Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Paco Bedejo]

What kind of job do you do? Does it have anything to do with providing IP to the market?

I work as a project manager/engineer for a manufacturing-supplier to the trade show industry. Part of my job is creation of designs & build specs for custom constructs assembled mostly from system parts. The systems are thinly-patented, but we & our competitors blatantly copy each other's designs. Competition & innovation run rampant in the industry & the end users are the better for it.

Here's my personal take. There are two types of property - tangible and intellectual (IP). We probably agree that depriving someone of tangible property is theft (assuming all the elements are there). If I am wrong let me know.

Here, we're in total agreement. Tangible theft deprives the rightful owner of their property.

There are two types of IP - IP surrounding design and IP that is desgned to be consumed. Product designs, architectural designs, eletronic design are examples of the first class. Music, and videoare the second. You could conside hardcopy books, DVDs, and CDs a hybrid of the two.

Why do you feel a need to differentiate? I think tangible -vs- intangible is the only differentiation required. Are you merely alluding to copyright -vs- patent?

Intellectual property rights protect the innovator. IP is the crown jewel of any business. I own a dot com and a firearms manufacturing company. My world revolves around my IP. If someone can take what I have spent a lot of time and money creating without exerting the discipline and expense I have they will have an incredible market advantage over me. Why would I innovate? Why not just steal from everyone else?

IMO, patents stifle innovation. If someone in 1920 had patented solid fuel rocket boosters & refused to license their patent, we'd have never gone to the moon. Patents are granted for obvious things too frequently. Torx-head screws are a great example.

You advocate a system that pays one time for a song that can be traded by people that do not pay for it.

That's an inaccurate assumption on your part. I advocate subscription systems like Netflix, Hulu, & Pandora. I gladly support the makers of media who realize their products aren't highly-valuable, tangible items. Subscription & ad-supported media is the way to go...paying for convenient delivery systems. The reality is that producers of digital media must compete with free distribution models (piracy IS unstoppable). Many producers who realize this are doing a great job competing by making their products conveniently available online at reasonable prices. Others, who continue to carry the old baggage of region-coding, DRM, unskippable trailers, or fragile physical media are doing poorly in the market.

There is no way to recover the cost of the production of music, videros, etc when people who are otherwise obligated consume it for free. Hate the music companies all you want but quality music will die without their business model. Why would a producer pay to develop a movie project if everyone just downloads it for free? You advocate actions that would kill these industries if ideals were implemented on a wide scale.

There are a lot of people who pirate all day long...then go out & purchase what they like in order to support the producer. The music industry, for example, refuses to admit that they're essentially peddling street musicians & trying to convince us that each deserves to live in a mansion. People willingly support street musicians they enjoy & people willingly support recorded musicians they enjoy. See Nine Inch Nail's free album downloads for an example of what I'm talking about. (BTW, I'm not a fan, personally)

nin.com [the official nine inch nails website] albums

IP rights aren't about the government picking winners and losers.

Apple Gets Samsung Tab Banned in EU

If you can patent a form-factor as blatantly plain & obvious as the iPad...

They aren't about protecting monopolies or outdated business models. They exist to ensure that people and organizations that create intellectual property are properly compensated for the [STRIKE]output[/STRIKE] use of their work, whether it is for [STRIKE]building or selling a car[/STRIKE], writing a computer program, or producing and selling a song.

In that attempt, a long-term monopoly on ideas, sounds, & images is created. The free market would support the innovators who can also effectively produce & punish those pushing drivel (e.g. much of today's auto-tuned music) or not effectively producing their innovations.

I get that you don't like intellectual property rights - your views are classic anarchist. I think that people are entitled to the wealth of the fruits of their labor.

If the fruits of your labor are freely & infinitely reproducible & you choose to send that product out into the world, you shouldn't expect to be paid every.single.time someone uses/views the product. Those who appreciate your labors will compensate you. You're not entitled to compensation from those who don't appreciate your labor, as long as they're not depriving you of freedom or property. I have great respect for companies who don't tell me how much I must pay for their intangible products, but instead set up a PayPal account & permit me to compensate them commensurate with my level of appreciation for their product.

I think people that steal other people's IP are thieves and should have the s**t beat out of them. They should be bankrupted and should have to pay obsene amounts of restitution for their theft.

I wonder, did you properly license the photo you use as your INGO avatar?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

It's not a ridiculous argument if their house was designed by a custom architect who takes pride in their exterior design skills. Those skills are no less valuable than musicians, directors, writers, etc...yet you're blowing them off , seemingly because the MAFIAA doesn't have a stake in them.

It is a ridiculous premise and here is why.

Lets think of it this way. You have two components to each example. First you have the medium, in this case the CD and house. Then you have the "media" in this case the song or paint. In your example if it were to really be like the CD example you would have to force the designer or painter to paint your house for free. The reason being is you are not putting any work into the song you are copying. In the CD example you bought the blank CD but did not buy the song. In the house example you bought the house and you also bought the paint.

You are copying a song that someone else worked on not singing it yourself. No one is saying you cannot write your own song in a similar style as the Beatles, you just cant copy theirs without buying it.

The thought that ideas can be property is ridiculous at its core.

I don't care what their goal is. If they send their ideas out into the world & vainly attempt to protect them in a faux-secure wrapper which is too cumbersome to legally utilize, people will simply copy them for free. Please stop comparing copying to theft...they're not synonymous.

As a human being, I do feel entitled to partake of the accumulated ideas & arts of mankind which enter the public place. I feel responsible to financially support the ideas & arts in which I find value. However, I don't always feel responsible to support them at the level they're requesting. Movies & albums are NOT worth $20ea. All but a few videogames are NOT worth $60. Audiobooks are NOT worth $100. eBooks are NOT worth $20. With videogames, for example, I generally wait for them to go on sale for 75% off on Steam. A rare exception to this will be Battlefield 3, which I've been anticipating for about 6 years. I'll gladly pay $60ea for two copies, in order to emphatically vote for continued innovation.

Well what fantasy world do you live in that you are entitled to anything? Can I come visit, sounds like a cool place. But back here in the real world we actually have to make a living and some people do that by creating art, music, movies, games, etc. Just because you do not feel something is worth $60 doesn't mean you can take it anyway. To think so is as you say is ridiculous at its core.

I'd immediately release it under the GPL & wish my competitors luck in reproducing it & bringing it to market more efficiently than I can.

Not if you spent millions developing it you wouldn't. You can conveniently say that to suit your needs in this argument but it's bull plop. If you truly do mean it you certainly aren't a business owner or the guy running a company that does that kind of research or else your company wouldn't be around very long. Again you and your fantasy land.

Someone who wouldn't exchange money for a particular idea/art is NOT a possible buyer...

Justify your BS arguments however you want, but according to the law you are wrong. Your morality doesn't mean squat where the law is concerned.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

It is a ridiculous premise and here is why.

Lets think of it this way. You have two components to each example. First you have the medium, in this case the CD and house. Then you have the "media" in this case the song or paint. In your example if it were to really be like the CD example you would have to force the designer or painter to paint your house for free. The reason being is you are not putting any work into the song you are copying. In the CD example you bought the blank CD but did not buy the song. In the house example you bought the house and you also bought the paint.

You are copying a song that someone else worked on not singing it yourself. No one is saying you cannot write your own song in a similar style as the Beatles, you just cant copy theirs without buying it.

Poor comparison... I'll fix it for you though.

Medium: CD & House
Media: Song & Paint
Application: Music Player & Painter

Bounce that around in your skull & come back to me on this.

Well what fantasy world do you live in that you are entitled to anything? Can I come visit, sounds like a cool place. But back here in the real world we actually have to make a living and some people do that by creating art, music, movies, games, etc. Just because you do not feel something is worth $60 doesn't mean you can take it anyway. To think so is as you say is ridiculous at its core.

Take =/= Copy

I don't know why you guys keep confusing the two.

Not if you spent millions developing it you wouldn't. You can conveniently say that to suit your needs in this argument but it's bull plop. If you truly do mean it you certainly aren't a business owner or the guy running a company that does that kind of research or else your company wouldn't be around very long. Again you and your fantasy land.

Absent an artificial, government-granted monopoly, I'd make damned-sure I'm set up to become the preferred supplier of the medicine, prior to releasing the formula into the wild. It's equally fantastical to think that a company should be granted a monopoly on ideas, words, sounds, or pictures.

Justify your BS arguments however you want, but according to the law you are wrong. Your morality doesn't mean squat where the law is concerned.

Again, I've not been discussing laws which may be just or unjust. Were you in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban? While it was law, did you ridicule anyone who wished to possess a semiautomatic rifle with a shoulder thing that went up? Legality & morality rarely meet for lunch.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Poor comparison... I'll fix it for you though.

Medium: CD & House
Media: Song & Paint
Application: Music Player & Painter

Bounce that around in your skull & come back to me on this.

That does not work because the song is the creation or design. The paint is just the material used in making the creation or design.

Take =/= Copy

I don't know why you guys keep confusing the two.

If its an illegal copy it sure does...

Absent an artificial, government-granted monopoly, I'd make damned-sure I'm set up to become the preferred supplier of the medicine, prior to releasing the formula into the wild. It's equally fantastical to think that a company should be granted a monopoly on ideas, words, sounds, or pictures.

Companies just don't give up their secrets or their formulas or anything like that. At least the ones who want to make money don't.

The government doesn't give monopolies on ideas, words, songs, pictures, inventions, or anything else like that. You know what a monopoly is right? They do not restrict the competition of other companies. You are free to make your own music, your own pictures, your own speeches, your own cure for cancer, your own movie, or your own inventions. They arent stoping you from competing with the Beatles for music sales. They are prohibiting you from taking their song.

They just protect those who invest their money and resources in making products. Without those protections you wouldn't have companies coming out with new and inventive products. Why would you when someone can just take your idea, copy it, undercut your price because they had no money tied up in R&D, testing, or any other facet of the design.

People who take what others have worked on for their own benefit are just lazy and you could argue they are the ones who are morally corrupt.

I get it you are fine with benefiting off the work of others when you yourself have done nothing to earn it.

There is no point in arguing any further, I am done with this thread. I should have just payed attention to everyone else who was arguing with you guys earlier and just let this thread pass.

Besides shouldn't you be on isohunt downloading things?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

There is no point in arguing any further, I am done with this thread. I should have just payed attention to everyone else who was arguing with you guys earlier and just let this thread pass.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

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

Fiction, Movies, Music, & Videogames are hardly "useful Arts". Our current patent & copyright durations are hardly "limited times".

I'll leave you with a question:

Have you ever paid royalties for singing the "Happy Birthday to You" song at a birthday party? How about if you recorded the performance on video?

snopes.com: Happy Birthday Copyright

 

[steveh_131]

What it tells me is that old-minded people know the definition of stealing and understand the [STRIKE]concept[/STRIKE] construct of intellectual property. Young-minded people don't.

Fixed that for you. Believe me, it's not that I don't understand the idea behind this construct. I understand it completely. It once encouraged innovation and competition. Now it just encourages greed and corruption. Does that mean it shouldn't be in place in society? Maybe society is better off for it, I'm not sure. That doesn't mean it's a universally accepted moral imperative.

What kind of job do you do? Does it have anything to do with providing IP to the market?

Like him, my job is pretty much 100% IP. And here I am saying the same thing.

I think people that steal other people's IP are thieves and should have the s**t beat out of them. They should be bankrupted and should have to pay obsene amounts of restitution for their theft.

Let's start with you. You didn't invent every thought and idea that you use and profit from and you haven't paid for them either. You can pretend to have some moral high ground here but you don't. We all build upon the knowledge of those before us. The only difference between you and a "pirate" is legality.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Let's start with you. You didn't invent every thought and idea that you use and profit from and you haven't paid for them either. You can pretend to have some moral high ground here but you don't. We all build upon the knowledge of those before us. The only difference between you and a "pirate" is legality.

I see what you did there - trying to shift the discussion from stealing songs to innovation.

Invent and innovate don't mean the same thing. Invent is to create, innovate to change. So with the definitions out of the way ...

I never said I invented everything - that was Al Gore (although I do have a couple patents). But I also don't commit "me too". We innovate.

It is totally fair to look at a product and see how to make it better, and offer it to the market as an alternative. What's not OK is to just take someone else's design, tweak it enough that you can justify stealing it (if you change it at all) and represent it as your own. Laws protecting IP exist because people lack morality.

So back to the discussion at hand, how do you make a song better when you steal it? How does everyone in the value chain profit from your theft?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I work as a project manager/engineer for a manufacturing-supplier to the trade show industry. Part of my job is creation of designs & build specs for custom constructs assembled mostly from system parts. The systems are thinly-patented, but we & our competitors blatantly copy each other's designs. Competition & innovation run rampant in the industry & the end users are the better for it.

So everybody does it and our customers like it are your defenses? The same could be said about Dillinger.

Innovate is the change, not to copy. I have engineers on staff. I have programmers on staff. I would fire an engineer or programmer who blatently copied someone else's design. I hate me toos and those that perpetrate them.

Here, we're in total agreement. Tangible theft deprives the rightful owner of their property.

Good. An INGO first.

Why do you feel a need to differentiate? I think tangible -vs- intangible is the only differentiation required. Are you merely alluding to copyright -vs- patent?

I differentiated only to show that there are two types of intellectual IP.

IMO, patents stifle innovation. If someone in 1920 had patented solid fuel rocket boosters & refused to license their patent, we'd have never gone to the moon. Patents are granted for obvious things too frequently. Torx-head screws are a great example.

I don't know how that factors into the discussion, but OK. I would agree that some patents (not all) stiffle innovation. Some patent holders stiffle innovation. So do a lot of other factors. Does that mean in your mind that all patents are invalid?

That's an inaccurate assumption on your part. I advocate subscription systems like Netflix, Hulu, & Pandora. I gladly support the makers of media who realize their products aren't highly-valuable, tangible items. Subscription & ad-supported media is the way to go...paying for convenient delivery systems. The reality is that producers of digital media must compete with free distribution models (piracy IS unstoppable). Many producers who realize this are doing a great job competing by making their products conveniently available online at reasonable prices. Others, who continue to carry the old baggage of region-coding, DRM, unskippable trailers, or fragile physical media are doing poorly in the market.

So this is the crux of your position - you will pay for something as long as it doesn't cost too much. If it does you rationalize it's OK to steal it.

There are a lot of people who pirate all day long...then go out & purchase what they like in order to support the producer. The music industry, for example, refuses to admit that they're essentially peddling street musicians & trying to convince us that each deserves to live in a mansion. People willingly support street musicians they enjoy & people willingly support recorded musicians they enjoy. See Nine Inch Nail's free album downloads for an example of what I'm talking about. (BTW, I'm not a fan, personally)

nin.com [the official nine inch nails website] albums

More rationalizing. NiN chose that business model. Others don't. You think it's OK to steal 100,000 other songs because NiN gave an album away?

Apple Gets Samsung Tab Banned in EU

If you can patent a form-factor as blatantly plain & obvious as the iPad...

I don't disagree. Twice in one post.

HOWEVER, just because there are abuses doesn't mean that stealing is OK.

In that attempt, a long-term monopoly on ideas, sounds, & images is created. The free market would support the innovators who can also effectively produce & punish those pushing drivel (e.g. much of today's auto-tuned music) or not effectively producing their innovations.

More rationalizing.

If the fruits of your labor are freely & infinitely reproducible & you choose to send that product out into the world, you shouldn't expect to be paid every.single.time someone uses/views the product. Those who appreciate your labors will compensate you. You're not entitled to compensation from those who don't appreciate your labor, as long as they're not depriving you of freedom or property. I have great respect for companies who don't tell me how much I must pay for their intangible products, but instead set up a PayPal account & permit me to compensate them commensurate with my level of appreciation for their product.

So if it's easy to steal it's OK?

Seriously, you spent an entire post rationalizing why it's OK to steal.

I wonder, did you properly license the photo you use as your INGO avatar?

Public domain. Original photographer and models unknown. Not using for commercial purposes. No need to license.

 

[steveh_131]

I see what you did there - trying to shift the discussion from stealing songs to innovation.

Invent and innovate don't mean the same thing. Invent is to create, innovate to change. So with the definitions out of the way ...

I never said I invented everything - that was Al Gore (although I do have a couple patents). But I also don't commit "me too". We innovate.

It is totally fair to look at a product and see how to make it better, and offer it to the market as an alternative. What's not OK is to just take someone else's design, tweak it enough that you can justify stealing it (if you change it at all) and represent it as your own. Laws protecting IP exist because people lack morality.

So back to the discussion at hand, how do you make a song better when you steal it? How does everyone in the value chain profit from your theft?

Oh, I see. So it's ok that YOU stole someone else's idea and are now making money on it because you made some slight modifications to the design. It's suddenly not theft.

So I can go steal all the cars I want as long as I make improvements to them and then sell them for a profit. This morality makes a whole lot of sense.

My morality doesn't depend on profit or a value chain. If I'm not depriving someone of their belongings then it's not theft. Period.

 

[steveh_131]

Public domain. Original photographer and models unknown. Not using for commercial purposes. No need to license.

How do you know it's public domain?

Why does it matter if it's used for commercial purposes?

So if you don't know the person you're stealing from that makes it ok?

 

[PaulJF]

I won't pretend to havoeř

​

read every post here. If I paint a picture, ie,...mona lisa and someone copies it, do I have a case against that person?

 

[steveh_131]

I won't pretend to hpaveř

​

read every post here. If I paint a picture, ie,...mona lisa and someone copies it, do I have a case against that person?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I don't know how that factors into the discussion, but OK. I would agree that some patents (not all) stiffle innovation. Some patent holders stiffle innovation. So do a lot of other factors. Does that mean in your mind that all patents are invalid?

I believe that very short-term patents might be useful. If you can't bring your invention to market more efficiently than others with 1-2 years of government-granted monopoly, you obviously don't deserve a prolonged artificial monopoly.

So this is the crux of your position - you will pay for something as long as it doesn't cost too much. If it does you rationalize it's OK to steal it.

More rationalizing. NiN chose that business model. Others don't. You think it's OK to steal 100,000 other songs because NiN gave an album away?

I don't disagree. Twice in one post.

HOWEVER, just because there are abuses doesn't mean that stealing is OK.

So if it's easy to steal it's OK?

Seriously, you spent an entire post rationalizing why it's OK to steal.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Public domain. Original photographer and models unknown. Not using for commercial purposes. No need to license.

So, are you admitting that because something isn't used for commercial purposes, it's OK to copy it? Any media I use commercially is happily purchased. I refuse to generate profit from the work of others w/out compensating them.

For the record, I don't copy music, as there are a plethora of very acceptable ad-supported sources. Spotify & Slacker are great. A lot of people like Pandora. I don't think I have a single MP3, purchased or otherwise, upon my home network.

My morality doesn't depend on profit or a value chain. If I'm not depriving someone of their belongings then it's not theft. Period.

^^^ This.

 

[Prometheus]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You aren't the only one who thinks so.

Originally Posted by steveh_131
My morality doesn't depend on profit or a value chain. If I'm not depriving someone of their belongings then it's not theft. Period.

Definitely that.

 

[dsol]

crap, trying to link the southpark video about downloading music for free but the sucker will not work