RIAA loses suit to make mother pay for 13 year old's file sharing..

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Not even level 164 bit super high def major badass encrytion? Or something?

Didn't you ever watch the movie Mercury Rising when it's on USA or something?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Not even level 164 bit super high def major badass encrytion? Or something?

Have we been able to come up with stores that people can't steal from?

SI

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Didn't you ever watch the movie Mercury Rising when it's on USA or something?

I'm just saying...seems like there could be a way besides this nickel and dime, ham and egg half hearted effort if it was really a big deal.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Have we been able to come up with stores that people can't steal from?

And let's take that a step further. If someone had invented a foolproof way for stores to be created where nothing could be stolen, but, say Wal-Mart figures it's cheaper to go with the old model (ie they lose $1M per year in shoplifted merchandise but the method costs $10M) than the new, do you still not prosecute someone who steals from them because stealing is still illegal?

SI

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

IP laws were put into effect to benefit the consumers, not to protect anyone's profits.

I've got to raise the bullshit flag on this one. IP laws were put into effect to protect the owner of the IP. The benefit to the comsumers - the fact that there is something to consume - is a secondary benefit.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And let's take that a step further. If someone had invented a foolproof way for stores to be created where nothing could be stolen, but, say Wal-Mart figures it's cheaper to go with the old model (ie they lose $1M per year in shoplifted merchandise but the method costs $10M) than the new, do you still not prosecute someone who steals from them because stealing is still illegal?

SI

If the fishing tackle is sitting right out front without a sole within 500 yards I say take the fishing tackle.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You are both drawing the wrong conclusions from what I said, only Subby does it in a more spectacular, more rude way. The point isn't to decide what is difficult to produce or not, the point is to decide what would be made anyway. The difficulty of producing it is merely a facet of what determines what would be made. So it isn't a matter of determining the cut-off for difficulty level, it is a matter of weighing the benefits of everyone having access to something compared to the costs of some things not being produced. In the case of computer programs, I don't think there is any argument that negative costs outweigh the positive benefits. FOF probably could have been produced for the love of it, but it isn't likely. And there is no doubt that programs like Photoshop, Madden, etc, would never be produced.

IP laws were put into effect to benefit the consumers, not to protect anyone's profits. IP laws are in place because without them, nobody would develop content, which would be bad for the consumer. Twenty years ago, music had to be protected because of the large cost involved with recording the music, etching it onto records, shipping it out to stores, etc. Now a song can be recorded directly onto a computer, uploaded to a server, and copied a million times at a bare minimum of expense. The landscape of the industry has changed. And let's also not forget that musicians can still make a great deal of money by playing live events, it isn't like their talent wouldn't be worth anything. It is the music executives and distribution network that loses out.

Rude? Please. I was practically frenching you I was so polite.

Intellectual property laws exist to protect the creator of said intellectual property. Distilled to their essence, they allow the creator to determine what happens to his or her property. Not you. Not me. They have nothing to do with the consumer other than limiting the freedom they can exercise with result to someone else's property.

Just because a musician can make money playing a song live does not mean they rescind any rights to the songs they own. And if an up and coming band chooses to release their music for free, that is their right.

I don't disagree with you at all about the landscape of music changing - I just don't think that it has any impact on whether a musician has to give away their art, just because it is easy to do.

It just seems like you building a strawman with the whole cost of production and distribution argument.

(w00t, I finally got to use that term!)

[SirFozzie]

If it can be heard by the ear, or seen by the eye, it can be copied.

If it can be read by Joe Average's Computer. It can be broken.

That's not going to change for a very long time.

[SirFozzie]

And there's nobody in this thread who says, "Yes, stealing from the RIAA is right" Don't try to spin that we're not. Just that the RIAA's response has been so hamhanded and stupid (remember them filing a DMCA Complaint UNDER OATH, UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, that someone was sharing Usher songs when it turned out it was Dr. Usher's class tapes?), and flat out lying, that people are taking enjoyment out of them looking like morons.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If it can be heard by the ear, or seen by the eye, it can be copied.

If it can be read by Joe Average's Computer. It can be broken.

That's not going to change for a very long time.

So get over it people. Use that to your advantage.

[Zippo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Give a guy a little time here, it's tough to catch every single post + watch the rally in Baton Rouge + have to sort through so much crap from so many posters already on ignore just to catch even a portion of the steaming bullshit shoveled in my direction. I answered your first one, I didn't notice the speeding thing until later. Feel free to file suit if you desire.

Yep, I've got a whopping one whole speeding ticket in 38 years.
Wasn't in a stolen car though.

From your question, I'm guessing you're trying to apply some sort of "any crime" generality standard & if that's your belief, by all means go for it. But that's not what I've said here, I believe I've been pretty specific about the theft aspect being the part I'm talking about in this thread. It's certainly not the only crime I lean toward harsh, or even capital, punishment for ... but that's also not the same as me advocating extreme prejudice as punishment for all crimes either (which, just guessing here, is where you were trying to go with this).

exactly, speeding is much MORE serious. You do realize that car accidents are the number (1 or 2) killer of people today right? I think all people who speed should be sentenced for life.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

And there's nobody in this thread who says, "Yes, stealing from the RIAA is right" Don't try to spin that we're not. Just that the RIAA's response has been so hamhanded and stupid (remember them filing a DMCA Complaint UNDER OATH, UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, that someone was sharing Usher songs when it turned out it was Dr. Usher's class tapes?), and flat out lying, that people are taking enjoyment out of them looking like morons.

Oh, I agree with you completely. The RIAA not only made the wrong decision about how to handle illegal file sharing in the first place, they've continued to make the wrong decision (as well as making the whole issue a great deal worse in the process). Someone really needs to tap the head of their enforcement division on the forehead with a frying pan until s/he gets a clue. Alienating one's consumer base is never a sound business decision.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I've got to raise the bullshit flag on this one. IP laws were put into effect to protect the owner of the IP. The benefit to the comsumers - the fact that there is something to consume - is a secondary benefit.

(This applies to several people's posts, but I'm just quoting this one because it is the most direct)

Take a look at the US Constitution:

Originally Posted by Article I, Section 8

the Congress shall have power . . . 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

Right there is the impetus for all copyright law in the United States. The reason is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to protect the creator, not to protect the profits of the distribution network. It has been upheld by the courts, for example:

Originally Posted by Wheaton v. Peters 1834

...patents and copyrights are exclusive rights of limited duration, granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works.

Originally Posted by Williams and Wilkins Co. v. United States 1973

...the court holds, based on the type and context of use by NIH and NLM as shown by the record, that there has been no infringement, that the challenged use is 'fair' in view of the combination of all of the factors involved in consideration of 'fair' or 'unfair' use enumerated in the opinion, that the record fails to show a significant detriment to plaintiff but demonstrates injury to medical and scientific research if photocopying of this kind is held unlawful, and that there is a need for congressional treatment of the problems of photocopying.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Zippo

exactly, speeding is much MORE serious. You do realize that car accidents are the number (1 or 2) killer of people today right? I think all people who speed should be sentenced for life.

FWIW, it's maybe 5 or 6, not 1 or 2. Heart Disease is #1, Cancer is #2, Stroke is #3, Chronic lower respiratory diseases is #4 and "Accidents" is #5, but that includes all accidents, not just motor vehicle accidents. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm).

But, Motor Vehicle accidents are the #1 killer in people aged 15-24.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Subby

They have nothing to do with the consumer other than limiting the freedom they can exercise with result to someone else's property...It just seems like you building a strawman with the whole cost of production and distribution argument.

That first part I quoted is completely wrong, as I explained in a previous post.

As for the strawman, what are you talking about? Can you explain that a little more?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

As for the strawman, what are you talking about? Can you explain that a little more?

That copyright infringement or intellectual property has anything to do with whether said property is easier or cheaper to produce than something else. Your argument that a piece of software has more protection than a Kelly Clarkson cd because it is easy to produce and distribute has no bearing on the issue at hand.

It's all about who owns the property and their right to do with it how they see fit.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

(This applies to several people's posts, but I'm just quoting this one because it is the most direct)

Take a look at the US Constitution:

Right there is the impetus for all copyright law in the United States. The reason is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to protect the creator, not to protect the profits of the distribution network. It has been upheld by the courts, for example:

I still disagee with you. IP laws are in place to protect the owners of IP. The duration of these laws is limited for the good of the public.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

(This applies to several people's posts, but I'm just quoting this one because it is the most direct)

Take a look at the US Constitution:

Right there is the impetus for all copyright law in the United States. The reason is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to protect the creator, not to protect the profits of the distribution network. It has been upheld by the courts, for example:

I'm not going to rehash Quik's post about protecting the ability to profit being a central link in this chain that ultimately results in the public good.

That said, I'd change your third citation to something that isn't a fair use case. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

(And Drake is 100% correct, of course. The people who create something should get to decide how much if anything to charge for it. The rest of us don't get to take it for free and then shrug our shoulders and mutter about how the landscape has changed. We get to decide if the product is worth enough for us to pay the asking price, but we don't get to just take it if we decide we want it free.)

Why not, for nonrivalrous goods? Have you ever taken a physics course? Did you use E-mc^2? Did you get permission from Einstein to use his formula? Of course not, because his ideas were never copyrighted, because to do so would be against the advancement of science, so the government never made laws making it available to be copyrighted.

At one point, there was a benefit to copyrighting music. It cost money to record it and put it on a phonograph and ship that phonograph across the country. Those phonographs were rivalrous, i.e. if someone owned a particular phonograph someone else couldn't own that same physical object as well. But cover bands could still play it, you could still hum it, etc, and nobody could tell you you couldn't. The information, the nonrivalrous good, was always free to use.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I still disagee with you. IP laws are in place to protect the owners of IP. The duration of these laws is limited for the good of the public.

What evidence do you have to place up against the US Constitution and the US justice system?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What evidence do you have to place up against the US Constitution and the US justice system?

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying you are reading it wrong. Copyrights and patents have always existed to protect the inventor/creator so they can adequately profit off of their creations. The limits to these copyrights/patents exist for the good of humanity so people can springboard off of the works of others.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Subby

That copyright infringement or intellectual property has anything to do with whether said property is easier or cheaper to produce than something else. Your argument that a piece of software has more protection than a Kelly Clarkson cd because it is easy to produce and distribute has no bearing on the issue at hand.

It's all about who owns the property and their right to do with it how they see fit.

I never said anything about CD's. CD's are rivalrous goods, that fall under real property. Secondly, ease of production is not the bottom line, as I have explained previously. The bottom line is the content's ability to be produced in the absence of profit. And ease of production definitely comes into that. Consider microsoft's calculator. Would they ever charge for that? Of course not, because someone could easily make a free one.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying you are reading it wrong. Copyrights and patents have always existed to protect the inventor/creator so they can adequately profit off of their creations. The limits to these copyrights/patents exist for the good of humanity so people can springboard off of the works of others.

I ask again, what evidence do you have that you are correct? There is no mention at all in the Constitution about profiting from their discoveries, just mention of the advancement of science and the arts.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why not, for nonrivalrous goods? Have you ever taken a physics course? Did you use E-mc^2? Did you get permission from Einstein to use his formula? Of course not, because his ideas were never copyrighted, because to do so would be against the advancement of science, so the government never made laws making it available to be copyrighted.

At one point, there was a benefit to copyrighting music. It cost money to record it and put it on a phonograph and ship that phonograph across the country. Those phonographs were rivalrous, i.e. if someone owned a particular phonograph someone else couldn't own that same physical object as well. But cover bands could still play it, you could still hum it, etc, and nobody could tell you you couldn't. The information, the nonrivalrous good, was always free to use.

...as shown by the fact that nobody ever got in trouble for bringing a tape recorder to a concert or a video camera to a movie theater. We can sing a song or act out a movie...we can't replay others singing a song or acting out a movie without their permission.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying you are reading it wrong. Copyrights and patents have always existed to protect the inventor/creator so they can adequately profit off of their creations. The limits to these copyrights/patents exist for the good of humanity so people can springboard off of the works of others.

Except for Disney, who keeps sponsoring a new amendment whenever Mickey Mouse gets close to the copyright ending, to push it back, for example. They want the right to forever make money off their copyrights (most of which they didn't even create, but stole from fairly tales)

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I ask again, what evidence do you have that you are correct? There is no mention at all in the Constitution about profiting from their discoveries, just mention of the advancement of science and the arts.

I have the same evidence that you do. I read everything you quoted and I believe it supports my position. The court first court ruling you showed made important (in my reading of the finding), that the limit of the rights for the good of society, not the rights themselves.

Reading your facts, I get a different interpretation.

[BrianD]

dola

I'd be willing to see in informal poll happen to see which of us has the common interpretation. Mine could be wrong.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Except for Disney, who keeps sponsoring a new amendment whenever Mickey Mouse gets close to the copyright ending, to push it back, for example. They want the right to forever make money off their copyrights (most of which they didn't even create, but stole from fairly tales)

This is a related, but seperate discussion. I have no problem seeing Mickey fall into the realm of public domain.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

...as shown by the fact that nobody ever got in trouble for bringing a tape recorder to a concert or a video camera to a movie theater. We can sing a song or act out a movie...we can't replay others singing a song or acting out a movie without their permission.

People that bring tape recorders or video cameras to movie theaters intend to sell the information, which is making money off of another's work. Furthermore, those are private places that can enforce their own rules of what to bring in. We can also replay a movie whenever we want, or do you not own a VCR?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

dola

I'd be willing to see in informal poll happen to see which of us has the common interpretation. Mine could be wrong.

Are you a big "conventional wisdom" fan? I recommend Freakonomics, it's an eye-opener.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I have the same evidence that you do. I read everything you quoted and I believe it supports my position. The court first court ruling you showed made important (in my reading of the finding), that the limit of the rights for the good of society, not the rights themselves.

Reading your facts, I get a different interpretation.

Are you serious here? "granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works." That's pretty much as clear cut in favor of my argument as can be, since my argument is that the rights are granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works. Nowhere does it mention anything about it being for the creators profit, which is what I understand your view to be. Were you joking, or am I misunderstanding your view?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

People that bring tape recorders or video cameras to movie theaters intend to sell the information, which is making money off of another's work.

If that was the case, people would only get in trouble post-transaction. Otherwise you are dealing with thought-crime.

Furthermore, those are private places that can enforce their own rules of what to bring in. We can also replay a movie whenever we want, or do you not own a VCR?

Purchase of the tape/DVD/CD constitutes permission to replay. It is part of the purchase contract. I believe courts have already declared time-shifting part of fair-use. I don't know what the legalities are for recording something and then keeping it forever, but I also can't recall it ever being challenged in court.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why not, for nonrivalrous goods? Have you ever taken a physics course? Did you use E-mc^2? Did you get permission from Einstein to use his formula? Of course not, because his ideas were never copyrighted, because to do so would be against the advancement of science, so the government never made laws making it available to be copyrighted.

Nope. Facts are not copyrightable.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/nba.html

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If that was the case, people would only get in trouble post-transaction. Otherwise you are dealing with thought-crime.

I don't think you can be arrested for taping a movie, just thrown out of the theater. And like I said, as private entities theaters are free to follow their own rules.

Originally Posted by BrianD

Purchase of the tape/DVD/CD constitutes permission to replay. It is part of the purchase contract. I believe courts have already declared time-shifting part of fair-use. I don't know what the legalities are for recording something and then keeping it forever, but I also can't recall it ever being challenged in court.

I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nope. Facts are not copyrightable.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/nba.html

Substitute "social psychology" and "game theory" in there then, it's all the same concept.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Are you a big "conventional wisdom" fan? I recommend Freakonomics, it's an eye-opener.

No I'm not, I just didn't think it made sense for the two of us to argue about which interpretation was correct. If you say I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge you. If everybody says I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge myself.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.

Sure, we get back to fair use here. If you are broadcasting something over the air, or across a cable that I pay for, I have the right to receive that transmission. Permission is given from the IP holder to the broadcast entity via their purchase contract. VCRs are an acceptable way of receiving a broadcast. I guess I'm not really sure what the point of this tangent is.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't think you can be arrested for taping a movie, just thrown out of the theater. And like I said, as private entities theaters are free to follow their own rules.


I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.

Then you didn't see the story about the folks who were arrested for videotaping a movie? (agreed, they had larcenous intent, but still)

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't think you can be arrested for taping a movie, just thrown out of the theater. And like I said, as private entities theaters are free to follow their own rules.


I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.

A new federal law aimed at discouraging camcorder-equipped movie pirates has snared its first catch.
Federal prosecutors said Curtis Salisbury, 19, pleaded guilty on Monday to using a camcorder to record movies in a St. Louis, Mo., theater and distributing his recording on the Internet.

When Salisbury worked in the box office of a theater, he and others entered the projection booth after-hours and used a camcorder and audio recorder to tape "The Perfect Man" and "Bewitched" in June, according to the plea agreement. Sentencing is scheduled to take place in a San Jose, Calif., federal court Feb. 27.

Salisbury appears to have been the first person prosecuted under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, which Congress approved in April in an effort to curb online piracy. One section of the law stipulates that any person who uses an "audiovisual recording device" to tape a movie in a theater can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for up to three years. The charge of Internet distribution could carry additional punishment.

Although the Department of Justice wasn't divulging many details, a representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California said Salisbury was caught as part of an undercover operation being conducted in the San Francisco area. That investigation, called Operation Copycat, resulted in indictments against four men this summer. Salisbury's recordings, among others, were transmitted to servers in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The movie studios applauded the government's announcement. "We want to thank the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI for their efforts to crack down on movie pirates," said John Malcolm, a vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America and a former Justice Department official. "Their attention to this growing phenomenon is crucial in our fight to protect copyrighted materials."

Applause also came from Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who supported the antipiracy measure in Congress. "This conviction is a victory for America's creators," Smith said. "Copyright thieves are now on notice that stealing intellectual property will not be tolerated."

The stiff criminal penalties were controversial when they were being considered by politicians, with critics saying such punishments, which are usually reserved for violent crimes, may not be the best way to engender respect for copyright law.

It is against Federal law.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This is a related, but seperate discussion. I have no problem seeing Mickey fall into the realm of public domain.

I agree, but again, it ties back into my original point. A lot of people want to see these folks get smacked around because of their arrogance, that the rules apply to Joe Average, but it doesn't to a Disney or an RIAA member or other such companies.

For example.. the Price Fixing settlement that the RIAA had stated that amongst other things, they would donate cd's to libraries. Fair and worthy right?

Not when it turned to a massive CD-Dump that ended up with some libraries receiving receiving double digit copies of things like Whitney Houston's rendition of the national anthem. In other words, the music labels just thumbed their noses at the letter and the spirit of their settlement.

As I said, Schadenfrude. Anything that kicks those bastards in the jimmies is ok by me. Jon might and probably does think I'm wrong for it, but it's plain and simple. Whatever fucks them over (up to a point), is just desserts.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

No I'm not, I just didn't think it made sense for the two of us to argue about which interpretation was correct. If you say I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge you. If everybody says I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge myself.

I'm still hazy about how a court ruling that says exactly what my interpretation . And I am still looking for any evidence at all that profits are the main intent of IP laws.

Originally Posted by BrianD

Sure, we get back to fair use here. If you are broadcasting something over the air, or across a cable that I pay for, I have the right to receive that transmission. Permission is given from the IP holder to the broadcast entity via their purchase contract. VCRs are an acceptable way of receiving a broadcast. I guess I'm not really sure what the point of this tangent is.

How do you think fair use came about? As a means to advance science and art by sampling copyrighted material. If it was all about profit, as you contend, then the courts would have ruled that an artist would have to pay for any kind of sampling of another artist, or that a person would have to pay to reproduce something, such as taping on a VCR. But that is not the case, the court has consistently ruled for the advancement of science and the arts, because that is exactly what it says in the Constitution. There really is no argument here, it's very clear cut.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

It is against Federal law.

I'll change what I said slightly: It's not the fact that the person will have a copy of the movie that congress is worried about, it's the fact that this person will be going out and selling the movie. And even if he is just going to distribute it on the Internet, I've mentioned how movies are not the same as music when you are comparing their likelihood to be made if there is no profit incentive.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Now a song can be recorded directly onto a computer, uploaded to a server, and copied a million times at a bare minimum of expense. The landscape of the industry has changed. And let's also not forget that musicians can still make a great deal of money by playing live events, it isn't like their talent wouldn't be worth anything. It is the music executives and distribution network that loses out.

Ummm...

Where to begin, where to begin?

Do I go the "what about people that cannot afford a computer?" route?

Do I go the "so should all writing (newspapers, novels, penthouse letters, etc) be free?" route?

Do I go the "so should all pieces of artwork which are actually MUCH cheaper to make than any music be free and able to be copied and distributed route?"

Do I go the "you're an idiot who just wants to justify stealing." route?



And those are only some of the many choices... advice? which should I pick?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Do I go the "what about people that cannot afford a computer?" route?

What about them? More of them have access to a computer than get recording contracts, so the point is moot.

Originally Posted by wade moore

Do I go the "so should all writing (newspapers, novels, penthouse letters, etc) be free?" route?

Most newspapers are free on the Internet, just like I am saying music should be, so that kind of hurts your argument. Novels, as I explained probably a dozen times if you had bothered to read the entire thread, are not music, they take a lot more time to write and I imagine that quality would drop off severely if there was no profit incentive. Furthermore, most people still like to read physical books, which is a rivalrous good.

Originally Posted by wade moore

Do I go the "so should all pieces of artwork which are actually MUCH cheaper to make than any music be free and able to be copied and distributed route?"

Art is rivalrous! Please, read the whole thread before replying.

Originally Posted by wade moore

Do I go the "you're an idiot who just wants to justify stealing." route?

Please give an intelligent response next time before calling someone an idiot. You didn't refute a single one of my points, then went for ad hominem attacks. Let me help you out:

My premises:
1) IP laws are in effect to help the consumer
2) The consumer is helped more by free music distribution
My conclusion:
1) Free music distribution should be legal

To attack that you must argue one of the following:
1) IP are not designed to help the consumer but rather the profits of the creator (which is false just be glancing at the Constitution)
2) The consumer is hurt by having free music distribution (so far nobody has attempted to refute this, I don't think)

[wade moore]

Please show me where in the constitution it shows that IP is designed to help the consumer.

Thanks!

[rkmsuf]

This was never a problem with cassette tapes.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

To attack that you must argue one of the following:
1) IP are not designed to help the consumer but rather the profits of the creator (which is false just be glancing at the Constitution)
2) The consumer is hurt by having free music distribution (so far nobody has attempted to refute this, I don't think)

Of course the Platonic consumer is helped by free music distribution (except for the damage done to his soul when this free music distribution is done illegally). I don't really want to get into this, but your argument is really silly.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Please show me where in the constitution it shows that IP is designed to help the consumer.

Thanks!

READ THE THREAD!

Originally Posted by Article I, Section 8

the Congress shall have power . . . 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

Not "to promote the profits of scientists and artists", but "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

[Subby]

Music is nonrivalrous only if its creator/owner wants it to be so. They get to make that decision. Not us. Just like the Washington Post gets to control the information they reproduce on their web site. You know - the articles that have copyrights at the bottom of each page.

Your continued insistence that intellectual property laws exist to protect just the consumer ignore years and years of copyright and trademark law.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Of course the Platonic consumer is helped by free music distribution (except for the damage done to his soul when this free music distribution is done illegally). I don't really want to get into this, but your argument is really silly.

Consider free movies for anyone. An initial benefit to the consumer. But then, movies stop being made because there is no money in it, because nobody will spend $100million of their own money just to make a movie. Now all you have are crappy films. A net negative for the consumer, because even though movies are free, there aren't any movies.

But the same can't be said for music. People will not stop making music. Not only can they still get rich from plaing concerts, but the ease in which a song can be produced will keep a healthy supply of new songs on the marketplace.

This kind of calculus is done every time an IP law is considered. It's not "silly" by any stretch of the imagination.