A victory for intellectual property rights?

[Gaius1981]

A great victory for intellectual property rights may be achieved in the very near future, with the implementation of this new and innovative technology, which identifies and penalizes those who partake in illegal piracy through the use of torrents.


MARC helps copyright holders end piracy by identifying both the pirates who are illegally “seeding” the copyrighted material as well as the “fans” of the copyrighted material who are illegally downloading the files. Nexicon’s collection products (GetAmnesty and DigitalRanger) leverage the MARC platform to collect settlement fees from the downloaders, and help investigate and enforce copyright laws that support content owners.

Read more about it here: http://www.nexiconinc.com/learn-about-marc-technology.shtml

If this technology is approved and implemented, it will be a huge victory for the producers! It will put an end to the parasites who blatantly refuse to pay for themselves.

[AutoDas]

Libertarians do not endorse copyrights.

[Gaius1981]

Libertarians do not endorse copyrights.

Libertarians don't recognize a man's right to the product of his own mind? So much for Atlas Shrugged.

[TheEvilDetector]

Check out the last sentence at http://www.nexiconinc.com/learn-about-marc-technology.shtml

"DigitalRanger ensures that the copyright holder has implausible data in court."

LOL

That's perfect. Leave the system that way.

[dannno]

Libertarians don't recognize a man's right to the product of his own mind? So much for Atlas Shrugged.

No, they don't recognize the ability of the government to enforce fantasies.

If I can come to your house and take something from you, great. Otherwise if you put it out there for others to copy, it's free domain. Nobody has "stolen" anything.

[Kludge]

Technology has made thinking obsolete on many levels.

[Gaius1981]

No, they don't recognize the ability of the government to enforce fantasies.

If I can come to your house and take something from you, great. Otherwise if you put it out there for others to copy, it's free domain. Nobody has "stolen" anything.

In other words, you advocate parasitism on the minds of the creators of movies, tv-series, music, games and software applications. You claim that they have no right to profit from their creations. Without supporting intellectual property rights, you're at best advocating a mongrel form of capitalism.

[slothman]

Here is an old post of mine

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=147602

This is actually one place the Const. is wrong.
It is not rights that get granted; it is a privledge.
With no laws IP laws wouldn't exist.
Speech rights, and all rights, would.

I like the words "Intellectual so-called rights" or ISCP
I also like copyprivledge insteda of copyright.

[Matt Collins]

Copyright is a power granted to Congress in the Constitution. And I do think it is needed, but I don't think it is setup the way it should be. Special interests and the large media conglomerates keep buying legislation to extend copyright terms to "infinity-1" and to increase fines and the government enforcement. The problem is that in the digital information age there is no way to "enforce" copyrights without turning the nation into a police state; which would be just find with the media cartels.


See an alternative to copyright:
www.creativecommons.org

[heavenlyboy34]

Libertarians don't recognize a man's right to the product of his own mind? So much for Atlas Shrugged.

No. Libertarians don't recognize the government's monopoly on copyright.

[heavenlyboy34]

Copyright is a power granted to Congress in the Constitution. And I do think it is needed, but I don't think it is setup the way it should be. Special interests and the large media conglomerates keep buying legislation to extend copyright terms to "infinity-1" and to increase fines and the government enforcement. The problem is that in the digital information age there is no way to "enforce" copyrights without turning the nation into a police state; which would be just find with the media cartels.


See an alternative to copyright:
www.creativecommons.org

+1

Another problem with copyright law practice is that an artist will often be forced to surrender at least partial rights to his work when negotiating with a publisher. In incidences like this, copyright can be used as a weapon against the creator-forcing him to remain in unfair contracts. I still like the concept of copyright/patent, there just needs to be a free market solution to enforcement. :) (JMO, speaking as an artist/composer)

[slothman]

Copyright is a
power granted to Congress in the Constitution.

No you are inncorrect.
Copyright is a privledge granted to Congress.
Congress doesn't have to allow CR's at all.
The Const. only allows it to.

[orafi]

Technology has made thinking obsolete on many levels.

hey, i like my t-83 plus

[Kacey]

I think that IP rights have their place but I also think that allot of company's are using it as a excuse to not innovate the delivery method of their products.

Software for one, Open Source company's are making allot of money right now and they give it away for free, they offer support for money and this model has been working for them.

A FEW bands have seen that the real thief in the music industry is the labels, a few bands have given the music away for free and see them selfs making money off of touring for shows.

I think that the government is allowing a failing industry to prop its self up with laws. If you can't compete then you should fail and make room for others.

Now mind you I DO have a different feeling about physical objects that are developed by an individual/company but even there the laws are to vague and open for interpretation.

[Matt Collins]

No you are inncorrect.
Copyright is a privledge granted to Congress.
Congress doesn't have to allow CR's at all.
The Const. only allows it to.
No it's a power. But it does not have to be enacted. Congress could abolish it tomorrow if they wanted to.

[TastyWheat]

If you downloaded a CD and mailed the artist $5 they'd say thanks. I support the artists, not the labels. Suing little girls and old ladies for thousands of dollars per song does not make me want to patronize their failed business model.

[Kludge]

If you downloaded a CD and mailed the artist $5 they'd say thanks. I support the artists, not the labels. Suing little girls and old ladies for thousands of dollars per song does not make me want to patronize their failed business model.

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

[LibertyEagle]

No, they don't recognize the ability of the government to enforce fantasies.

If I can come to your house and take something from you, great. Otherwise if you put it out there for others to copy, it's free domain. Nobody has "stolen" anything.

What if you DO NOT "put it out there"? That someone else takes it upon themselves to do so?

[Malakai]

A great victory for intellectual property rights may be achieved in the very near future, with the implementation of this new and innovative technology, which identifies and penalizes those who partake in illegal piracy through the use of torrents.



Read more about it here: http://www.nexiconinc.com/learn-about-marc-technology.shtml

If this technology is approved and implemented, it will be a huge victory for the producers! It will put an end to the parasites who blatantly refuse to pay for themselves.

It's impossible to prevent file sharing on the internet, period. The internet is designed to do one thing and do it well, transmit zero's and one's from point A to point b (c d and e too!).

Well every song, book, game, and movie ever made can be turned into 0's and 1's and sent anywhere. I'd be willing to bet that torrent file sharing makes up a nice % of total data transmission on the net.

Big media needs to learn to adapt or disappear. With the net and how easy it is to get access to music right from bands without the middlemen, they really are fighting to keep themselves inserted in a market where their purpose (distribution) is disappearing.

And just like every other big corporation, they go right to the government to circumvent the market and get what they want by force.
Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

And just a final FYI, I actually buy more PC games now than before torrents. It's risky to buy a game without ever playing it before, 40-50 bucks in the toilet if it sucks. Now I always know exactly what game I want to get.

I just picked up Supreme Commander gold from walmart today after demoing it over the weekend.

[LibertyEagle]

People have been stealing since time began.

[AutoDas]

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.

[LibertyEagle]

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.

It's called, "lost sales".

[AutoDas]

It's called, "lost sales".

Says who?

[AoiMasamune]

My problem with intellectual property:

Lets say I'm an engineer. I'm not, but for the sake of argument lets say I am.

Say I read an article about a new design for a vertical windmill. I like this design.
I spend my time re-engineering that specific type of windmill.
Then I go to my hardware store of choice, and purchase the materials I'll need. I then spend my own labor building this windmill. Say that with the materials I used it cost a total of $150.
Of course my neighbors ask me questions about it, which lead me to look at the asking price for one of these devices. The manufacturer who holds the patent is asking $4500 per unit, with better materials, but much lower quality manufacturing. I show this to my neighbors.

My neighbors offer to buy several of MY units for $500 each. Of course I agree!

The manufacturer gets word of this. I find myself at the business end of a $30,000 lawsuit for making $2000. (Losses for the manufacturer + damages)


Another example that bothers me:

According to supply and demand, the higher the supply of something and the easier it is to get, the cheaper it becomes. It's safe to assume that as the supply of something approaches infinity, the price approaches $0.

In the case of music, we have the ability to make infinite copies without ever running out. The supply of music is INFINITE. Why should we be forced by law to pay for a media type (CD) that wastes precious resources further damaging the environment when we already have the technology to not do so?

My $0.02.

[Matt Collins]

If you downloaded a CD and mailed the artist $5 they'd say thanks. I support the artists, not the labels. Suing little girls and old ladies for thousands of dollars per song does not make me want to patronize their failed business model.Except that most signed musicians don't own their own copyrights; the labels do.

[Matt Collins]

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?No, but copying a CD or downloading music from the Internet isn't theft.


People have been stealing since time began.That is very true. But the proliferation of unauthorized copies of a copyrighted work is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

[Matt Collins]

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.Exactly. The definition of theft is to take something from someone and deprive them of the item in question. When a copyright is infringed upon it isn't theft because the copyright holder is deprived of nothing.

[Matt Collins]

It's called, "lost sales".But that is not theft. And one can also not correlate "lost sales" to "downloaded music". So there is no way of knowing for sure.

[Matt Collins]

Says who?The people who launch the FUD campaigns to try and turn copyright issues into a moral argument (which it is not). The RIAA and MPAA have been trying to make people feel guilty for downloading copyrighted material but it has largely backfired. Some however have bought into the propaganda. Their most effective tactic is to attempt to equate copyright infringement to theft in the minds of the general public.

[dannno]

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

He CLEARLY said he would download it off the internet and said nothing about stealing material property from a store or individual..give me a break.

[dannno]

What if you DO NOT "put it out there"? That someone else takes it upon themselves to do so?

Example? I don't see how this is possible at all.

[Matt Collins]

My problem with intellectual property:

Lets say I'm an engineer. I'm not, but for the sake of argument lets say I am.

Say I read an article about a new design for a vertical windmill. I like this design.
I spend my time re-engineering that specific type of windmill.
Then I go to my hardware store of choice, and purchase the materials I'll need. I then spend my own labor building this windmill. Say that with the materials I used it cost a total of $150.
Of course my neighbors ask me questions about it, which lead me to look at the asking price for one of these devices. The manufacturer who holds the patent is asking $4500 per unit, with better materials, but much lower quality manufacturing. I show this to my neighbors.

My neighbors offer to buy several of MY units for $500 each. Of course I agree!

The manufacturer gets word of this. I find myself at the business end of a $30,000 lawsuit for making $2000. (Losses for the manufacturer + damages)
Well if you re-engineered it then you are no longer using the original design and should apply for a new patent. It could be accepted or rejected, but that's up to the government.


Patents are not bad, in fact the lightbulb, telephone, movie camera, projectors, and a whole host of other things were created because of patent laws.





According to supply and demand, the higher the supply of something and the easier it is to get, the cheaper it becomes. It's safe to assume that as the supply of something approaches infinity, the price approaches $0.

In the case of music, we have the ability to make infinite copies without ever running out. The supply of music is INFINITE. Why should we be forced by law to pay for a media type (CD) that wastes precious resources further damaging the environment when we already have the technology to not do so?Very good point. As the supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero. Therefore recorded music is almost wortheless. The RIAA refused to innovate and ignored the MP3 technology for so long that they lost their opportunity to exploit and capitalize on it.

Copyright laws create an artificial scarcity by granting a time-limited monopoly which allows the price to be artificially set. Now that the artificial scarcity is essentially bypassed because of technology the price of the product gets lower and lower.

The RIAA should've pulled their head out of their butts in the 90's when this tech was in it's infancy but they were resting smug and lazy on their government granted monopoly.

Mark Anderson (who I think is a libertarian) and editor for Wired Magazine has done a lot of research and has written some damn good articles on the subject. They are all available online.

[Soccrmastr]

Gaius are you sure you're on the right forums haha??

[sidster]

That would imply copying a CD is theft. The artist is not a cent poorer when someone copies their work.

It's called, "lost sales".

Says who?

It is "lost sales". If you copy a CD and give me a copy then that
will translate to potential loss of sale as it would remove my
potential incentive to go to the store and purchase this CD. If
I copy that CD and give it to my cousin, the cycle continues...
if you rip the CD put it on the internet for anyone to download,
the argument continues...




So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

He CLEARLY said he would download it off the internet and said nothing about stealing material property from a store or individual..give me a break.

It is the same principle. It is equivalent to the same thing. One
manifests itself in a physical/tangible form, while the other not
so much. I guess the only difference when you download from
the internet is that you are not stealing the packaging material(s).





What if you DO NOT "put it out there"? That someone else takes it upon themselves to do so?
Example? I don't see how this is possible at all.

Example? Imagine someone stumbling across a web-site that
either through poor security policies or administration has left
a "hole" open for you to be able to download this company's
latest software (e.g., Photoshop, Windows Vista, etc.). You
then put this software on the internet for others to download.



All that said, I agree that record labels are inherently evil
and such companies like Disney are greedy bastards that
perpetuate piracy by their own immoral business practices.

I don't think it is right for a record company or even an
artist to expect everyone to pay $20 (or whatever a CD
costs these days ... I have not purchased one in a decade
or so) for their CD just because there is one song on there
that I want. That is complete bullshit.

Disney is a very good example of greed in practice. They
release their movies, then they vault them up for a few
years, then they rerelease them in new media, etc etc.
If I have purchased one of their movies on VHS I should
not be expected to pay full price for their new release on
Blu-Ray media. I have already paid for the RIGHT to own
a personal copy of this movie. Just because the media
changed, I shouldn't have to be FORCED to pay full price.
I would think it would be fair if they would allow previous
owners of such movies to pay a small fraction of the
price, which would cover the media costs only. But this
will never happen.

Such practices and overpricing, of course, lead to piracy.


As for patents, they no longer serve the purpose they were
meant to serve. They were intended to help the "small guy"
to get their innovative ideas and products out into the market
and allow them some time to establish themselves before
the bigger companies stifle them before they can even start.

Today, it is the "big, bad companies" that pile on patents
to stifle competition. It is not uncommon for companies to
hold patents not directly related to their business or product
line. I work for one such SCUMBAG company. Their patent
business is a $1.2 Million dollar annual. They have a vast
patent portfolio. They have no intention of producing the
product described my a good 98% of these patents, but
they do license these patents to other companies for profit.

Btw, guess what this type of practices do for the end users?
They increase the price for us. They serve no other purpose
but to fatten up the greedy fucks and stagnate innovation
and competition.

[Mini-Me]

In other words, you advocate parasitism on the minds of the creators of movies, tv-series, music, games and software applications. You claim that they have no right to profit from their creations. Without supporting intellectual property rights, you're at best advocating a mongrel form of capitalism.

Technically speaking, "intellectual property" is NOT property, and restricting what others can do with their copies of something is not protecting the copyright holder's rights; rather, it's violating the rights of the owner of a specific copy. However, copyrights do have a very useful function, because of the fact that the original copy of a work takes time, effort, and money to make, whereas subsequent copies are cheap and abundant. The legitimate purpose of copyrights and patents is a collectivist purpose, but it's important nevertheless, and I consider it the only collectivist notion I support. When the government grants the original creator of a work an exclusive license to reproduce that work through copyrights or patents, it creates artificial scarcity for that work. This provides a profit motive for research and development which would ordinarily be absent in a true free market. This profit is not the NATURAL RIGHT of the copyright holder. Rather, it's merely the means to accomplish the true purpose of "intellectual property": That true purpose is to promote progress in the arts and sciences. It's a collectivist notion which violates the individual rights of everyone to do whatever they want with their physical copy of something, but nevertheless, it is important.

UNFORTUNATELY, these laws have been perverted by copyright lobbies to serve another purpose, which is why you now hear all the talk about how these laws are intended to protect the earnings of artists, inventors, etc. They're not. The legitimate purpose has always been, and always will be, solely to promote progress in the arts and sciences. When copyright and patent laws become too restrictive and draconian, they actually result in the stagnation, rather than the progress, of the arts and sciences. This is because they can prevent further improvements, derivative works, etc. When copyright laws are too weak and provide too little exclusivity, progress suffers. When copyright laws are too strong and provide too much exclusivity, progress also suffers. It's like a normal curve, where "just the right amount" of copyright protection results in the best outcome. Of course, giving the government the authority to make such subjective value judgments opens up the possibility for abuse and lobbyist-bought legislation.

Today's laws provide WAY too much exclusivity. Copyright laws have gone so far that they are in fact undermining their original purpose. Part of the reason is that many copyright laws are no longer even Constitutional. The relevant text is in Article I, 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;
By continually extending copyrights at the behest of lobbyists whenever they are about to expire and pass into the public domain, Congress is violating the condition that copyrights are to be for limited times. If Congress can extend copyrights over and over without limit, they become in effect unlimited and therefore unconstitutional.

In other words, I support copyright law and patents in theory...but in practice, today's laws have gone way too far, and they have been literally bought by the copyright lobby. I cannot stand for this, and I have no sympathy for those who help enforce these unjust and unconstitutional laws.

(In response to the overall tone of this thread: Even if "intellectual property" was truly an inalienable right, which it is not, violating copyrights is still not "stealing." Stealing implies robbing the original owner of an object of that object. Merely copying an object does not deprive its previous owner of his or her own copy. Therefore, violating copyrights would always be quite different from stealing, even if "intellectual property" were an inalienable right.)

[libertea]

It is "lost sales". If you copy a CD and give me a copy then that
will translate to potential loss of sale as it would remove my
potential incentive to go to the store and purchase this CD. If
I copy that CD and give it to my cousin, the cycle continues...
if you rip the CD put it on the internet for anyone to download,
the argument continues...


Sounds like free promotion to me.

"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.”

--Thomas Jefferson

[mediahasyou]

You can own a material good. (object)

You cannot own a thought, knowledge, or information. (non object)


Think if we had intellectual property laws. This would mean every time you quote someone, something you would have to ask for their permission. There would be so much corruption. Any bad politician, high status figure could vanish any bad words from the past.

RP is in this one: http://www.ilovextra.com/ ;)

[sidster]

Sounds like free promotion to me.

"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.”

--Thomas Jefferson

what if 'he' takes 1/4 of your "taper" to use for his own
and share with his neighbors?

[sidster]

You can own a material good. (object)

You cannot own a thought, knowledge, or information. (non object)


Think if we had intellectual property laws. This would mean every time you quote someone, something you would have to ask for their permission. There would be so much corruption. Any bad politician, high status figure could vanish any bad words from the past.

RP is in this one: http://www.ilovextra.com/ ;)

so what you are saying I should be able to take RP's books
and reprint them with my name on them?

[libertea]

what if 'he' takes 1/4 of your "taper" to use for his own
and share with his neighbors?

wtf?

[mediahasyou]

http://i28.tinypic.com/2m7xd85.jpg

[mediahasyou]

so what you are saying I should be able to take RP's books
and reprint them with my name on them?

Is it theft if I let a friend borrow my Ron Paul book?

Is it theft to tell another person about Ron Paul's book? Information is no different whether I copy it electronically or if my brain copies it.

[slothman]

Children in kindergarden are usually taught to share.
Why share that book when the other kid can buy another one?
Since the second kid borrowed he must be a lost sale.

[sidster]

Is it theft if I let a friend borrow my Ron Paul book?

Is it theft to tell another person about Ron Paul's book? Information is no different whether I copy it electronically or if my brain copies it.

it isn't theft if you come over to watch my On Any Sunday (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067527/) DVD.
Nor would it be theft if you were to borrow a book from
your local library. It would, however, be theft if you copied
it as you are depriving the author of the book the proceedings
from the sale that is now not going to take place.

[sidster]

Children in kindergarden are usually taught to share.
Why share that book when the other kid can buy another one?
Since the second kid borrowed he must be a lost sale.

why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for
all to download free of charge?

[mediahasyou]

it isn't theft if you come over to watch my On Any Sunday (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067527/) DVD.
Nor would it be theft if you were to borrow a book from
your local library. It would, however, be theft if you copied
it as you are depriving the author of the book the proceedings
from the sale that is now not going to take place.

The library is "depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place.":rolleyes:

There is no difference between a library and online sharing.

[mediahasyou]

btw, your avatar is copyright protected, sidster, I suggest you remove it to not conflict with your personal beliefs of intellectual property rights. (dont be a hypocrite.)

[revolutionman]

as far as i have read, libertarians are divided by intellectual property rights issues.

Some people believe a man has a right to his intellectual property, others (like me) believe intellectual property rights are voided when a product is sold.

An example of my beliefs about intellectual property:

if I purchase a CD, the CD and its contents are mine to do with what i please. All other arguments are bureaucratic legal jargon.

When you purchase something either you own it or you don't.

When you purchase a house the architect that designed it does not retain the rights to the foundation. Similarly, when a musician sells an album, he sells the contents of that album. Only through ridiculous, corrupt legislation does anyone retain the rights to the contents of MY property (the CD I paid $18 for). Basically my position is that physical ownership trumps any claim to "intellectual" property.

Mind you, these intellectual property rights allow for monopoly. Monsanto destroys farmers crops based on these frivolous claims to non-property.

[heavenlyboy34]

as far as i have read, libertarians are divided by intellectual property rights issues.

Some people believe a man has a right to his intellectual property, others (like me) believe intellectual property rights are voided when a product is sold.

An example of my beliefs about intellectual property:

if I purchase a CD, the CD and its contents are mine to do with what i please. All other arguments are bureaucratic legal jargon.

When you purchase something either you own it or you don't.

When you purchase a house the architect that designed it does not retain the rights to the foundation. Similarly, when a musician sells an album, he sells the contents of that album. Only through ridiculous, corrupt legislation does anyone retain the rights to the contents of MY property (the CD I paid $18 for). Basically my position is that physical ownership trumps any claim to "intellectual" property.

Mind you, these intellectual property rights allow for monopoly. Monsanto destroys farmers crops based on these frivolous claims to non-property.
-------
Actually, when you buy a CD, DVD, software, etc, you buy a user license. You own the physical container and can do what you please with it (frisbee, anyone?), but the contents are proprietary. If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract. ALL libertarians understand the importance of contract. (download "The Market For Liberty" if you don't get it) If you want to use your CD's music in film, elevators, etc, you can purchase a license for that purpose.

It seems that copyright law does need to be updated, but it is still workable. It would be best administered by people who understand the market, like artists and producers. The government is far too stupid and inept to understand it.

[heavenlyboy34]

why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for
all to download free of charge?

Because they want to make money and get their work out in bookstores. Not a toughie! :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

The library is "depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place.":rolleyes:

There is no difference between a library and online sharing.

Not true, simply because of the nature of a book. A book is a physical item, which can be catalogued. Every photocopy will be of degraded quality relative to the original. Digital music can be duplicated perfectly millions of times.

Onine sharing is more akin to pirating, where the criminal steals books and sells them in original form for personal profit, with a loss to the publisher and author.

[sidster]

The library is "depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place.":rolleyes:

There is no difference between a library and online sharing.

sure there is a difference between borrowing a book from the
library vs downloading a song from the internet. The book you
return back to the library after you have read it. If you were to
make photocopy of the book or scan the pages of the book,
then that would be the same as your illegal/immoral downloading
from the internet.


btw, your avatar is copyright protected, sidster, I suggest you remove it to not conflict with your personal beliefs of intellectual property rights. (dont be a hypocrite.)

you are again wrong. the avatar was created from a sanctioned
south park site. they gave me the right to use the site to create
this particular avatar and use it.

[Matt Collins]

so what you are saying I should be able to take RP's books
and reprint them with my name on them?That would be forgery, a form of copyright infringement.

[Matt Collins]

It would, however, be theft if you copied it as you are depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place.Incorrect for multiple reasons.

Dictionary definition of theft from m-w.com -
"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it "

That means that since the original owner has not been deprived of the object in question it isn't theft; it's copyright infringement. And because not everyone who makes an unlawful copy would've gone out to purchase it instead, it cannot be said that for every unlawful copy a sale is lost. In fact there is no way to correlate it.

[Matt Collins]

why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for all to download free of charge?Many do.

But Ron has made a lot of money. So has Jerome Corsi. And Judge Andrew Napolitno. And the Clintons, and probably Obama too.

People still make money off of their books.

[Matt Collins]

Actually, when you buy a CD, DVD, software, etc, you buy a user license. Software, yes. Music and film? No.

There are a lot of shinkwrap end user license agreements which may or may not be legal - search for EULAs and see the result.

But with music and film you don't agree to anything, you are simply subject to federal copyright law.


If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract.Not true. Public performance is a part of copyright. As a copyright owner you are able to stipulate when and where your work of art is displayed or performed and how much to charge for it.

[Matt Collins]

Onine sharing is more akin to pirating, where the criminal steals books and sells them in original form for personal profit, with a loss to the publisher and author.Except that not every pirated copy = a lost sale. The two cannot be correlated.

[slothman]

-------... If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract. ...

... It would be best administered by people who understand the market, like artists and producers.....

Any contract some signs can be changed before hand.
If I am given a contract and cross some parts out and they agree then they changed parts don't apply.
What if I just cross out the "not for preformance"?
For a normal contract that works.


[sarcastic]Yes lets have people who would gain from more laws for CP enforce those laws that benefit them.[/sarcasm]
That sounds like a conflict of interest.

[Matt Collins]

Any contract some signs can be changed before hand.
If I am given a contract and cross some parts out and they agree then they changed parts don't apply.
What if I just cross out the "not for preformance"?
For a normal contract that works.
I just did that on my income tax form ha ha ha. Where it says "under penalty of perjury" I crossed it out. The information is true to the best of my knowledge, but I am not going under oath to say that because then it can be used against me in court.

See Conklin:
http://www.anti-irs.com/


OT I know...

[revolutionman]

if i dont sign it I aint binded by it.

I cant just stick a contract on something and claim that its legally binding to whomever comes into possession of that item. Thats ridiculous.

[heavenlyboy34]

if i dont sign it I aint binded by it.

I cant just stick a contract on something and claim that its legally binding to whomever comes into possession of that item. Thats ridiculous.

Sure you can. You can produce an item and write its official use on it. If the user does something with the product outside of intended use, the agreement you accepted by buying the product is null and void when you use the product for unintended purposes. (read your warranties)

[heavenlyboy34]

Except that not every pirated copy = a lost sale. The two cannot be correlated.

They can and are. (remember those legal notices they used to put at the beginning of movies that warned of FBI action should you violate the copyright?)

[heavenlyboy34]

Any contract some signs can be changed before hand.
If I am given a contract and cross some parts out and they agree then they changed parts don't apply.
What if I just cross out the "not for preformance"?
For a normal contract that works.


[sarcastic]Yes lets have people who would gain from more laws for CP enforce those laws that benefit them.[/sarcasm]
That sounds like a conflict of interest.

If you cross out whatever terms you dislike without the permission from the copyright holder, you've broken the contract. This NEVER works. If it did, I would apply that to the contracts I signed with my student loan lender. They would probably break my legs if I did that, though. :eek:

[Matt Collins]

They can and are. Incorrect. How many law classes have you taken on copyright? How long have you studied the issue? I have studied it seriously for the last 8 years and have taken two law courses on the subject. I also have a degree in the music industry, live in Nashville, and work in the music industry.

What are your credentials on the subject? :confused:



(remember those legal notices they used to put at the beginning of movies that warned of FBI action should you violate the copyright?)What does that have to do with anything?

[heavenlyboy34]

Incorrect. How many law classes have you taken on copyright? How long have you studied the issue? I have studied it seriously for the last 8 years and have taken two law courses on the subject. I also have a degree in the music industry, live in Nashville, and work in the music industry.

What are your credentials on the subject? :confused:


What does that have to do with anything?

I studied music industry and law in music school. I have also done extensive research in preparing a business plan-I intend to own and operate a symphony orchestra. I work in the music industry too-on the productive end (composer/musician)

Get yourself a copy of this book http://www.amazon.com/Music-Business-Handbook-Career-Guide/dp/0761916679 and learn it.

[Matt Collins]

I studied music industry and law in music school. I have also done extensive research in preparing a business plan-I intend to own and operate a symphony orchestra. I work in the music industry too-on the productive end (composer/musician)Cool. Hope it works out for you.


Get yourself a copy of this book http://www.amazon.com/Music-Business-Handbook-Career-Guide/dp/0761916679 and learn it.I don't need to. I already know what's in it. Remember I have a bachelor's degree in the music industry.

[heavenlyboy34]

Cool. Hope it works out for you.

I don't need to. I already know what's in it. Remember I have a bachelor's degree in the music industry.

Have you ever read "the do-it-yourself guide to the music industry"? That's a really good book for modern musicians. :)

[revolutionman]

Sure you can. You can produce an item and write its official use on it. If the user does something with the product outside of intended use, the agreement you accepted by buying the product is null and void when you use the product for unintended purposes. (read your warranties)

like i said bureaucratic, legal jargon.

[heavenlyboy34]

like i said bureaucratic, legal jargon.

exactly. That's one thing that sucks about government control of copyright/patent. :mad:

[Matt Collins]

Have you ever read "the do-it-yourself guide to the music industry"? That's a really good book for modern musicians. :)I'm not a musician, I'm an engineer.

[danberkeley]

Libertarians don't recognize a man's right to the product of his own mind? So much for Atlas Shrugged.

When was the last time you touched the "product of your own mind"? When was the last time someone physically grabbed it and ran away with it without your permission? Also, not all libertarians agree with Ayn Rand.



So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?

No. The difference is that IP is not physical. You cant touch the things that dont exist. Also, reproduction is not stealing. If someone downloads a song from the internet, that person is not taking it physically, it is reproducing or making a copying of it. THat is not theft.


Exactly. The definition of theft is to take something from someone and deprive them of the item in question. When a copyright is infringed upon it isn't theft because the copyright holder is deprived of nothing.

Turncoat?



It is "lost sales". If you copy a CD and give me a copy then that
will translate to potential loss of sale as it would remove my
potential incentive to go to the store and purchase this CD. If
I copy that CD and give it to my cousin, the cycle continues...
if you rip the CD put it on the internet for anyone to download,
the argument continues...


"Potential loss" is a misnomer in your case. You cant lose something you dont have. A better term would be "potential otherwise-would-have-been sale". Also, making a copy of something is not theft.



Example? Imagine someone stumbling across a web-site that
either through poor security policies or administration has left
a "hole" open for you to be able to download this company's
latest software (e.g., Photoshop, Windows Vista, etc.). You
then put this software on the internet for others to download.

So the person who takes advantage of the situation should be punished for the mistakes of others?



All that said, I agree that record labels are inherently evil
and such companies like Disney are greedy bastards that
perpetuate piracy by their own immoral business practices.

What is immoral about Disney's business practices? I am ignorant with regards to this.



Disney is a very good example of greed in practice. They
release their movies, then they vault them up for a few
years, then they rerelease them in new media, etc etc.
If I have purchased one of their movies on VHS I should
not be expected to pay full price for their new release on
Blu-Ray media. I have already paid for the RIGHT to own
a personal copy of this movie. Just because the media
changed, I shouldn't have to be FORCED to pay full price.
I would think it would be fair if they would allow previous
owners of such movies to pay a small fraction of the
price, which would cover the media costs only. But this
will never happen.

No one is forcing you to buy anything. Also, since you know Disney is going to release a Blu-Ray version, why not wait till it comes out? Why must you buy the lesser quality VHS version?


As for patents, they no longer serve the purpose they were
meant to serve. They were intended to help the "small guy"
to get their innovative ideas and products out into the market
and allow them some time to establish themselves before
the bigger companies stifle them before they can even start.

No. They were intended to protect the inventor from competition. Edison gained much power and wealth from patent laws.



so what you are saying I should be able to take RP's books
and reprint them with my name on them?

No. That would be fraud. Also, us Ron Paul supporters would immidiately notice what you did and laugh at you. That's why the founding fathers "got away" with
stealing ideas from Thomas Paine and so on. The intellectuals who read their works knew that those ideas came from people like Tom Paine. It was common knowledge/ideas.


why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for
all to download free of charge?

Many reasons. Say you want a copy of work to carry with you so you can read at the park. You could take your laptop and a read a PDF version. Or, you could print a copy from your laptop and take it with you to the park. Or, you could save time, money, ink, costs of binding the pages together by purchasing a physical copy from a bookstore. Also, most books by Rothbard, Mises, Paul, etc. are available for free (PDF) through mises.org.



-------
Actually, when you buy a CD, DVD, software, etc, you buy a user license. You own the physical container and can do what you please with it (frisbee, anyone?), but the contents are proprietary. If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract. ALL libertarians understand the importance of contract. (download "The Market For Liberty" if you don't get it) If you want to use your CD's music in film, elevators, etc, you can purchase a license for that purpose.

It seems that copyright law does need to be updated, but it is still workable. It would be best administered by people who understand the market, like artists and producers. The government is far too stupid and inept to understand it.

Yes. This is totally compatible with Libertarian thought. It also renders obsolete the "need" for copyright laws.



Digital music can be duplicated perfectly millions of times.
QUOTE]

That's not true. There is always a loss of quality when you make a digital copy. Any who knows anything about computers knows that.

[QUOTE=revolutionman;1753386]if i dont sign it I aint binded by it.

I cant just stick a contract on something and claim that its legally binding to whomever comes into possession of that item. Thats ridiculous.

I see what you are getting at and agree. The EULA should be printed on the outside of the packaging.


... what's with all the soft balls? :)

[heavenlyboy34]

That's not true. There is always a loss of quality when you make a digital copy. Any who knows anything about computers knows that.

If a person wants to pirate a CD and can afford the digital technology, they can create a new master from the pirated CD. They can then print perfect copies ad infinitum. They could also rip the files using Nero or something similar and burn new CDs from those original files.

I happen to know about computers, as I work with digital audio regularly and studied digital studio recording as part of my music studies.

[slothman]

How do the recordings (on computer) change.
I'm glad programs don't do that.
Who knows what my files would do as I copied some around several times.
Are the songs in a lossy format?
If so then switch to a lossless.

I do agree that if you digitize it to computer and then send it back to a record/tape/whatever it will lose bits or sound.
But if it is on computer it won't during a copy.

I do have experience.
I have worked on computers for over 20 years.
Most of the is programming though.
No degrees though.

[revolutionman]

when libertarians run the show, this will be the big national debate. LoL

[heavenlyboy34]

you who are really interested in this subject may be interested in this article:

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-two-year-olds-work-out-who-owns.html
findings suggest that young children judge ownership based on who is first in possession of a given object. In an initial study, children aged between two and four were told a simple story about a boy and a girl playing with a toy, after which they were asked to say who owned the toy. If the story described the girl as playing with the toy first, then the children tended to say she owned the toy, and vice versa if the boy was described as playing with the toy first.

But what if the children were simply attributing ownership to whichever person was first associated with the toy, rather than in possession of it? A further experiment involved telling the children that the girl likes the toy, and then that the boy likes the toy. However, in this case, the children were no more likely to say the girl owned the toy than the boy did, even though the girl had been associated with the toy first (the same was true with the sexes reversed).

Finally, Friedman and Neary wanted to see how easily the first possession rule could be overcome in the context of gift giving. When the young children were told that the boy has a ball which he then gives to the girl as a present, they still tended to say that the boy owns the ball (the reverse being true if the story began with the girl in possession). However, when the gift giving was made more explicit (a wrapped present on the girl's birthday), then the first possession rule was broken, and the young children correctly realised that the girl now owned the gift.

The researchers said the most important next step was to find out where young children get this rule about first possession from. They surmised that it could be learned from hearing utterances like ‘‘It’s her doll, she had it first’’, or it could be innate, the product of a "cognitive system dedicated to reasoning about ownership."

[dannno]

So what did the kids say when the boy copies a song he downloaded illegally from the internet onto the girl's ipod?

[Matt Collins]

There is always a loss of quality when you make a digital copy. Any who knows anything about computers knows that. Ummm... patently incorrect. I am an audio engineer and trust me, a digital copy is exactly accurate.

[LibertyEagle]

What I see are a bunch of excuses to attempt to justify theft.

[LibertyEagle]

when libertarians run the show, this will be the big national debate. LoL

That, and kiddie porn. :rolleyes:

Libertarians don't need opposition. They do a fine job all by themselves, shooting themselves in the foot.

It's a darn good thing that the freedom movement is not a Libertarian movement. A darn good thing.

My 2 cents.

[TastyWheat]

So could you morally justify stealing from stores and then mailing the individual workers money?
Maybe, if I thought the workers were getting screwed. I don't make a lot of money, but my net worth is above the average musician's. They go into deep debt to make records and go on tours. You'd have to put out a platinum record to make any real amount of money in the music industry.

[slothman]

I think the problem is whether we think of it as property or not.
People who think it is property will say stealing and compare it to taking CD's from a store.
People who don't think of it as property will think of it as the Jeffersonian candle flame.
Your "taking" won't prevent his "owning".
I am of the second type.

P.S. I can't find the quote about Jefferson and his candle as a copyright quote.
I have seen it before though.

[danberkeley]

Ummm... patently incorrect. I am an audio engineer and trust me, a digital copy is exactly accurate.


If a person wants to pirate a CD and can afford the digital technology, they can create a new master from the pirated CD. They can then print perfect copies ad infinitum. They could also rip the files using Nero or something similar and burn new CDs from those original files.

I happen to know about computers, as I work with digital audio regularly and studied digital studio recording as part of my music studies.

Lol. Anyway, since you guys didnt refute my other points I will assume you both are in agreement with me.

[heavenlyboy34]

Something else you all may find interesting...

In the desert Southwest, we get most of our water from rivers. To make this a profitable industry, businesses buy "rights" of use for certain parts of the river-which are in turn used to create energy and so on. This concept is exploited by companies like Salt River Project (SRP). Obviously, no man technically "owns" parts of a river, but we can buy rights for use.

Hope this is some good food for thought for you all to chew on in the context of selling intangibles like music. Enjoy!

heavenlyboy34. :)

[Matt Collins]

What I see are a bunch of excuses to attempt to justify theft.I don't think anyone here has justified theft. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think anyone here has justified theft. :rolleyes:

Sure you have. You just tried to pretty it up in an attempt to justify said theft.

[AutoDas]

Sure you have. You just tried to pretty it up in an attempt to justify said theft.

Words have actual meaning so before you start accusing people here of theft why don't you go look it up yourself.

[revolutionman]

It's a darn good thing that the freedom movement is not a Libertarian movement.

sure it is. Some people like to call themselves by different names, and some people belong to other parties but the core ideology is libertarian in nature, but thats a debate for another thread.

[Ozwest]

[quote=heavenlyboy34;1755374]Something else you all may find interesting...

In the desert Southwest, we get most of our water from rivers. To make this a profitable industry, businesses buy "rights" of use for certain parts of the river-which are in turn used to create energy and so on. This concept is exploited by companies like Salt River Project (SRP). Obviously, no man technically "owns" parts of a river, but we can buy rights for use.

Hope this is some good food for thought for you all to chew on in the context of selling intangibles like music. Enjoy!

heavenlyboy34.

Those at the rivers source, are the happiest. My guess...

[Matt Collins]

You'd have to put out a platinum record to make any real amount of money in the music industry.Not true.

Most artists make their living off of touring because you can make VERY good money doing that. However if you do your own recording and get it on iTunes you can make a fair amount of money. Recording equipment isn't that expensive anymore, what the labels are really good at is marketing and promotion which does take money and industry connections.

[Matt Collins]

Sure you have. You just tried to pretty it up in an attempt to justify said theft.No I have not nor have I ever justified theft. Please quote me where you think I did and I will show you that I did not.

[Ozwest]

Matt Collins...

Enemy of the Blimp.

Prick. I forgive you.

[Ozwest]

You were ultimately right.

Radio Jock...

[Mini-Me]

Sure you have. You just tried to pretty it up in an attempt to justify said theft.

The copyright/patent issue really is a whole lot more complicated than this, LibertyEagle. For instance, as I mentioned in my first post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1750821&postcount=35) which went entirely ignored (<pout> :mad:), extensions to copyrights are unconstitutional according to Article I, Section 8, because they give Congress the power to make copyrights unlimited. Furthermore, "intellectual property" is not the same as property and does not play by the same rules. For one thing, copying something is not the same as stealing it (even IF the creator of a work has the sole right of reproduction via natural inalienable rights...which I disagree with), since it does not deprive anyone of their existing copy. It's functionally different in every way. Sadly, even though copying is different from stealing and a lesser crime (if a crime at all), it's actually punished MUCH more harshly than real theft of property! Copyright laws have their uses, and that's why they are indeed Constitutional when they're limited, but their primary purpose is not to reimburse the creator of a work (no matter how much people have been propagandized over recent years to believe in this false notion): Rather, providing a financial incentive to copyright holders by coercively enforcing the exclusive privilege to copy is just a means to an end, and that end is the progress and advancement of the arts and sciences. When copyright law becomes so draconian that it stifles progress rather than advances it, it undermines the purpose of copyright laws in the first place. Blah, blah...but I'm just repeating myself here on these points.

There's also something much more insidious behind the current abuse and strengthening of copyright law by Hollywood and the copyright lobby. Check out this link (http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/) to Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture. I may not agree with absolutely everything he wrote, but from what I've read, it's very informative. If you read nothing else, read chapters 13 and 14 about Eric Eldred. They might open your eyes to some of the real dangers of our ridiculously strong copyright laws, which include making an entire generation of forgotten film and culture a felony to digitize until its original source has corroded and disappeared from the face of the Earth.

As I mentioned in my first post, I support copyright law in theory...but today's laws have gone way overboard, and I have no sympathy for anyone who helps enforce unjust laws.

Patent law is a similar branch of law which is very screwed up in America. One problem is it's abused by "patent trolls" today who patent a completely obvious idea or obvious and vague evolutionary improvement over current technology and just wait for someone else to also think of something similar and actually market it...and then wait longer for it to become very lucrative...so they can then sue for a fortune. I'm a computer programmer, and software patents are particularly horrendous, because pretty much every time you write a line of code, you have to worry about stepping on a land mine. By the very nature of programming work, programmers have to find creative solutions to software engineering problems all the time, but most are just variations on established design patterns...and then the patent office goes ahead and approves mountains of trivial and obvious patents without checking into the mountains of prior work. There are so many that nobody can reasonably be aware of what ideas are verboten. All you can do is pray while you're walking through the minefield of patents. There are other horrid kinds of patents that are allowed too, like patents on gene sequences. Seriously, some jerk thinks he can patent MY genes? Other problems include the way patent laws are enforced...for instance, Monsanto has patented GM seeds, which frequently but "mysteriously" appear in the fields of small-time competing farmers, only to be "discovered" by Monsanto agents who then use the legal system to try to drive small farmers out of business. In reality, it seems as if Monsanto purposely has its trucks drive by with the backs opened up so seeds fly into its competitors' fields.

[TastyWheat]

Not true.

Most artists make their living off of touring because you can make VERY good money doing that. However if you do your own recording and get it on iTunes you can make a fair amount of money. Recording equipment isn't that expensive anymore, what the labels are really good at is marketing and promotion which does take money and industry connections.
Well, I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with the anti-RIAA movement for a while, but it definitely used to be true. Touring was actually just a promotion, they were lucky to break even on the whole thing.

[Matt Collins]

Patent law is a similar branch of law which is very screwed up in America. This is because the patent-clerk clowns at the USPTO grant patents on things that are not worthy of a patent. They must be novel, inventive, unique, no prior-art, etc and as usual, the government doesn't do a good job of this process.

[Matt Collins]

Well, I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with the anti-RIAA movement for a while, but it definitely used to be true. Touring was actually just a promotion, they were lucky to break even on the whole thing.Yes, this was true in the 80's largely when the labels would back the tour in order to sell albums. But the 90's change the world so to speak and it's reversed again. Two reasons for this, both of which stem from digital technology. 1) - Everyone and their brother can afford recording equipment. 2) - Everyone and their brother listens to MP3s, not whole albums bought and paid for in the brick&mortar store.

[libertea]

There's also something much more insidious behind the current abuse and strengthening of copyright law by Hollywood and the copyright lobby. Check out this link (http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/) to Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture. I may not agree with absolutely everything he wrote, but from what I've read, it's very informative. If you read nothing else, read chapters 13 and 14 about Eric Eldred. They might open your eyes to some of the real dangers of our ridiculously strong copyright laws, which include making an entire generation of forgotten film and culture a felony to digitize until its original source has corroded and disappeared from the face of the Earth.



A Lessig presentation on copyright.

http://blip.tv/file/1163412

[Mini-Me]

This is because the patent-clerk clowns at the USPTO grant patents on things that are not worthy of a patent. They must be novel, inventive, unique, no prior-art, etc and as usual, the government doesn't do a good job of this process.

No kidding. ;) I vaguely recall reading some time ago about how the patent lobby had won legislation flat-out loosening some of the restrictions, as well (though I might be wrong on this point, since my memory is hazy).

[mediahasyou]

A Lessig presentation on copyright.

http:/blip.tv/file/1163412

http://www.ilovextra.com/

[Matt Collins]

Enemy of the Blimp.
You were ultimately right.

Of course I was right. And I wasn't an enemy of the blimp, I was against spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on something that would be largely ineffectivefrom a marketing standpoint.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is because the patent-clerk clowns at the USPTO grant patents on things that are not worthy of a patent. They must be novel, inventive, unique, no prior-art, etc and as usual, the government doesn't do a good job of this process.

Another good reason for leaving the copyright/patent business to the free market. Thanks! :)

[slothman]

Another good reason for leaving the copyright/patent business to the free market. Thanks! :)

What is the free market with respect to patents and copyrights?
Is it that they don't exis(my vote), or are they like property?

[forsmant]

I would like to add a little even though I did not read the whole debate. Receiving a burned CD does not correlate to lost sales. Many burned CD's I have I would not have bought at all because they were way to expensive. For free I will take it though. I call it radio music because they give it away too, just not when I want it.

[Kludge]

I've arrived at the new conclusion that the agreement between the producer and the consumer isn't adequate to protect against intellectual property theft.

Perhaps the industry needs to look into new restrictive methods/mediums, bearing the public bitching in hopes that they will boost profits (if they feel theft is a problem).


Of course, you could then only persecute the people who convert the media into a different format or similar (or prevent it with even more restrictive policy)....

Perhaps the future is in albums being put in tiny portable devices in which you just plug your earbuds in.

[heavenlyboy34]

What is the free market with respect to patents and copyrights?
Is it that they don't exis(my vote), or are they like property?

If my understanding of laissez-faire is correct, the copyright patent business would be open to competition. The business that is fairest to both the artists and the consumer who desires to use the creation would succeed through the magic of free market competition. (see 'The Market For Liberty')

The copyright/patent industry is an inefficient burocracy that cannot possibly understand the wants and needs of the market participants. There should be agencies that customers can deal with easily and fairly.

For example, say you want to use a song on your website. You could contact the artist through this private agency and negotiate terms that you and the artist could agree on. If he likes your site, he may even let you use it for free and help drive traffic to your site by linking to you.

Notice how when songs became available for sale ala carte via iTunes and similar businesses, people were more willing to purchase individual songs than blowing 10-20 bucks on a CD they don't like. I think this kind of innovation is great! I would be more than willing to sell my tunes ala carte, if the customer wants that. Do you understand now how government stands between you the customer and I the producer? If I'm not clear, let me know and I'll try to elaborate.