Internet music "piracy"

[Jared]

what are everyone's thoughts on this? is it wrong? is it A ok? do you do it?

[MaineShark]

There's no such thing as "intellectual property."

Property rights are negative.  I can't take your car, because I would deprive you of it.

If I copy a song you wrote, I haven't deprived you of the song; you still have it.

IP would requite some sort of deranged "positive property right" that would entitle the owner to the fruits of others' copying labors.  In government-land, that sort of nonsense might make sense.  In the real world, rights are negative, so IP does not exist (except in the most trivial ways, like I can't erase memories from your brain, but that's already covered by other things).

Joe

[thinkliberty]

Intellectual property is the idea that it's okay for the state to use violence in an effort to fix failed business models.

[Jared]

these are the kinds of replies i thought i'd get, and i pretty much agree, although my emotions tend to cloud my logic on this issue sometimes. i have no problem saying that government should have no part of this, but i sometimes wonder if i should really be downloading album after album. you see, im a HUGE music fan...but for the past few years, money has been too tight for me to be buying even half of the music i want to hear....so a lot of times i'll just download music. i figure that i have two options - i can either download the music and enjoy it (and if i really enjoy it, ill go out and buy it on vinyl), or i can not hear the music at all because i can't afford to purchase it. one thing i will say is that i practice what i preach. i am also a musician myself, and i have never once charged anyone for my recorded music.

[Ogre]

I have to disagree. If I create a piece of music, I should own the rights to it. By taking it from me without permission you are taking away my creation and possibly stealing my way of earning a living.

[thinkliberty]

I have to disagree. If I create a piece of music, I should own the rights to it. By taking it from me without permission you are taking away my creation and possibly stealing my way of earning a living.

You can't earn a living by selling copies of your music, unless you alienate your (potential and current) fans and have a violent police state to collect money for you.

If you sell me a copy of your music, I have the rights to do whatever I want to with it.

Trying to cash in on selling copies of music is a failed business model. The profit model died in the digital age.   

You can make a good living selling products with your endorsement, selling exclusive merchandise and admission to live performances to your fans. You get fans to sell things to by giving away copies of your music.

[MaineShark]

I have to disagree. If I create a piece of music, I should own the rights to it. By taking it from me without permission you are taking away my creation and possibly stealing my way of earning a living.

How does that argument work any different from a car thief complaining about car alarms?  After all, they "steal his way of earning a living," don't they?

You don't have a right to earn a living in a way that requires stealing from others.  And forcing someone to pay for music is stealing from him (at gunpoint, no less).  If you don't want him to be able to copy your music, don't give him a copy.  Or demand that he sign a contract, promising that he won't.  Then see if he'll actually sign it, rather than deal with your competitor...

Joe

[Jared]

thinkliberty, i agree. although there will always be a small market for CD's just like there is for vinyl, most music is easily accessible via mp3 for free. it seems that the only way to stop that is government intervention in the internet world, and i don't know any libertarians who want that. it's weird how so many in the industry are trying to push a product that is slowly dying in the mainstream. i think that the best solution i have seen so far is when radiohead released their album "in rainbows" (great album, btw) online and allowed the buyer to decide how much he/she wanted to pay, with no minimum. they apparently made more $ on that album then on any of their previous albums.

[Ogre]

Thinkliberty, I'm not arguing that its a failed model. I think newspapers are a failed model. But I also think that people should be able to try any business model they like. I understand your point of view that once you have purchased music that you have the right to do with it as you please. However, if on the outside of the package it said, "By purchasing and opening this package you agree to not make any copies" would that change your viewpoint?

MaineShark, that's a straw man. Claiming a way of living by taking from others isn't legitimate.

However, I do agree with your second part -- about the contract. That's how I think it should be -- contract law. This isn't, in the way I interpret it, about government force in any way, shape, or form. Instead, I view it as a contract and the only time government should get involved is because its a violation of contract. In other words, as it stands, if I agree with you to give you a copy of a song I have recorded, I am giving it to you with the condition that you do not make copies of it. If you make copies and do anything with them, that's a violation of the contract. If your copies become more and more, then you are in repeated violation and should have to pay for it.

Its similar to software -- if I create software, I should not only own the software, but also be able to protect that software, including building in means of making it not work for those who have not made an agreement with me. If I do not have that right, then even building in any sort of copy protection in my software would be ground for me to be jailed.

Jared, I've heard of that model, and I've seen a lot of failures -- where a very large number of people paid zero for the song and no profit was made. I think radiohead's album was a rarity, though I would like it if that model worked well.

[Mike Barskey]

I think that you can't own knowledge or information. A song, for example, is information - once you know the song, it is knowledge. How can the creator of that song own what is in your head?

A CD, however, is physical. You can put your song on a CD and if someone takes that CD from you (or buys it, trades for it, etc.), then they have property as well as information. The CD can, and must, be treated as property. It is property. Information is not.

...but i sometimes wonder if i should really be downloading album after album.

I think that downloading music or movies or software (i.e., information) for free that the creator is trying to sell is not immoral - it is not theft - but it is also not friendly or nice.

You aren't stealing anything, but you are accepting information that someone is trying to earn money from. It's their problem that they're trying to earn money from information, which is why I don't think accepting it for free is wrong. Instead, they might try to make their products-with-information worth buying, like maybe have behind the scenes information on how the song was created, or a membership to an online club included with the purchase of their software, or a discount coupon to a movie theater if you buy their DVD, etc. These things cannot be had with just the information. I can know a song without the disc, but I cannot also re-play in my head the behind-the-scenes interview/video whenever I want without the disc; I cannot participate in the social network without the private-membership with the software; I cannot get into the movie theater for less expense without the discount in the DVD package; etc.

But where does "it's not nice" come in? If you like a band, for example, and take for free all the music they're trying to sell, how will they earn enough money to keep making music that you like? Why would you not reward them for the information they created that you like and use? You might call it a donation, or a gift, or even payment. You might accept the song/movie/software for free and try it out and then if you like it, pay them something. Perhaps you won't pay them what they ask, but only what it's worth to you. I think that would still be friendlier than paying them nothing.

[Sam A. Robrin]

The fine-print "copyright notice" that I put on my own songs sums up my feelings: "COPYRIGHT [date] by Sam A. Robrin or whoever the hell it is who writes these things. Go ahead and use it, but if you make a little money on it, I want some!"

[MaineShark]

But I also think that people should be able to try any business model they like.

Even if their "model" requires that innocent people be attacked by thugs?

MaineShark, that's a straw man. Claiming a way of living by taking from others isn't legitimate.

That's exactly what the major record companies are doing, though.  Their "way of living" revolves around having government thugs go threaten and attack innocent people.

However, I do agree with your second part -- about the contract. That's how I think it should be -- contract law. This isn't, in the way I interpret it, about government force in any way, shape, or form. Instead, I view it as a contract and the only time government should get involved is because its a violation of contract. In other words, as it stands, if I agree with you to give you a copy of a song I have recorded, I am giving it to you with the condition that you do not make copies of it. If you make copies and do anything with them, that's a violation of the contract. If your copies become more and more, then you are in repeated violation and should have to pay for it.

Assuming you can track down who broke the contract, sure.  Have at 'em.

(of course, there has to actually be a contract - stating, "well, the contract is just assumed" isn't good enough)

I expect it's a losing battle, though... the Internet thrives on anonymity.

And I expect a lot of folks won't sign a 20-page-long contract just to buy a CD.

Its similar to software -- if I create software, I should not only own the software, but also be able to protect that software, including building in means of making it not work for those who have not made an agreement with me. If I do not have that right, then even building in any sort of copy protection in my software would be ground for me to be jailed.

Of course you have the right to add copy protection.  You can do your best to make it as difficult as possible to copy.

What you don't have, is the right to attack someone else because your copy protection failed.  If someone finds a way around it, and copies your software, anyway, then distributes it on the Internet, you don't have the right to attack anyone who downloads a copy.

Joe

[thinkliberty]

Its similar to software -- if I create software, I should not only own the software, but also be able to protect that software, including building in means of making it not work for those who have not made an agreement with me. If I do not have that right, then even building in any sort of copy protection in my software would be ground for me to be jailed.

You'll have to build prisons and pay to feed people who don't pay for your software, without forcing other people to pay to imprison those people. You'll only be able to imprison people who broke a contract they signed with you. No one else.

Who is going to sign contracts from a person who is caging people? If they paid you for software once, they won't buy it again from you, after you caged them.

You can make it hard or inconvenient for paying customers to use your software by infecting it with DRM. People who don't want to pay for software will easily defeat your DRM. People who don't like DRM won't buy your software, they'll download the cracked version and use your software without DRM. They might pay the person that provided the DRM free version of your software, instead of you -- Your business model isn't very profitable without a violent police state. 

You can try the DRM method, but I don't think you'll go very far.

Give people reasons to pay for your software, sell support with it, sell hardware, sell swag (tshirts, stickers, etc), sell advertising in your software and find corporate sponsors/partners. That business model works for Redhat, Google, MySQL, PostSQL, FireFox, Apache, Facebook Etc....

[thinkliberty]

Thinkliberty, I'm not arguing that its a failed model. I think newspapers are a failed model. But I also think that people should be able to try any business model they like. I understand your point of view that once you have purchased music that you have the right to do with it as you please. However, if on the outside of the package it said, "By purchasing and opening this package you agree to not make any copies" would that change your viewpoint?

I wouldn't buy your music if it said: "By purchasing and opening this package you agree to not make any copies." I don't buy things from control freaks. I like to own the things I spend money on. For it to have value I'd need to make a copy of your CD for my MP3 player. If it was a MP3 I'd need to make a copy for when my hard drive died or to have one copy on my PC and the other on my mp3 player. 

Can I sell my copy for your music after I buy it?  What if I don't have the person I sell it to sign your contract? They can make a copy, you'd need to have a huge contract to cover all the ways someone can and can't make a copy or sell what they've purchased.   

Why would anyone sign a huge contract just to buy your song(s)?

If I knew about your music I would have probably already downloaded a copy of your music without the contract. -- I wouldn't know about the contract.

If no one ever made a copy of your music and everyone bought every copy of your music with that contract attached, I probably wouldn't know about your music. How are you going to get people to listen to your music? How much are you going to spend on advertising? How are you going to advertise without people making a copy of the music? You'll have to have them sign a contract to listen to your advertisement. Good luck with that.

You can try to sell your music with a contract, but I don't think you'd be very successful. You'll make a lot more money doing it another way.

[Jared]

The fine-print "copyright notice" that I put on my own songs sums up my feelings: "COPYRIGHT [date] by Sam A. Robrin or whoever the hell it is who writes these things. Go ahead and use it, but if you make a little money on it, I want some!"

i suppose that whether or it is "nice" to download a musician's music depends on the individual musician's beliefs on the issue. i guess my point is this - right now (and this is kind of embarrassing) i literally cannot afford, most of the time, to spend the $10 or so it costs to purchase an album. so i figure i can either not hear new music (or music that's new to me) at all, or i can download it now and pick it up in a store if/when i have money for such things. i think it's easy for a lot of people to look down on folks who download music, because they can't imagine what it's like to not be able to go and just buy the CD. i think that most people would assume that someone who downloads music is just cheap, but what if the person downloading simply cannot afford to buy the CD/RECORD/DVD? anyway, i think that we're nearing the point when purchasing music is something that is reserved for audiophiles who want better quality than the crappy quality that mp3s offer. i mean, if i had the $, i would just buy all of my music on vinyl because i think it sounds the best. even if downloading mp3s were perfectly acceptable and legal, i would still buy records because they sound much better and i can appreciate that fact. i find it extremely annoying that a lot of times i have to deal with mp3 "quality" because it is all i can afford. now, i want to be clear that i am not trying to justify theft, because i do not see music downloading AS theft. i see it is a symptom of the unfortunate situation of being broke.