic, but still pertains to this discussion. I've got a thread up in the Light House asking whether roms dumped into a .wad file and played on the VC fall under "legal backup". If anyone could answer this for me, I'd appreciate it. My main question is in the 3rd post.

Link: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=168193

 

[blazedaces]

I'm confused. Are we talking about the patents themselves, or the inventions which are patented?

Also: pseudo-off topic, but still pertains to this discussion. I've got a thread up in the Light House asking whether roms dumped into a .wad file and played on the VC fall under "legal backup". If anyone could answer this for me, I'd appreciate it. My main question is in the 3rd post.

Link: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=168193

Technically the inventions themselves, but I assumed that's what we were talking about...

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

Technically the inventions themselves, but I assumed that's what we were talking about...

-blazed

OK then...

I don't think most patents should fall under freedom of information. My main issue with IP laws, as I stated earlier, is that it disrupts the cost/profit ratio which is bad for a capitalist society like America. If you patent something tangible like a grill, both your blueprints for the grill and the item itself should be sold/manufactured/otherwise distributed at your discretion. There is a set cost/profit threshold (you can't bring matter into existence to make grills, so there must be a minimal expense for materials, which justifies a certain price level proportional to demand, material cost/availability, and other factors). You spent time and effort into developing an idea for a grill, and as long as you don't have a monopoly over grills I don't see why you shouldn't be able to charge for your invention.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Stephan+Kinsella&hl=en&sitesearch=&dur=3

^^^^
Could not have been said any better...

 

[The Executive]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Stephan+Kinsella&hl=en&sitesearch=&dur=3

^^^^
Could not have been said any better...

This looks interesting.



tl;dr cliff notes for those too lazy to watch the 55 min. clip:

Examples of ludicrous IP suits:

The RIAA is pushing for damages equivalent to $15. million for downloading about 1 cd/10 songs.

Ford has banned an enthusiast group from sharing photos of their own vehicles through the internet because "they [Ford] own the car and the design".

The NFL has banned churches from having Superbowl parties with TVs exceeding 55''.

There is a British proposal to ban you from the internet for illegally downloading music; a man who posted a copy of the C&D letter he received from the party in question was told to take it down because the letter was copyrighted.

The RIAA fined a woman $220,000 for sharing 24 songs ($9K per song), could have been up to $3.6 million dollars.

There are no rights to free speech and privacy, only property.
You don't have a right to speak on someone else's property.
If you own property you can speak on it (or not speak on it).

(for whatever reason, a patent exists on having a child through centripetal force...)

Homesteading and Property Rights:

• You own a homesteaded resource because your earlier use of it gives you a better claim to it than anyone else.
• Distinct Libertarian View--property rights are recognized in first users, to permit conflict-free use of scarce resources.
• Does not rest on the fiction that we "own" our labor.

You cannot own something you "create" unless you own the materials used to produce it. Production is merely transformation of prior materials.

The essential basis of property rights lies in the phenomenon of creating value...for things that one has created, such as a new product, one's act of creation is the source of the right, regardless of scarcity.

This is not true for tangible things because you already own the source of the right so "creating" something from it for ownership is not necessary.

more to come...

 

[SaxDude93]

This is why I love Trent Reznor. He promotes stealing and giving the finger to record companies.

Reznor to Fans: "Has anyone seen the price come down? Okay, well, you know what that means - STEAL IT. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'. Because one way or another these ***** will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that that's not right.

Oh, and Radiohead also. No record companies FTW

 

[The Executive]

This is why I love Trent Reznor. He promotes stealing and giving the finger to record companies.

What context was this used in?

 

[SaxDude93]

The fact that the price of CD's hasn't gone down and because of that, stealing it is O.K. And the fact that prices are set by greedy record-labels.

 

[RDK]

I don't think most patents should fall under freedom of information. My main issue with IP laws, as I stated earlier, is that it disrupts the cost/profit ratio which is bad for a capitalist society like America. If you patent something tangible like a grill, both your blueprints for the grill and the item itself should be sold/manufactured/otherwise distributed at your discretion. There is a set cost/profit threshold (you can't bring matter into existence to make grills, so there must be a minimal expense for materials, which justifies a certain price level proportional to demand, material cost/availability, and other factors). You spent time and effort into developing an idea for a grill, and as long as you don't have a monopoly over grills I don't see why you shouldn't be able to charge for your invention.

The problem is that some cases can be considered an unfair instance of monopoly. Take Microsoft. They crank out ****ty products and the majority of computer-users have to buy them because most everybody owns a PC with Microsoft software / hardware already on it. They can afford to make inferior products as long as they keep Macintosh and Linux out of the equation, and they can do that by merely exploiting their weaknesses. Macintosh is the superior company and has better products, but nobody will side with them or make their software / hardware compatible with them because everybody has a PC with Windows. With Linux, it's basically compatible with everything to a certain level, but it's that it's a pain in the *** to do anything.

 

[The Executive]

The problem is that some cases can be considered an unfair instance of monopoly. Take Microsoft. They crank out ****ty products and the majority of computer-users have to buy them because most everybody owns a PC with Microsoft software / hardware already on it. They can afford to make inferior products as long as they keep Macintosh and Linux out of the equation, and they can do that by merely exploiting their weaknesses. Macintosh is the superior company and has better products, but nobody will side with them or make their software / hardware compatible with them because everybody has a PC with Windows. With Linux, it's basically compatible with everything to a certain level, but it's that it's a pain in the *** to do anything.

<tangent>

Wasn't there a recent EU antitrust lawsuit against m$ for this? Like billions of $$$ big?

Anyhow, I'm fully aware that m$ makes flawed and overrated software (hardware as well). However, most their software isn't mandatory, and Windows is not a proprietary based system. Don't like IE7? Get Firefox. Don't like Microsoft Office? Get OpenOffice. Heck, ditch Windows and get Linux if it suits you.

The entire proprietary hardware aspect is why I don't like Apple/Macs.

</tangent>

I'm too tired to post anything here in response that pertains to the topic. Check back later.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=93755

Score.

 

[RDK]

Moreover, on most of those platforms, the commonly trumpeted concept of organised criminal gangs being behind piracy is simply false. While counterfeit PS2 and Wii games certainly make their way out into the market from relatively organised groups, especially in Asia, the vast bulk of piracy comes from people downloading CD, DVD, UMD and ROM images from the Internet. This kind of individual piracy creates no profits for anyone, and certainly funds no human trafficking, terrorism, drug dealing or any of the other horrors which anti-piracy efforts have tried to connect to it - to general derision from the public.

LMAO.

According to the RIAA, I'm a terrorist because I'm a pirate. Way to go RIAA. There's American soldiers dying in Iraq because of REAL terrorists, and you have the stones to call information "pirates" terrorist? Get a life.

Edit: I just finished reading the whole article, and the guy is spot-on correct with the last few paragraphs. Unless you enforce Communism or extreme forms of wire-tapping, there's no getting around piracy. No matter how fast commercial enterprises develop, pirates will adapt ten times faster. The feeling of getting ripped off and wanting to do something about it is a better and stronger motivation than corporate greed.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

The reality is that when pirates are offering a better user experience than you are, your business model is broken - and rather than punishing your loyal customers, or whinging to national governments in the hope that they'll cover your backside with unpopular, civil liberties-infringing legislation, you need to fix your business model. Or find a new job.

A-freakin'-men.