solum wrote:back one more step: 'property' and 'law' are ideas invented by people.

What ideas aren't?

Anyway, I feel like the thread has been hijacked a little by all this talk of IP. There are plenty of sidebar arguments to be made about fair use and so on, but the issue at hand isn't creators fighting each other for the right to make a particular noise, but the right to be compensated for the special organization of certain noises.

solum wrote:the utilitarian justification for IP tends to be the incentive argument i.e. if non-exclusive 'property' is not protected by law, then the creator cannot make money from it. if he cant make money he has no incentive to create: as soon as his product hits the shelves, free loaders will copy it, incurring less costs than the original creator. this way the creator cannot stay competitive and so is eliminated from the market. eventually, there are no creators in the market.

I think you're right - there's no real way to quantify this argument, so let's shelve it along the other merely academic theories as to how we can realistically deal with the issue.

solum wrote:the next justification, used by publishers on behalf of artists, is the lockean labour theory. this theory is that the way unowned property becomes owned is like so: man mixes his labour with an existing thing, and so the object becomes his. eg. i chop an unowned tree down; so the wood is mine. this argument is extended to IP- i mix my labour with an idea by making it real, by 'fixing' it. i then 'own' my specific form of that idea. however, the word property is misleading: the fundamental need for 'property' arises through competition for finite resources (locke, john stuart mill, hobbes), so if the property is nonexclusive (like all IP by definition), ie. my copying it doesn't affect how you may enjoy your 'property' then there is no competition, and no need for IP. so, the moral justification falls away into the gap between the creator's claim that they deserve recognition as the creator of the work, and the claim that they therefore are entitled to whatever the market will bear.

The problem, as it applies to downloading, is that it's very hard to find an un-owned tree nowadays. One's labour in creating has value, and any worth found in that value has to be tallied. An artist can be said to "own" a particular chord structure, or drum fill but without anyone willing to purchase the enjoyment of said structure or fill, there is no need for the artist to claim it as his/hers. However, I look at mechanical rights like the US Patent Office looks at inventions. You create something, lease it out in order to distribute it to more people who can use it, and reap whatever benefits you feel you deserve and/or have bargained for. Obviously, the higher your distribution rate, the more unauthorised distribution will hurt you, and that's why all the major players are worried. Thus...

solum wrote:you know that the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act stops fair use of copyrighted work where the work is protected by digital means? a schoolteacher cannot make clips of a film to use in class (always allowed before) if there are 'digital gates' on the work. you know that reverse engineering software breaks the law? you all know that copyright means fuck all to the artists who are forced to sign away their rights in perpetuity to make a dime?

Obviously you've studied this stuff, but I'm under the impression that the DMCA was rammed into law mostly through paranoia about not IP, but file-sharing.

solum wrote:every piece of IP is a restriction on other people's liberty, in order to allow one person (natural or legal) to make money. where are the ethics in that, all of you who belive there is some sort of moral at stake with IP?

The bottom line:

The band invests money, as well as their time and effort, to write and record music. The resulting sound should, most definately, be considered a product. It doesn't grow out of the ground, or float naturally through the air, and it requires a great many expensive resources to refine it. If the band does not intend to give it away for free, then it shouldn't be taken from them without payment. If you do not pay a band for the music that they have made (the music you want), when they have intentions of selling it for an assigned value, then you are contributing to a much larger moral, and legal dilemma. Its called THEFT! Downloading music without paying for it has become a very common practice, but that doesn't mean it can be justified as 'okay,' with some overblown IP tangeability argument.


All the legal terminology in the world cannot change the fundamental truth of the matter. Sorry, Solum, but I'm with Mayfair; you're the one who seems to be missing the point.

jupiter wrote:

solum wrote:every piece of IP is a restriction on other people's liberty, in order to allow one person (natural or legal) to make money. where are the ethics in that, all of you who belive there is some sort of moral at stake with IP?

The bottom line:

The band invests money, as well as their time and effort, to write and record music. The resulting sound should, most definately, be considered a product. It doesn't grow out of the ground, or float naturally through the air, and it requires a great many expensive resources to refine it. If the band does not intend to give it away for free, then it shouldn't be taken from them without payment. If you do not pay a band for the music that they have made (the music you want), when they have intentions of selling it for an assigned value, then you are contributing to a much larger moral, and legal dilemma. Its called THEFT! Downloading music without paying for it has become a very common practice, but that doesn't mean it can be justified as 'okay,' with some overblown IP tangeability argument.


All the legal terminology in the world cannot change the fundamental truth of the matter. Sorry, Solum, but I'm with Mayfair; you're the one who seems to be missing the point.

my real problem with copyright lies in the fact that it is assumed that it is right, without thinking beyond money.

the idea that there is no unowned property except that which we've yet to create doesn't, for me, justify excluding others. i think when we talk about ownership, we should talk about what it really means, and what it really means is this: the right to exclude others from a thing. my point, all along, has been that if that thing can be reproduced for free, so that everyone can have it, why shouldn't everyone have it? it seems agreed that people getting music isnt a good thing in itself, the value comes from paying for it.

someone made the point that if i want music, i obviously value it. if i value it, but dont pay for it, then i am a thief and a hypocrite. apparently i don't respect the musician, either, or at least the financial hardship they've gone through. (i value friendship, but i wouldnt consider myself morally wrong for not paying for it.)

i'm not saying that an artist should never be financially remunerated for what they've created, but the fact is that copyright isn't in the band's best interest, or the people's best interest, but in the interests of corporations that make too much money as it is.

with respect, i believe that terminology has a point, as does thinking through concept in that they help us to think about the things that matter in the world.

oh, and a minor point: whoever said that bands have "agreed" on the contract terms with a record label...please!!

i'm happy to say i understand both sides here. and while in a pragmatic "food on the table" kinda way, i agree that artists are entitled to money if they want to be a professional musician, i also lean more toward the other angle. nobody is creating anything here. we, as musicians, are choosing from "notes" that already exist, using a concept of "meter" that's pretty well-defined, basically it all boils down to a series of numbers. frequencies. and the arrangement of those frequencies in some order, while we like to think of it as something we created, is most certainly not. what we as musicians do is "discover" how neat some of these combinations are, and claim them as our own. kinda like how columbus "discovered" america. in this case, it is through the process of "copyright" that we legally prove we are the discoverer of a given tune. really, we are getting legal credit for being the first person in modern america to bring the song to the marketplace. just because you got a copyright on a given song does not in any way prove that the exact same song wasn't played as a passing fancy by stravinsky or hummed by some caveman even. it proves that you're the first to bring it to the copyright office, and that's about it. to say that anyone has actually "created" anything is kind of a misnomer, i'd say in a purely academic sense. it's way more of a discovery-and/or-synthesis than it is a creation. in all cases, i'd say.

the fact is that there is a legal system in place, and while it may or may not have its heart in the right place, just like any face of any legal system, it looks great to some and absurd to others. such is law.

regarding downloading, i am not a professional musician, so i have my biases. just like everyone else has theirs.

but dude in scotland, you might wanna be more mindful of how derisive your posts come across. if you're already aware, and it's all deliberate, then you must be smart enough to know that bringing personal attacks in to an argument while claiming intellectual superiority, on the INTERNET, well that's just funny as hell. or fun. whatever.

sorry to offend anyone with this, but i feel it's wholly appropriate based on scotland's tone...

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/ ... 0/463c5922

toomanyhelicopters wrote:but dude in scotland, you might wanna be more mindful of how derisive your posts come across. if you're already aware, and it's all deliberate, then you must be smart enough to know that bringing personal attacks in to an argument while claiming intellectual superiority, on the INTERNET, well that's just funny as hell. or fun. whatever.

you're right, but the internet was invented to have pointless debates, and get very angry, and post nasty messages....wasn't it?

anyway, sorry if i've pissed anyone off.


ps. i'm right, mind

if you're ever in DC, i'll buy you a beer and we can arm wrestle to see who's smartest.

just so i feel safe, you're not the bassist in McKlusky, are you?

toomanyhelicopters wrote:if you're ever in DC, i'll buy you a beer and we can arm wrestle to see who's smartest.

just so i feel safe, you're not the bassist in McKlusky, are you?

fortunately i am neither welsh nor in mclusky!

toomanyhelicopters wrote: nobody is creating anything here. we, as musicians, are choosing from "notes" that already exist, using a concept of "meter" that's pretty well-defined, basically it all boils down to a series of numbers. frequencies. and the arrangement of those frequencies in some order, while we like to think of it as something we created, is most certainly not. what we as musicians do is "discover" how neat some of these combinations are, and claim them as our own. kinda like how columbus "discovered" america. in this case, it is through the process of "copyright" that we legally prove we are the discoverer of a given tune. really, we are getting legal credit for being the first person in modern america to bring the song to the marketplace. just because you got a copyright on a given song does not in any way prove that the exact same song wasn't played as a passing fancy by stravinsky or hummed by some caveman even. it proves that you're the first to bring it to the copyright office, and that's about it. to say that anyone has actually "created" anything is kind of a misnomer, i'd say in a purely academic sense. it's way more of a discovery-and/or-synthesis than it is a creation. in all cases, i'd say.

This in no way takes away from the point I made. Call it a 'creation,' or 'discovery,' or a fucking invention for all I care. I do, however, prefer the term 'create.' Here's why:

You don't 'discover' a painting because the pigments you use are pre-established. You mix them together to 'create' new colors, and you do in fact create colors when painting, whether or not you have done it intentionally is not the issue. A few drops of red in my turquoise will 'create' a new shade. The way in which I spread the paint on the canvas will also 'create' a unique scene or shape. The same goes for literature, especially. You are not 'synthesising' combinations of letters when you write a sci-fi novel, you are 'creating' a fictional situation to be experienced by the reader. Applying the term 'create' to music is no different.

If lightning hits a sand dune it may create glass naturally. So couldn't it be said that the person who came up with the glass-making process 'creates' it as well? Should all the credit go to the pre-existence of sand?

okay, thinking about it on this basis, WAYYY in favorite of copyright:

without copyright protection, pepsi could use my recording to sell their product. without my permission. without compensating me. even if i told them i hate them and they should never use my song. what would stop them?

right?

man, we need copyright then. screw downloading concerns, what about fucking pepsi? those guys are assholes!

seriously though, here's what i want to know, from people who are outspokenly pro-copyright and anti-downloading because they either want to recoup their recording expense or protect their property from being downloaded for one reason or another... what exactly is the real, true reason you make music? and why specifically do you want to prevent people's downloading of it. is it really all about money that you believe you are entitled to? do you look at recording an album as solely a capital venture, and a way to make money? would you be satisfied with breaking even on your recording costs, knowing that there were 2 million people listening to your music? what about *losing money*, knowing that there were 2 million people enjoying what you created? personally, i hate money and i hate how it fucks up everything it touches. i wish money and music could be kept as separate as possible. then again, if i could make like $50K or more per year just for being a musician, which is something i already do because *it's what i do*, and i didn't have to have a day job like normal folks, well hell, things would probably be different at that point. but right now i just hate money and i hate how it gets in the way of people enjoying music. really, don't we all make music for people to listen to it? i can see not wanting pepsi to use your music to make their own profit, but for joe average to rock out to your tunes while he's on the train? i guess i just wanna understand people's personal motivations better.