Modern Day Protectionism

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The consumer entertainment industry lobbyists lie. They lie over, and over, and over. They lie to the media, they lie to the politicians, they lie to you. The lies in question are rarely looked upon critically by the media or the politicians, only by grassroots opposition. The main lies involved are all variations on the same theme; copying equals theft. That is to say, if you copy a piece of data – be it a software program, a song, a movie, a book, that makes you a thief. You're depriving the producer of that work of money which they supposedly have a right to.

I don't know, maybe I wasn't "educated" well enough in government schools, but no matter how I twist and turn my logic, I still fail to see how this even remotely makes sense. If I walk into a store and leave with a jacket for which I have not paid then I have deprived the store's owner of his or her justly acquired, tangible property. They have one less jacket. They are directly harmed by my action.

Modern Day Protectionism by Vedad Krehic

Interesting article on intellectual property.

 

[JD_2B]

The consumer entertainment industry lobbyists lie. They lie over, and over, and over. They lie to the media, they lie to the politicians, they lie to you. The lies in question are rarely looked upon critically by the media or the politicians, only by grassroots opposition. The main lies involved are all variations on the same theme; copying equals theft. That is to say, if you copy a piece of data – be it a software program, a song, a movie, a book, that makes you a thief. You're depriving the producer of that work of money which they supposedly have a right to.

I don't know, maybe I wasn't "educated" well enough in government schools, but no matter how I twist and turn my logic, I still fail to see how this even remotely makes sense. If I walk into a store and leave with a jacket for which I have not paid then I have deprived the store's owner of his or her justly acquired, tangible property. They have one less jacket. They are directly harmed by my action.

Modern Day Protectionism by Vedad Krehic

Interesting article on intellectual property.

He made a really good point there.. I hate when you BUY a CD and can't make a back-up of it.. Then you HAVE to get online and download the songs. And how many times will I buy the same album, over and over again??

ONCE.

Thank God for the internet..

 

[Charles Stucker]

Intellectual property deserves protection because it is so difficult to protect.
Creating something requires effort, whether it is a jacket or a novel. With a jacket most of the value/cost is in the production and materials, not the design. With a book that is reversed; most of the value is in the data, not the ink and paper.
If people start copying intellectual material because they don't care to pay the individual who owns the copyright then those who create that material will have reduced incentive to create. Say goodbye to new Songs, Novels etc. because no one will be able to afford to produce them.

My personal experience has been that those most dismissive of intellectual property are those who lack the intellect to ever hope to create such work, those who get their books from the comic stand, and those who do not support themselves from their own labor.

 

[Steerpike]

The author hasn't thought things out too clearly in some respects. He's confusing ownership over a single item with ownership of the artistic or creative expression embodied in it. That may or may not be the case depending on the rights one owns. Contrary to what the author states, IP doesn't conflict with property law. It's simply another aspect of property law. You can buy the intellectual property along with the tangible property if the owner is willing to sell it to you at an agreed upon price.

If you have a CD, patented screwdriver, or other item, you can sell the specific item you've purchased and you don't have to worry about IP laws. Copying it and selling duplicates would be another story altogether.

The 'moral rights' aspect is newer and has a stronger foundation in Europe. Even if you subscribe to the idea of 'moral rights' in, say, a painting, those rights can be acquired as well. If you don't have them, you're inability to destroy the work doesn't violate your right of ownership of tangible property, it just means you don't fully own it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The author hasn't thought things out too clearly in some respects. He's confusing ownership over a single item with ownership of the artistic or creative expression embodied in it. That may or may not be the case depending on the rights one owns. Contrary to what the author states, IP doesn't conflict with property law. It's simply another aspect of property law. You can buy the intellectual property along with the tangible property if the owner is willing to sell it to you at an agreed upon price.

If you have a CD, patented screwdriver, or other item, you can sell the specific item you've purchased and you don't have to worry about IP laws. Copying it and selling duplicates would be another story altogether.

The 'moral rights' aspect is newer and has a stronger foundation in Europe. Even if you subscribe to the idea of 'moral rights' in, say, a painting, those rights can be acquired as well. If you don't have them, you're inability to destroy the work doesn't violate your right of ownership of tangible property, it just means you don't fully own it.

That's the point, however. If I buy a cd why am I not free to copy that cd? It's my property isn't it?

 

[Steerpike]

That's the point, however. If I buy a cd why am I not free to copy that cd? It's my property isn't it?

No, the physical CD is your property. The songs themselves do not become your property when you buy a CD. If you owned the actual songs of the Beatles just because you buy a Beatles compilation CD - well, I think you can see what a mess that would be (and I imagine the price of CDs would rise).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's the point, however. If I buy a cd why am I not free to copy that cd? It's my property isn't it?

No, the physical CD is your property. The songs themselves do not become your property when you buy a CD. If you owned the actual songs of the Beatles just because you buy a Beatles compilation CD - well, I think you can see what a mess that would be (and I imagine the price of CDs would rise).

The songs on that cd should be my property to do with as I please.

 

[Steerpike]

The songs on that cd should be my property to do with as I please.

So your position is that if you buy a DVD or a CD, then you should own the rights to the underlying songs or movie? I don't see the logic there. You haven't bought the rights. You want something given to you by force of law that you haven't paid for. You can actually buy the rights to the songs or the movie if you can afford them. Otherwise, you only own what you've purchased, which is that physical CD or DVD.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The songs on that cd should be my property to do with as I please.

So your position is that if you buy a DVD or a CD, then you should own the rights to the underlying songs or movie? I don't see the logic there. You haven't bought the rights. You want something given to you by force of law that you haven't paid for. You can actually buy the rights to the songs or the movie if you can afford them. Otherwise, you only own what you've purchased, which is that physical CD or DVD.

Well I don't agree with intellectual property, so why would I think I had bought the so-called "rights" to anything? If I buy a cd I should be free to do whatever I want with that cd and the music on that cd.

 

[Steerpike]

Well I don't agree with intellectual property, so why would I think I had bought the so-called "rights" to anything? If I buy a cd I should be free to do whatever I want with that cd and the music on that cd.

Why?

So suppose I'm a musician, and after years of training and a few years of songwriting, shelling out thousands of dollars to get a recording studio, not to mention countless thousands of hours of sweat put into the endeavor, I release a CD and charge $15 for it.

You come along and buy that CD, and despite the fact that you've done nothing whatsoever except shell out $15, you can now copy the CD and start selling it, making a profit off of my work?

Sounds like a socialist point of view to me. You buy the physical CD, and then you decide that all the benefit of my labor now belongs to you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I don't agree with intellectual property, so why would I think I had bought the so-called "rights" to anything? If I buy a cd I should be free to do whatever I want with that cd and the music on that cd.

Why?

So suppose I'm a musician, and after years of training and a few years of songwriting, shelling out thousands of dollars to get a recording studio, not to mention countless thousands of hours of sweat put into the endeavor, I release a CD and charge $15 for it.

You come along and buy that CD, and despite the fact that you've done nothing whatsoever except shell out $15, you can now copy the CD and start selling it, making a profit off of my work?

Sounds like a socialist point of view to me. You buy the physical CD, and then you decide that all the benefit of my labor now belongs to you.

Maybe I could, but it's not likely. Burn a cd and try to sell it. There's not much of a market. People will still buy the real product because it will be a far superior product. I wouldn't say defending real property rights over intellectual property rights is socialist in the least.

 

[Steerpike]

Maybe I could, but it's not likely. Burn a cd and try to sell it. There's not much of a market. People will still buy the real product because it will be a far superior product. I wouldn't say defending real property rights over intellectual property rights is socialist in the least.

You aren't defending real property rights over IP. You are confusing the two and creating an artificial conflict between them.

With modern technology you can put out a product that is just as good as the original if you want. But that's really beside the point. You're still expecting that you should be able to profit off of the work of another. That's a viewpoint with definite socialist tendencies.

I don't think it is an accident that our Founders understood this and expressly provided for a patent and copyright system in the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe I could, but it's not likely. Burn a cd and try to sell it. There's not much of a market. People will still buy the real product because it will be a far superior product. I wouldn't say defending real property rights over intellectual property rights is socialist in the least.

You aren't defending real property rights over IP. You are confusing the two and creating an artificial conflict between them.

With modern technology you can put out a product that is just as good as the original if you want. But that's really beside the point. You're still expecting that you should be able to profit off of the work of another. That's a viewpoint with definite socialist tendencies.

I don't think it is an accident that our Founders understood this and expressly provided for a patent and copyright system in the Constitution.

I could put out a rival product with modern technology, for a price. It's expensive to press up units, and unless you've got serious distribution, which also costs a lot of money, you're not going to make any kind of profit. It wouldn't make any sense for somebody to buy a cd and then try to undercut the artist and label. It wouldn't be trying to profit off the work of somebody else, however, it would be an attempt to profit off of your own property.

 

[Steerpike]

[
I could put out a rival product with modern technology, for a price. It's expensive to press up units, and unless you've got serious distribution, which also costs a lot of money, you're not going to make any kind of profit. It wouldn't make any sense for somebody to buy a cd and then try to undercut the artist and label. It wouldn't be trying to profit off the work of somebody else, however, it would be an attempt to profit off of your own property.

I disagree. You put out a rival product by writing your own song. The value lies in the song itself, and all of the effort and ability that went into that belongs to someone else. You want to take it for yourself despite the fact that you didn't pay for it and you don't own it.

If you want to do what you suggest, you can actually buy the song itself. Why not do that? The answer is, just copying it and selling it is an easy way to profit from the labor of someone else without having to pay for it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[
I could put out a rival product with modern technology, for a price. It's expensive to press up units, and unless you've got serious distribution, which also costs a lot of money, you're not going to make any kind of profit. It wouldn't make any sense for somebody to buy a cd and then try to undercut the artist and label. It wouldn't be trying to profit off the work of somebody else, however, it would be an attempt to profit off of your own property.

I disagree. You put out a rival product by writing your own song. The value lies in the song itself, and all of the effort and ability that went into that belongs to someone else. You want to take it for yourself despite the fact that you didn't pay for it and you don't own it.

If you want to do what you suggest, you can actually buy the song itself. Why not do that? The answer is, just copying it and selling it is an easy way to profit from the labor of someone else without having to pay for it.

Except I did purchase it. I bought the cd. If I own the product then why does the artist or record label maintain a controlling interest in the product that I purchased by denying me the right to do with it as I please? You're trying to sever the relationship of the physical cd and the songs themselves, which is ridiculous. Nobody would buy a blank cd with artwork without the music. People are paying for the music.

 

[Steerpike]

Also let me add this:

If you really respect property rights, then you know you can only buy what the owner is willing to sell to you. When you go into a store and see a CD, the owner of those songs is offering to sell you the physical CD, not the songs. You know that when you go in, and you can choose to buy the CD or not. Buying it and then pretending that you've bought the songs, when you know full-well that's not what is being offered is dishonest. If you want to buy the songs, you can approach the owner to do that. What you're suggesting is just thievery. There's really no argument about it. Even if you don't believe in IP, if you respect property rights and understand that the property owner believes in IP and is willing to sell you something on that basis, then buying a CD and then selling copies is still theft because you know you didn't buy the rights you claim to have. There's no way to rationalize that you have.

 

[Steerpike]

I disagree. You put out a rival prod

Except I did purchase it.

No, you didn't. You know full well when you go into a music store that the owner is offering you a physical CD and not the songs. You can either take it or leave it, that is your right as a purchaser. Taking it and then pretending you bought something the owner wasn't offering is theft.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I disagree. You put out a rival prod

Except I did purchase it.

No, you didn't. You know full well when you go into a music store that the owner is offering you a physical CD and not the songs. You can either take it or leave it, that is your right as a purchaser. Taking it and then pretending you bought something the owner wasn't offering is theft.

However, this once again implies that the physical product and the songs themselves are separate things, and that's incorrect. If that artist tried to sell the same cd, without the songs, then they could be sued for fraud, or, if they were honest, nobody would buy their product in the first place.

 

[Steerpike]

However, this once again implies that the physical product and the songs themselves are separate things, and that's incorrect. If that artist tried to sell the same cd, without the songs, then they could be sued for fraud, or, if they were honest, nobody would buy their product in the first place.

No, it doesn't. You can sell the actual CD you bought with the songs on it.

Let me ask again the issue you are avoiding, because it is fatal to your line of argument:

How can you buy something that was never offered to you for sale?

If I own something, I can sell any or all of it to you. I can rent it to you for a day or an hour. I can sell you a piece of it, or the whole. The terms that are offered for sale are dictated by the seller. That is what respect for property rights is all about.

If I never offer you something, any claim to have bought it is a sham. No matter what your view on IP, you can't get around the fact that when you buy a CD all you are being "offered" is that physical CD. Nothing else. You can choose as a purchaser to buy it or not.

To go ahead and buy it, knowing full well what was offered, and then pretend you have something more is just dishonest. So again, how can you obtain ownership from me of something I never offered to sell you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

However, this once again implies that the physical product and the songs themselves are separate things, and that's incorrect. If that artist tried to sell the same cd, without the songs, then they could be sued for fraud, or, if they were honest, nobody would buy their product in the first place.

No, it doesn't. You can sell the actual CD you bought with the songs on it.

Let me ask again the issue you are avoiding, because it is fatal to your line of argument:

How can you buy something that was never offered to you for sale?

If I own something, I can sell any or all of it to you. I can rent it to you for a day or an hour. I can sell you a piece of it, or the whole. The terms that are offered for sale are dictated by the seller. That is what respect for property rights is all about.

If I never offer you something, any claim to have bought it is a sham. No matter what your view on IP, you can't get around the fact that when you buy a CD all you are being "offered" is that physical CD. Nothing else. You can choose as a purchaser to buy it or not.

To go ahead and buy it, knowing full well what was offered, and then pretend you have something more is just dishonest. So again, how can you obtain ownership from me of something I never offered to sell you?

I haven't avoided anything. I've addressed the fact that you're trying to create a difference between the physical cd and the songs on the cd, and I've explained why that's a fallacy. Now, to be fair, it's not just you doing that obviously, this is the fallacy the entire system is based on. But there's no difference between the cd and the music. People buy the cd for the music, and by putting the cd up for sale but trying to retain their ownership of the songs the record labels and artists are committing a fraud in my opinion. If it were true that all they were selling was the cd itself then they wouldn't have to put the music on the cd, but as I stated before they would be sued for fraud.