1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

stealing music,etc...

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by 4 stringed fury, Sep 30, 2008.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. deggial

    deggial

    May 27, 2008
    Athens, Greece
    Actually, the law does treat intellectual property in a much different fashion than physical property, as intellectual property rights are a state-enforced temporary monopoly. The very nature of information, as a non-rival, inexhaustible goods (if I read a book, I do not restrict anyone else from reading the same information contained in the book), essentially necessitates a different approach than in physical property.

    While they refer to US law, there are two very good books on the history of copyright, the philosophy of intellectual property and its place in modern economics:
    Yochai Benkler, "The Wealth of Networks" - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Main_Page
    Lawrence Lessig, "The Future of Ideas" - http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/download/
     
  2. deggial

    deggial

    May 27, 2008
    Athens, Greece
    There are different business models that have been used quite successfully, actually. For instance, a software developer could provide their software for free and instead draw income from providing support to commercial clients or custom-tailord solutions to businesses. This is a common paradigm in open source businesses, such as MySQL.
     
  3. 12bass

    12bass

    Jan 2, 2003
    Victoria, Canada
    Excellent points deggial.
     
  4. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    Whilst that is true, I think the point Bill was making is that once you have recognised proprietary rights in something (being phyiscal or intellectual property), the owner of those rights is the one who gets to decide how that property is distributed. It is not for little Johnny Internet to decide what price, if any, he is prepared to pay for a certain piece of property (be it physical or intellectual) unless the owner of the property (or proprietary rights) agrees.

    It is true that there are successfull business models relating to the free distribution of IP, but the overarching principle is that it is the IP owner who decides and not the public. Public presure may influence the decision, but its not determinative. If I want to sell my music for $500, thats up to me. Its not for you, or anyone else to, decide that they can have it for less. They can not have it or they can pay $500 for it. Anything in between is a misappropriation.

    Here's a thought experiment for the "pro-download" people. Imagine your band was playing at a venue that had an unlimited capacity, but at which you had to pay to play. The venue charged $20 for entry to see you band playing of which you get $2 per person who plays. If enough fans pay to get in, you will cover the cost of you paying to play there. Because of the unlimited capacity, its not possible to secure all entrances to the venue (even though sneaking in is not allowed). Are you cool with people sneaking in for free to watch you play? Would you sneak if for free to a show like this?
     
  5. IanStephenson

    IanStephenson UnRegistered User

    Apr 8, 2006
    I edited it for you...
     
  6. baalroo

    baalroo

    Mar 24, 2008
    Wichita, KS
    This isn't quite proper, I think replacing "a venue with unlimited capacity" with "a stage outside, in the middle of the busiest intersection in the world" would be more appropriate. In which case, I absolutely would pay to play on if given the oppurtunity. Really though, it's beside the point.

    To the people asking "who are you to decide what a CD is worth": I am no one, and I don't decide. The market decides.

    In regards to morality: Morality is based on the commonly accepted views of a given social group, not the government. The government says abortion, killing animals for food, and the death penalty are all "ok" and that obvious goes against the moral views of large parts of our population.

    software and music are not really comparable btw, there are not nearly infinite amounts of programs doing similiar tasks. If there were, it would be silly to try and charge for said task.
     
  7. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    No, your change doesn't work. You also answered the wrong question.

    Whilst it is true that the market decides the worth of a CD, the artist decides the price and how its distributed. It is not for the "market" to take it by other means or at a lower price.
     
  8. baalroo

    baalroo

    Mar 24, 2008
    Wichita, KS
    You obviously didn't bother to read the rest of the thread. We could have a discussion about jaywalking and I could take someone's post stating "I don't think jaywalking is a big deal" and I could post:

    "I don't think
    murder is a big deal"

    I edited it for you


    I mean hey, they're both illegal acts, right? They're both morally wrong since they're both against the law, right?
     
  9. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    Although the law doesn't define morality, it would be a logical mistake to assume that it can't reflect morality.
     
  10. Bryan R. Tyler

    Bryan R. Tyler TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002 Staff Member Administrator Gold Supporting Member

    May 3, 2002
    Connecticut
    No, in the literal definition. Taking something that belongs to someone else that you have no permission for is stealing. I'm really curious how some of the people in this thread grew up without being taught that. My 4-year old knows it, and even she's smart enough to know that no excuse makes up for taking something that's not hers.
     
  11. baalroo

    baalroo

    Mar 24, 2008
    Wichita, KS

    How does my example not work? When you record an album YOU KNOW (whether you like it or not) that anyone who so wishes can listen to it for free, similiar to playing a stage that anyone can easily access at any time for free. You CAN put up a sign next to the stage that says "$15 to listen," but the reality is that few people will pay you and the very large majority of the people will not feel bad about listening for free.

    "sneaking in" implies that it would be the exception to the rule rather than the status quo.

    I didn't answer your original question, because to me it is not relevant. However, for the sake of friendly conversation: I would not pay money to play that venue... in the same way I would not spend much money recording an album in hopes of making money off the sale of that album when their are more cost effective ways to go about the process.
     
  12. jomahu

    jomahu

    Dec 15, 2004
    Bos, MA
    wow, i can't wait for some of you guys to become professional musicians....actually, any of y'all own a coffeeshop? i'd love to come in there and just grab a cup o' joe from behind the counter. 'cause y'know, me want, me take.
     
  13. baalroo

    baalroo

    Mar 24, 2008
    Wichita, KS
    *sigh*
     
  14. jomahu

    jomahu

    Dec 15, 2004
    Bos, MA
    but you don't understand. i'm addicted to coffee. and it's friggin $3 a cup. ***?
     
  15. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    The fact that you can't see what the difference is speaks volumes. I'd suggest having a think about my example and then responding.

    Actually it implies entry by unauthorised means.

    Again, you didn't answer the question again. I'm beginning to question whether you have read my example.
     
  16. baalroo

    baalroo

    Mar 24, 2008
    Wichita, KS
    And I believe the fact that you don't see how it is THE SAME speaks volumes. Maybe you should "have a think" as well.

    semantics

    You're right, but it's just so darn irrelevant that it's difficult to respond to.
     
  17. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    How can two examples which are different, be the same? Are you sure you are comfortable with the concept of "thinking"?

    If that's what you call the difference between right and wrong, I guess your posts suffer from a lot of "semantic problems" ;)

    Care to explain why its irrelevant?
     
  18. baalroo

    baalroo

    Mar 24, 2008
    Wichita, KS
    They are "the same" because they are analogies, please stop arguing semantics when you surely understand the premise of my statements.

    I do not see a need to debate whether sneaking in to a show should be refered to as "wrong" or "against the status quo" since both imply essentially the same meaning within the context of our conversation.

    Third, your entire example is improper because it basically states that recorded music is a fairly controllable way to present music to an audience (ie: a closed building with exits in which a person can sneak in)... it sounds much more akin to back in the 80s when people would occassionally dub each other off copies of cassette tapes than it does a flood of millions of downloads everyday that we see now. Anyone who understands the current trend in the music distribution should be able to see that it must be assumed an album can and will be imediately available as a free product, for all intents and purposes, whether you mistakenly intended it to be or not. If you release an album it is NOW essentially like playing outside on an open stage and telling people they have to pay you for the music if they choose to listen to it... that is the simple reality of the situation. Thus, any analogies IMO that use a "playing on a stage" premise that is not similiar to this is irrelevant.
     
  19. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    Okay, are you done trying to argue semantics and at the same time asking me not to?

    Got it out of your system? Okay consider this, the playing on the stage analogy was never intended to explore the analogous behaviour of the musician. It was an analogy with the behaviour of the illegal downloader. You seemed to keep missing that even though I was giving you a hint (answer the question). Now, the example isn't improper when you see what its exploring. The band (the IP holder) is trying (insofar as possible) to control the distribution of their IP. Because its an unlimited capacity venue, you can argue that, by sneaking in, you are not depriving the band of income since someone else who was paying could also get in (ie you are not "stealing" a phsyical good (in this case - seat space), hence analogous with digital music. The band knows that people can get in for free, but they have chosen to play there anyway. The question isn't about whether they should play there, its where you would accept (if you were the band) people getting in for free (when you have decided people should pay) and whether, as a consumer, you would be prepared to do that to the band. I'd hardly call that irrelevant to the discussion.

    Now, as I said before, if you had read my example and thought about it, maybe you would have spotted the difference. Apparently, you didn't.
     
  20. baalroo

    baalroo

    Mar 24, 2008
    Wichita, KS
    yeah, you're right. That is relevant. I apologize.

    Actually, your example and mine are nearly identical. If I saw that the venue had many open doors and only a few required payment for entry, I would most likely enter through a "free" door and spend the money I would have spent entering the premises on an actual physical product such as a t-shirt, sticker, etc. I'd figure "why would the band play this venue and expect everyone to pay if they could clearly see that there were all of these doors that you could enter through for free?"
     

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.