Mayfair wrote:

solum wrote: the idea of 'theft' or 'piracy' doesn't even make sense...by my having a copy of a piece of music, no one else is deprived of it.

You surely can not be THAT ignorant of the idea of itellectual property, can you?

Please check with Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:I ... l+Property

The assumption that no one is deprived when a copy of music is stolen is hopeful at best, ignorant at the very least. Sounds to me more of a justification by someone who does not want to pony up to buy something that is obviously something they find of value, yet are easy to call it 'valueless' when it comes time to pay the bill.

hi guys. yes, in fact i am THAT ignorant. i have been studying intellectual property at university for the last 2 years of my 5 year course.

if you believe in rationality, and logic, it is a FACT that no one is deprived when a thing of non-exlusive nature is copied. if i record a song, and you copy it, i still 'have' the song. i'm sorry if i was too ignorant to convey this very simple idea sufficiently.

what you are deprived of, if anything, is the commercial potential of a product. well, jeez guys, sorry if this sounds lame, but i don't consider it a done deal to think of 'art' (and artistic works are all that copyright was ever meant to protect, since before the Berne Convention even) prima facie as commodity. fair enough, i might come across all 'unreconstructed marxist', and that would be a terrible thing, but the idea that every thing that a human may create is only reduced to it's exchange value pisses me off.

art is of value. i think most people accept that. that doesn't mean an ARTIST is deprived of anything meaningful if their work is copied by another. this is accepted by many (most) academics in the IP field. but i guess they're ignorant, and need to check up some internet search engines.

now, 'ponying up'. i download music from the internet. i buy records too. i generally don't DL things that are available to buy for a reasonable price. but you know what? i'm not going to spend £50 to get a rare record from ebay. i'm not paying the price of an album for one song. i understand that buying a real thing is nicer than downloading a lesser quality copy. fine. howeve, quite frankly, i care very little for other people's sanctimonious attitudes about what i do.

even if you believe that the publisher should have IP 'protection', once a publisher has made their initial investment back, shouldn't there be an unregulated free market in that product? isn't the current system fundamentally anti-american? yes, it is, if you accept the market values america was founded upon.

the law isn't about morals (hence why in countries like america, artists have no moral rights over their work once they have sold the right to a publisher). the concept of copyright in common law jurisdictions was never meant to be about artists, it was meant to be about the RIGHT to COPY, i.e. to exploit a creation. this is a publishers right, with little meaningful reference to the artists herself.

as far as i'm concerned, breaking the law isn't immoral in itself, especially if the laws are stupid. in terms of IP, the laws really ARE stupid.

anyway, good luck with your opinions,

solum

solum wrote:hi guys. yes, in fact i am THAT ignorant. i have been studying intellectual property at university for the last 2 years of my 5 year course.

if you believe in rationality, and logic, it is a FACT that no one is deprived when a thing of non-exlusive nature is copied. if i record a song, and you copy it, i still 'have' the song. i'm sorry if i was too ignorant to convey this very simple idea sufficiently.

THE CREATOR or copyright holder is deprived, you doink! You have just taken from them without paying the cover charge. You have devalued their product. It's so funny how people who do this have arguments that what they are 'sharing' has no value so therefore they don't need to pay for it, yet is is valuable enough for them to want it in the first place. Again, you are just trying to justify your inability or lack of want to pay for what you take.

solum wrote:what you are deprived of, if anything, is the commercial potential of a product. well, jeez guys, sorry if this sounds lame, but i don't consider it a done deal to think of 'art' (and artistic works are all that copyright was ever meant to protect, since before the Berne Convention even) prima facie as commodity. fair enough, i might come across all 'unreconstructed marxist', and that would be a terrible thing, but the idea that every thing that a human may create is only reduced to it's exchange value pisses me off.

It pisses you off because you want to enjoy the fruits of othres work for free. This is it, plain and simple. You don't seem to try and disguise this fact at all.

solum wrote:art is of value. i think most people accept that. that doesn't mean an ARTIST is deprived of anything meaningful if their work is copied by another. this is accepted by many (most) academics in the IP field. but i guess they're ignorant, and need to check up some internet search engines. now, 'ponying up'. i download music from the internet. i buy records too. i generally don't DL things that are available to buy for a reasonable price. but you know what? i'm not going to spend £50 to get a rare record from ebay. i'm not paying the price of an album for one song. i understand that buying a real thing is nicer than downloading a lesser quality copy. fine. howeve, quite frankly, i care very little for other people's sanctimonious attitudes about what i do.

I love your reasoning in this paragraph...wait. You have none. Again, if you were to say, "I buy shoes that are reasonably priced but I am not going to pay for overpriced shoes therefore I am justified to steal them" I think it would be even clearer of your intentions as a freeloader.

solum wrote:even if you believe that the publisher should have IP 'protection', once a publisher has made their initial investment back, shouldn't there be an unregulated free market in that product? isn't the current system fundamentally anti-american? yes, it is, if you accept the market values america was founded upon.

Really? So is no one able to make profit off their creations, or just people dealing in intellectual property? I mean business is based on profit, is it not? I would love to be there when you go to your town market and tell them to sell their apples and haggis so they just break even. Or tell the orchard owner or shepherd. That would be a hoot!

solum wrote:the law isn't about morals (hence why in countries like america, artists have no moral rights over their work once they have sold the right to a publisher). the concept of copyright in common law jurisdictions was never meant to be about artists, it was meant to be about the RIGHT to COPY, i.e. to exploit a creation. this is a publishers right, with little meaningful reference to the artists herself.

You said something very interesting.."once they (the artist) have sold the right to a publisher". Therefore they have been compensated for their work in a way that is agreeable to the buyer and to the seller. I would think that would be all the protection an artist is looking for in these matters, to be able to create something that has an agreed value. And although you characterize the RIGHT to COPY as the publishers right, it is only their right due to the deal struck with the artist in the first place. Follow the chain to the top.

solum wrote:as far as i'm concerned, breaking the law isn't immoral in itself, especially if the laws are stupid. in terms of IP, the laws really ARE stupid.
anyway, good luck with your opinions,
solum

I will wait and look forward for the day YOU take the time and effort to create something good enough to be 'shared' for free by others.

Mayfair wrote:

solum wrote:hi guys. yes, in fact i am THAT ignorant. i have been studying intellectual property at university for the last 2 years of my 5 year course.

if you believe in rationality, and logic, it is a FACT that no one is deprived when a thing of non-exlusive nature is copied. if i record a song, and you copy it, i still 'have' the song. i'm sorry if i was too ignorant to convey this very simple idea sufficiently.

THE CREATOR or copyright holder is deprived, you doink! You have just taken from them without paying the cover charge. You have devalued their product. It's so funny how people who do this have arguments that what they are 'sharing' has no value so therefore they don't need to pay for it, yet is is valuable enough for them to want it in the first place. Again, you are just trying to justify your inability or lack of want to pay for what you take.

OH. MY. GOD. how many fucking times????? i'll spell this one out for you, again. in a language you may understand. IF I COPY YOUR SONG YOU STILL HAVE IT. IF I STEAL YOUR CAR YOU DONT HAVE IT ANY MORE. THIS IS THE NON-EXCLUSIVE NATURE OF IP.

your other points are all predicated on misunderstanding of a similar magnitude. for example: my contention that copyright would expire once the holder has made their outlay back works like this:

copyright is a form of monopoly. capitalism says monopoly is bad. but, publishers say that copyright is needed in order to compete on a level playing field, i.e. the original publisher has a greater outlay than any free loaders and so should be protected. however, once they have made this money back, they playing feld is level, just as with any other (tangible) prodcuct. therefore, the monopoly has served its purpose, and should now be revoked, in order to let the free market do its job.

look, i haven't said anything thats too difficult to understand. your arguments are all based on you own misunderstandings, and its getting tired.