The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: ahasp on January 23, 2012, 10:09:08 PM

Title: Cut the IP crap
Post by: ahasp on January 23, 2012, 10:09:08 PM
If you don't want to support IP, stop consuming copyrighted material.  Don't use your opposition to IP to justify pirating content.  You will not die if you don't watch that copyrighted movie or listen to that song.  Support artists that don't use IP if you want to get rid of it. 
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: hellbilly on January 23, 2012, 10:23:55 PM
Yep.

Similar to those who are anti-corporate - don't buy shit from the companies with policies you don't agree with.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on January 23, 2012, 10:30:39 PM
I dont really disagree with this, but does it really change anything in terms of how much money a copyrighted product makes? The people who support it, will still buy it. The people that dont support IP, yet still gank it for free aren't really costing the owner of the copyrighted material anything since they wouldn't buy it anyway. The profit still comes out the same in the end.


Just a thought.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: ahasp on January 23, 2012, 10:40:26 PM
I dont really disagree with this, but does it really change anything in terms of how much money a copyrighted product makes? The people who support it, will still buy it. The people that dont support IP, yet still gank it for free aren't really costing the owner of the copyrighted material anything since they wouldn't buy it anyway. The profit still comes out the same in the end.


Just a thought.

I'm just listening to some of the recent podcasts and the strained logic about how pirating media actually helps the artist.  If the people that are taking it for free wouldn't pay for it, then why are they taking it anyway?  If they have to spend the time to find it, download it, and then consume it, they must find some value in it.  I support the idea of getting rid of IP laws, but I support letting the artist determine the distribution model.  I get the feeling the hosts of FTL don't feel that the artist should have control of their creation after they let it out of their direct control. 

A great example of this is the program "R" - a statistical computing program.  The user agreement states that if you are using it for educational purposes, then it's free.  However, if you are using it for commercial purposes, then you are required to pay $400 per license (or something like that).  If you don't like the terms of the agreement, then don't use the product. 
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on January 23, 2012, 11:10:42 PM
Your post doesn't appear logical.

"If you don't think you're doing anything wrong, then stop doing it!"

I do think it helps to download or copy something that you wouldn't have consumed through the producer's methods.

Think of it like this. If I DL your movie that I wasn't interested enough in to go to the theater or pay $25 for the DVD or whatever, then you're no worse off because you weren't going to make money off me anyway. So no downside there. However, if someone asks me about your movie, I might have some really nice things to say about it. Now maybe due to my positive review, they do go buy the DVD or pay $5 to pay-per-view it or whatever. Me DLing has helped.

If I haven't DLed it, then all I have to say about your movie is that it didn't look interesting enough to pay for. Not a very impressive review. IF what you made is actually decent, then the free-peepers can be excellent promotion.

Also, I've bought a lot of DVDs but it's almost unheard of for me to buy a DVD before I've seen something. That might be that I've seen it in the theater "legitimately" but sometimes it means I saw it on tv or I DLed it or any of a number of ways that I got a free preview.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: ahasp on January 23, 2012, 11:15:51 PM
Your post doesn't appear logical.

"If you don't think you're doing anything wrong, then stop doing it!"

I do think it helps to download or copy something that you wouldn't have consumed through the producer's methods.

Think of it like this. If I DL your movie that I wasn't interested enough in to go to the theater or pay $25 for the DVD or whatever, then you're no worse off because you weren't going to make money off me anyway. So no downside there. However, if someone asks me about your movie, I might have some really nice things to say about it. Now maybe due to my positive review, they do go buy the DVD or pay $5 to pay-per-view it or whatever. Me DLing has helped.

If I haven't DLed it, then all I have to say about your movie is that it didn't look interesting enough to pay for. Not a very impressive review. IF what you made is actually decent, then the free-peepers can be excellent promotion.

Also, I've bought a lot of DVDs but it's almost unheard of for me to buy a DVD before I've seen something. That might be that I've seen it in the theater "legitimately" but sometimes it means I saw it on tv or I DLed it or any of a number of ways that I got a free preview.

So if I own the road in front of my house and set the speed limit at 40 mph and you decide that going 80 is alright, is it okay for you to drive down the road that I own at twice the speed limit that I set because you don't think that you are doing anything wrong?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on January 23, 2012, 11:31:49 PM
Dude, thats not even the same argument.

Driving double the speed on your road can have actual physical consequences, detrimental to you. Accidents in front of your house, damage to your road etc etc.

Ganking a crappy movie you made, that I wouldn't have bought anyway, loses you nothing.

I'm kinda torn on the whole IP argument. I see things on both sides of the argument that make sense, but that last post you made about the physical road in front of your house, and trying to make a link between that and IP, well........ im starting to lean the other way just out of spite. LOL
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Tom Foppiano on January 23, 2012, 11:36:41 PM
I don't believe in IP, but I think us anti-IP types are incorrect when we claim that people who download music, movies, or software programs, wouldn't have bought the content anyway. That type of thinking is nonsense.

Are there some people who will download first and buy later? Yes. But there's also a bunch of people who would have bought a movie, album, or MMA fight, if they couldn't download it for free.

Again, I'm not pro-IP. Kinsella changed my mind on this issue years and years ago when he argued that we should only have property rights in scarce resources. Patterns of 1's and 0's are not scarce, hence no property rights. But lets not be delusional and claim that all downloaders wouldn't have paid for the service anyway.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Tom Foppiano on January 23, 2012, 11:57:43 PM
I also think many libertarians don't want to admit that downloads "harm" record labels because of the whole, "Do whatever you want unless it harms someone else," mantra.

That's only a 3rd grade level introduction to libertarianism. The real sentence should read, "Do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon other peoples' property rights." We harm people all the time. Go cheat on your significant other and see if it doesn't cause harm. But was it an infringement upon his/her rights? No.

Yes, downloads have "harmed" the music indutry....but so what? The music industry doesn't (at least shouldn't) own property rights in digital patterns.


Here is a graph I found of real revenue for the music industry in 2011 USD. I have no idea if its accurate, but it seems to show a sharp decline in revenue starting around 2000. Not that surprising, right?
(http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg)
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 24, 2012, 01:55:37 AM
I also think many libertarians don't want to admit that downloads "harm" record labels because of the whole, "Do whatever you want unless it harms someone else," mantra.

That's only a 3rd grade level introduction to libertarianism. The real sentence should read, "Do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon other peoples' property rights." We harm people all the time. Go cheat on your significant other and see if it doesn't cause harm. But was it an infringement upon his/her rights? No.

Yes, downloads have "harmed" the music indutry....but so what? The music industry doesn't (at least shouldn't) own property rights in digital patterns.


Here is a graph I found of real revenue for the music industry in 2011 USD. I have no idea if its accurate, but it seems to show a sharp decline in revenue starting around 2000. Not that surprising, right?
(http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c860sic-industry.jpg)

I'm sorry. I don't understand why they don't own their property, and why they can't benefit from the efforts of their labor.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 02:37:03 AM
If you don't want to support IP, stop consuming copyrighted material.  Don't use your opposition to IP to justify pirating content.  You will not die if you don't watch that copyrighted movie or listen to that song.  Support artists that don't use IP if you want to get rid of it. 

That's pretty much the same argument as "don't drive on government roads."  You can't avoid IP--it's all around you.  Fuck 'em.  I'll pay when I want (and I'm not exactly a "pirate.")  I just don't give a shit about their lies.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Tom Foppiano on January 24, 2012, 03:45:48 AM

I'm sorry. I don't understand why they don't own their property, and why they can't benefit from the efforts of their labor.

Of course they "own their own property." But they do not own my property. I have a hard drive on my computer.....and I should be able to arrange 1's and 0's in any order I choose, should I not?

And they can "benefit from their labor" all they want....so long as they don't infringe upon the property rights of others.

Have you read Kinsella's work on this topic? I strongly suggest you do, as I shared your position prior to my reading it.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf)
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 24, 2012, 04:06:38 AM

I'm sorry. I don't understand why they don't own their property, and why they can't benefit from the efforts of their labor.

Of course they "own their own property." But they do not own my property. I have a hard drive on my computer.....and I should be able to arrange 1's and 0's in any order I choose, should I not?

And they can "benefit from their labor" all they want....so long as they don't infringe upon the property rights of others.

Have you read Kinsella's work on this topic? I strongly suggest you do, as I shared your position prior to my reading it.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf)

Guess I'll read it before I reply.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 24, 2012, 06:09:49 AM
Read the whole thing. He makes a few minor (weak) points, and his main point is that there is no scarcity in IP.

Lets say there isn't. There still is however value, and labor.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 10:00:15 AM
Patterns of 1's and 0's are not scarce, hence no property rights.
So If I scramble the 0's and 1's on all of your digital storage devices,  I haven't caused any property damage?

Of course you have.  They're features of the digital storage devices, and you've changed them.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: BonerJoe on January 24, 2012, 10:02:58 AM
Motherfuckers still don't have lossless downloads. I'd rather just buy the CD and then resell it.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: SeanD on January 24, 2012, 12:28:19 PM
Here's the thing that isn't discussed much as far as music goes.  The "piracy" doesn't screw with the artists as much as everyone claims.  The bands don't make much off CD sales.  They make their real money off concerts.  How do you fill a stadium?  With exposure - whether that is bought or downloaded.  If some song goes batshit viral then the "piracy" can drive more people into the concert than those that bought the CD.

The people loosing money are the record companies.  The driving force behind the RIAA.  They don't create shit anyway artistically.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 12:37:30 PM
Patterns of 1's and 0's are not scarce, hence no property rights.
So If I scramble the 0's and 1's on all of your digital storage devices,  I haven't caused any property damage?

Of course you have.  They're features of the digital storage devices, and you've changed them.
It may be damage, but I'm not sure it is property damage.

Of course there's property damage.  A reconfiguration of the owner's property so that it has to be "fixed" to operate as the owner intends is damage.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: ahasp on January 24, 2012, 12:55:56 PM
So here is my problem and why I take the stance that I do with IP.  I am a college professor (boo, hiss) and I create two types of intellectual property:  academic research and course materials. 

Much like performance artists, I receive little, if any, remuneration for my academic research.  However, it is important to me that my publisher receives income from publishing my work because they provide the infrastructure for my work in terms of editors, peer reviewers, and distribution channels.  If they didn't receive income from it, that infrastructure would disappear. 

The course materials hit me pretty hard.  Two years ago, I spent the summer developing materials for a course.  I'm not compensated for summer work, but knew that I could use those materials for several years to teach a class that I would be paid for.  According to my university, I own the rights to any course materials that I produce.  This year, the department needed an additional section of the course that I designed these materials for to be taught.  A member of our faculty who is retiring in a few years was offered the course first and took it.  As a member of my promotion committee, he also had access to the course materials that I had developed.  Without those materials, it wouldn't be worth his time to develop the course to teach it once.  I know that he is using my materials because he came to me yesterday and had questions about how to implement a program that I had included in the materials. 

I would have liked to teach the course and would have received an additional $6,000 for it.  So, in this case, I lost out on $6,000 because someone violated my IP rights. 

The issue isn't that there is a scarcity in supply.  I fully acknowledge that the marginal cost of producing a copy of an IP work is virtually zero; the issue is that there is a scarcity in demand.   Only so many people have the knowledge and interest read my academic work.  Only so many students can sign up and take my classes.  If the IP that I create is given away for free, then I won't be compensated for creating it and then I won't be able to continue to create it. 
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: ahasp on January 24, 2012, 01:22:35 PM

I'm sorry. I don't understand why they don't own their property, and why they can't benefit from the efforts of their labor.

Of course they "own their own property." But they do not own my property. I have a hard drive on my computer.....and I should be able to arrange 1's and 0's in any order I choose, should I not?

And they can "benefit from their labor" all they want....so long as they don't infringe upon the property rights of others.

Have you read Kinsella's work on this topic? I strongly suggest you do, as I shared your position prior to my reading it.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf)

The irony is that Kinsella's article is copyrighted.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 01:27:02 PM

I'm sorry. I don't understand why they don't own their property, and why they can't benefit from the efforts of their labor.

Of course they "own their own property." But they do not own my property. I have a hard drive on my computer.....and I should be able to arrange 1's and 0's in any order I choose, should I not?

And they can "benefit from their labor" all they want....so long as they don't infringe upon the property rights of others.

Have you read Kinsella's work on this topic? I strongly suggest you do, as I shared your position prior to my reading it.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf)

The irony is that Kinsella's article is copyrighted.

Everything published after 1977 is copyrighted.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 01:28:52 PM
So here is my problem and why I take the stance that I do with IP.  I am a college professor (boo, hiss) and I create two types of intellectual property:  academic research and course materials.  

Much like performance artists, I receive little, if any, remuneration for my academic research.  However, it is important to me that my publisher receives income from publishing my work because they provide the infrastructure for my work in terms of editors, peer reviewers, and distribution channels.  If they didn't receive income from it, that infrastructure would disappear.  

The course materials hit me pretty hard.  Two years ago, I spent the summer developing materials for a course.  I'm not compensated for summer work, but knew that I could use those materials for several years to teach a class that I would be paid for.  According to my university, I own the rights to any course materials that I produce.  This year, the department needed an additional section of the course that I designed these materials for to be taught.  A member of our faculty who is retiring in a few years was offered the course first and took it.  As a member of my promotion committee, he also had access to the course materials that I had developed.  Without those materials, it wouldn't be worth his time to develop the course to teach it once.  I know that he is using my materials because he came to me yesterday and had questions about how to implement a program that I had included in the materials.  

I would have liked to teach the course and would have received an additional $6,000 for it.  So, in this case, I lost out on $6,000 because someone violated my IP rights.  

The issue isn't that there is a scarcity in supply.  I fully acknowledge that the marginal cost of producing a copy of an IP work is virtually zero; the issue is that there is a scarcity in demand.   Only so many people have the knowledge and interest read my academic work.  Only so many students can sign up and take my classes.  If the IP that I create is given away for free, then I won't be compensated for creating it and then I won't be able to continue to create it.  

This is called the argument from pity.  It's not a valid argument.  If the world changed, you'd change too.  That world might have better opportunities for you.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: John Shaw on January 24, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
*Sigh*

Another IP thread.

In summation -

1. I am a content creator

2. I can't do anything about people downloading my stuff against my wishes.

3. Using government to attempt to do so is wrong.

4. Using government to attempt to do so will make my potential customers hate me.

5. Potential customers who hate me are no longer customers.

6. Using unpleasent or annoying DRM methods will make my potential customers hate me.

7. Potential customers who hate me are no longer customers.

8. All that being true, if someone creates content, and they ask you to pay for it, and you use the content without paying for it, you are a giant shitheel and should be ashamed of yourself. I see no problem with shaming this person and calling them rude names.

9. Shaming people and calling them rude names may in fact invoke hatred from my potential customers.

10. Potential customers who hate me are no longer customers.

11. But they're still shitheels.

12. Therefore, I must give my potential customers an incentive to give me money. Plastic crap and doodads and higher quality versions and bonus material and a million other things that may, in fact, require me to be a creative marketer. That is the fucking way of things, in the world, today.


In a few years rapid prototyping machines are gonna be reasonable to own in one's own home and this shit will all come up again when (At first) nerdy guys (And soon after everyone else) start 3d scanning items and posting the 3d files online for anyone with the money to afford duplicating all sorts of real life plastic crap goods. Want an exact recreation of that $400 Lego set, or for that matter, every single Lego piece in existence? Poof.

There's no stopping it. Figure out how to make it pay a different way. Government power and violence won't stop this.

Would my time as a content creator have been better spent actually making content than spending huge swathes of time worrying about this sort of bullshit? Yes. Tough shit. Can't stop it.

You want people to buy your hardcover book, it better be leather bound, gold inlay, have a fold out map, have a scratch off redemption code of the Ebook AND audiobook versions in the cover, and come in a box with a plastic figure of the main character.

This is the future and nothing can be done to stop it and I wouldn't if I wanted to because I am also a consumer as well as a producer and I enjoy the best quality goods and services.

*Shrug*
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: ahasp on January 24, 2012, 02:14:16 PM
So here is my problem and why I take the stance that I do with IP.  I am a college professor (boo, hiss) and I create two types of intellectual property:  academic research and course materials.  

Much like performance artists, I receive little, if any, remuneration for my academic research.  However, it is important to me that my publisher receives income from publishing my work because they provide the infrastructure for my work in terms of editors, peer reviewers, and distribution channels.  If they didn't receive income from it, that infrastructure would disappear.  

The course materials hit me pretty hard.  Two years ago, I spent the summer developing materials for a course.  I'm not compensated for summer work, but knew that I could use those materials for several years to teach a class that I would be paid for.  According to my university, I own the rights to any course materials that I produce.  This year, the department needed an additional section of the course that I designed these materials for to be taught.  A member of our faculty who is retiring in a few years was offered the course first and took it.  As a member of my promotion committee, he also had access to the course materials that I had developed.  Without those materials, it wouldn't be worth his time to develop the course to teach it once.  I know that he is using my materials because he came to me yesterday and had questions about how to implement a program that I had included in the materials.  

I would have liked to teach the course and would have received an additional $6,000 for it.  So, in this case, I lost out on $6,000 because someone violated my IP rights.  

The issue isn't that there is a scarcity in supply.  I fully acknowledge that the marginal cost of producing a copy of an IP work is virtually zero; the issue is that there is a scarcity in demand.   Only so many people have the knowledge and interest read my academic work.  Only so many students can sign up and take my classes.  If the IP that I create is given away for free, then I won't be compensated for creating it and then I won't be able to continue to create it.  

This is called the argument from pity.  It's not a valid argument.  If the world changed, you'd change too.  That world might have better opportunities for you.

Pointing out that the issue isn't a scarcity in supply, but a scarcity in demand isn't an argument from pity-it's a statement of fact. 
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: John Shaw on January 24, 2012, 02:21:16 PM
Also this -

(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120117.gif)
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 03:12:18 PM
So here is my problem and why I take the stance that I do with IP.  I am a college professor (boo, hiss) and I create two types of intellectual property:  academic research and course materials.  

Much like performance artists, I receive little, if any, remuneration for my academic research.  However, it is important to me that my publisher receives income from publishing my work because they provide the infrastructure for my work in terms of editors, peer reviewers, and distribution channels.  If they didn't receive income from it, that infrastructure would disappear.  

The course materials hit me pretty hard.  Two years ago, I spent the summer developing materials for a course.  I'm not compensated for summer work, but knew that I could use those materials for several years to teach a class that I would be paid for.  According to my university, I own the rights to any course materials that I produce.  This year, the department needed an additional section of the course that I designed these materials for to be taught.  A member of our faculty who is retiring in a few years was offered the course first and took it.  As a member of my promotion committee, he also had access to the course materials that I had developed.  Without those materials, it wouldn't be worth his time to develop the course to teach it once.  I know that he is using my materials because he came to me yesterday and had questions about how to implement a program that I had included in the materials.  

I would have liked to teach the course and would have received an additional $6,000 for it.  So, in this case, I lost out on $6,000 because someone violated my IP rights.  

The issue isn't that there is a scarcity in supply.  I fully acknowledge that the marginal cost of producing a copy of an IP work is virtually zero; the issue is that there is a scarcity in demand.   Only so many people have the knowledge and interest read my academic work.  Only so many students can sign up and take my classes.  If the IP that I create is given away for free, then I won't be compensated for creating it and then I won't be able to continue to create it.  

This is called the argument from pity.  It's not a valid argument.  If the world changed, you'd change too.  That world might have better opportunities for you.

Pointing out that the issue isn't a scarcity in supply, but a scarcity in demand isn't an argument from pity-it's a statement of fact.  

Yet, that's not what you said.  You said you make your money off IP and you were ripped off, so IP must be protected.

By the way, your form of the argument from scarcity is bullshit too.  Ever been to a museum that had art from before copyright?  How'd that happen?  It's supposed to be impossible in your world.  People who don't have bureaucrats and armies protecting their right to get paid to make crap won't make crap any more...yet it happened.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Tom Foppiano on January 24, 2012, 03:44:40 PM
It may be damage, but I'm not sure it is property damage.

If you hack into my hard drive and reconfigure it......it absolutely is property damage.

However, if you simply learn how I had my 1's and 0's configured and you copied them, it is not property damage.

Here's an example. An artist owns the stone block. He then mixes his labor with his property and carves the block into a human figure. Now, he owns his art work because he owned the stone block before the transformation. But he does not "own" the exclusive right to carve human figures into stone blocks.

So if you went over to this artists house and changed his carving from a human figure to a horse, you have damaged his property. But if you simply buy your own stone block and carve a figure in it, you haven't violated anyone's rights in the process.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on January 24, 2012, 03:58:47 PM
YOU DAMAGED HIS ONEZ AND OH'S!!
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2012, 04:06:52 PM
I don't believe in IP, but I think us anti-IP types are incorrect when we claim that people who download music, movies, or software programs, wouldn't have bought the content anyway. That type of thinking is nonsense.

I don't think that's the claim being made. That's just a particular case that is being discussed. That describes a fairly large segment of people who DL for free. Yes, there's also a large segment of people who want something badly enough to pay for it if they can't get it easily enough for free. HOWEVER, the reality is the former segment is likely to grow and the latter segment is likely to shrink over time. that's just the direction things are going. It's going to be nigh impossible to stop with government threats. I think once the industry finally accepts this reality, they'll come up with the right business plan for a modern age. They close the gap, i.e. make it easier and inexpensive enough to get their content vs. the difficulty and tedium of DLing it for free. Plus, when it's inexpensive and convenient enough, many people will just be glad to pay it to support the content they want more of.

We're in a temporary phase right now where the media giants are trying to hold onto a dinosaur of a violent business model rather than adapt but change is coming.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2012, 04:14:08 PM
Pointing out that the issue isn't a scarcity in supply, but a scarcity in demand isn't an argument from pity-it's a statement of fact. 

How is that any different though? Either one results in a product of lower value.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2012, 04:19:53 PM
(http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg)

That doesn't prove harm. That proves they were making a lot of money before and they're not making as much now. They were making a lot of money by threatening people successfully with violence for copying because copying was difficult to do and get away with then. They are not making as much money now that it's easier to copy and get away with it.

Copy is not theft. It wasn't then and it isn't now. They had a violent monopoly based on manufacturing scarcity when there wasn't scarcity, artificially driving up their profits.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 24, 2012, 05:53:10 PM
Read the whole thing. He makes a few minor (weak) points, and his main point is that there is no scarcity in IP.

Lets say there isn't. There still is however value, and labor.
Yeah. Do I own the products of my labor?

Goes without saying, Monsieur blackie.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 24, 2012, 05:55:04 PM
Here's the thing that isn't discussed much as far as music goes.  The "piracy" doesn't screw with the artists as much as everyone claims.  The bands don't make much off CD sales.  They make their real money off concerts.  How do you fill a stadium?  With exposure - whether that is bought or downloaded.  If some song goes batshit viral then the "piracy" can drive more people into the concert than those that bought the CD.

The people loosing money are the record companies.  The driving force behind the RIAA.  They don't create shit anyway artistically.

So, is that how you rationalize stealing?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 08:15:11 PM
Shit, I hit modify instead of quote.

It may be damage, but I'm not sure it is property damage.

If you hack into my hard drive and reconfigure it......it absolutely is property damage.

But you still have the working hard drive.

What are the damages? Do I owe you a new hard drive?

The damage is whatever he lost because he didn't have use of the data on his hard drive, because it was on HIS hard drive, and you didn't have the right to fuck with it.  How obvious is that?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 24, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Read the whole thing. He makes a few minor (weak) points, and his main point is that there is no scarcity in IP.

Lets say there isn't. There still is however value, and labor.
Yeah. Do I own the products of my labor?

Goes without saying, Monsieur blackie.

Unless you give it away without contracting that it's still yours.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: SeanD on January 25, 2012, 12:49:31 AM
Here's the thing that isn't discussed much as far as music goes.  The "piracy" doesn't screw with the artists as much as everyone claims.  The bands don't make much off CD sales.  They make their real money off concerts.  How do you fill a stadium?  With exposure - whether that is bought or downloaded.  If some song goes batshit viral then the "piracy" can drive more people into the concert than those that bought the CD.

The people loosing money are the record companies.  The driving force behind the RIAA.  They don't create shit anyway artistically.

So, is that how you rationalize stealing?

Where did I say i did?  There are enough legit sources for free music online I don't find the need to.  Then again I don't find the need to be on the cutting edge of everything new.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on January 25, 2012, 07:52:14 AM
So would it be ok go into a friends house and mess up the game being played on their Scrabble board? I wouldn't think so.


Conversely, I dont think he would mind if you simply took a picture of it.

Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Nik from Illinois on January 25, 2012, 08:22:24 AM
Shit, I hit modify instead of quote.

It may be damage, but I'm not sure it is property damage.

If you hack into my hard drive and reconfigure it......it absolutely is property damage.

But you still have the working hard drive.

What are the damages? Do I owe you a new hard drive?

The damage is whatever he lost because he didn't have use of the data on his hard drive, because it was on HIS hard drive, and you didn't have the right to fuck with it.  How obvious is that?
It is obvious if he owns the data on the hard drive.

But you can't own data, I thougt. It is not property. The data is not owned.

While it may be damage, I don't see how it is property damage if the 1's and 0's are just 'ideas', and not property.
You're failing to distinguish between concept and instance.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Damien Valley on January 25, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
If artists want to make money they need to do what this guy did and embrace the future.

http://www.reybee.com/index.php/horris-records-press/301-mc-lars-talks-about-embracing-piracy-and-horris-records (http://www.reybee.com/index.php/horris-records-press/301-mc-lars-talks-about-embracing-piracy-and-horris-records)

Here is a music video from him called "Download This Song"

MC Lars - Download This Song [Official Music Video] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkuiChImb8#)
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on January 25, 2012, 10:33:11 AM
But you can't own data, I thougt. It is not property. The data is not owned.

It's not that you can't own data. Obviously he owns the data inside his hard drive. What IP is trying to say is if you make a copy of your data and sell it to someone else, you still own the copy that you sold and any copies that are EVER made of it. THAT is what you can't own logically.

IP is the opposite of property. The person who bought a copy of your data should fucking own it and be able to do whatever he wants with it, including copy it. IP is a blasphemy to any rational notion of property rights.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 25, 2012, 11:14:14 AM
Read the whole thing. He makes a few minor (weak) points, and his main point is that there is no scarcity in IP.

Lets say there isn't. There still is however value, and labor.
Yeah. Do I own the products of my labor?

Goes without saying, Monsieur blackie.

Unless you give it away without contracting that it's still yours.
Is software licensing valid? Seems like lots of anti-IP people say EULAs are not.

If I didn't sign it or verbally agree, it's not a contract.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 25, 2012, 11:16:34 AM
Shit, I hit modify instead of quote.

It may be damage, but I'm not sure it is property damage.

If you hack into my hard drive and reconfigure it......it absolutely is property damage.

But you still have the working hard drive.

What are the damages? Do I owe you a new hard drive?

The damage is whatever he lost because he didn't have use of the data on his hard drive, because it was on HIS hard drive, and you didn't have the right to fuck with it.  How obvious is that?
It is obvious if he owns the data on the hard drive.

But you can't own data, I thougt. It is not property. The data is not owned.

The property, the hard drive, is not damaged. It is still in working order.

While it may be damage, I don't see how it is property damage if the 1's and 0's are just 'ideas', and not property.

You own what's on your hard drive by virtue of owning your hard drive.  This is, of course, without regard to if you stole the data by breaking an agreement or violating someone else's (real) property right.  You have the right to uninterrupted use of your own property.  If someone fucks with your data, your right has been violated.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Tom Foppiano on January 25, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
(http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg)

That doesn't prove harm. That proves they were making a lot of money before and they're not making as much now. They were making a lot of money by threatening people successfully with violence for copying because copying was difficult to do and get away with then. They are not making as much money now that it's easier to copy and get away with it.

Copy is not theft. It wasn't then and it isn't now. They had a violent monopoly based on manufacturing scarcity when there wasn't scarcity, artificially driving up their profits.

I agree with you, Dale. The industry used to have a monopoly protection that worked fairly well. Now that protection has been diminished by technology. The result is lower revenue for the music industry. We can call that harm or justice. I don't care.

Either way, the industry is losing profits from downloads. That's my point. And there are, in fact, quite a few libertarians who will not admit that.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 25, 2012, 03:30:06 PM
Correlation is not causation.  Maybe the quality of music has gone down, and people are no longer willing to pay $17 for a CD.  Maybe if file sharing didn't exist, they still wouldnt' be buying it at that price.  Maybe there's no place for that on your chart.

As an example, I don't share music (I have, but not in a long time--like the same time I was buying it), and I also haven't been buying it for a long time.  I've purchased something on the order of 500 CDs, including maybe 30 in the last ten years.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 25, 2012, 04:36:11 PM
What megaupload did that was wrong, and I have always thought was wrong (which is why I NEVER used megaupload) was charge for access to the data.  Rapidshare does it too and that is wrong.

The problem comes in when you are selling pirated data, you are literally profiting from someone else's idea without their consent and that is outside of fair use.  Give it away free and you are sharing.  Sell it and you are pirating.

Do you see the difference?  Sharing is just fine.  Especially if you are sharing with people who bought the product and just want a digital backup for it.  But selling something without paying a royalty to the content creator is piracy and theft.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: SeanD on January 25, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
You never had to pay to use Megaupload or Rapidshare.  Content was readily available for free.  What you paid for was bandwidth and faster downloads.  There is a difference.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Tom Foppiano on January 25, 2012, 06:09:46 PM
Correlation is not causation.  Maybe the quality of music has gone down, and people are no longer willing to pay $17 for a CD.  Maybe if file sharing didn't exist, they still wouldnt' be buying it at that price.  Maybe there's no place for that on your chart.

As an example, I don't share music (I have, but not in a long time--like the same time I was buying it), and I also haven't been buying it for a long time.  I've purchased something on the order of 500 CDs, including maybe 30 in the last ten years.

Yes, correlation is not causation. You are correct.

But do you understand whats being argued here? What some people are indirectly saying is that monopoly privileges DO NOT increase profits. That is nonsense.

So you can look at the music industry graph and see a dramatic decline in revenue that started around the time of the rise of Napster and tell yourself that it likely has nothing to do with monopoly privileges being eroded. Or you can use economic logic and look at the graph and say the data seems to be consistent with theory. Take your pick.

That being said, it does not mean that the music industry cannot survive and do quite well in a free world.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 26, 2012, 08:16:10 AM
Correlation is not causation.  Maybe the quality of music has gone down, and people are no longer willing to pay $17 for a CD.  Maybe if file sharing didn't exist, they still wouldnt' be buying it at that price.  Maybe there's no place for that on your chart.

As an example, I don't share music (I have, but not in a long time--like the same time I was buying it), and I also haven't been buying it for a long time.  I've purchased something on the order of 500 CDs, including maybe 30 in the last ten years.

Yes, correlation is not causation. You are correct.

But do you understand whats being argued here? What some people are indirectly saying is that monopoly privileges DO NOT increase profits. That is nonsense.

So you can look at the music industry graph and see a dramatic decline in revenue that started around the time of the rise of Napster and tell yourself that it likely has nothing to do with monopoly privileges being eroded. Or you can use economic logic and look at the graph and say the data seems to be consistent with theory. Take your pick.

That being said, it does not mean that the music industry cannot survive and do quite well in a free world.

I don't accept the claim that they're directly correlated.  There are other peaks and valleys on the graph, and a lot of variables.  On One exceptionally interesting variable is media.  Each medium enjoys some success, then gets passed by.  Because the industry dragged its feet with digital media, it failed to gain a huge potential market share that it gained with previous adopted media.  Additionally, with digital media came better access to singles, which hadn't existed since vinyl, and perhaps not insignificantly, similar income levels.  

Your case is unconvincing.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on January 29, 2012, 01:29:19 PM
I also think many libertarians don't want to admit that downloads "harm" record labels because of the whole, "Do whatever you want unless it harms someone else," mantra.

That's only a 3rd grade level introduction to libertarianism. The real sentence should read, "Do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon other peoples' property rights." We harm people all the time. Go cheat on your significant other and see if it doesn't cause harm. But was it an infringement upon his/her rights? No.

Yes, downloads have "harmed" the music indutry....but so what? The music industry doesn't (at least shouldn't) own property rights in digital patterns.


Here is a graph I found of real revenue for the music industry in 2011 USD. I have no idea if its accurate, but it seems to show a sharp decline in revenue starting around 2000. Not that surprising, right?
(http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg)

Ummm, you realize the graph you display shows the idiocy of arguments from statistics, right? Notice it GOES FLAT in '09, thus not declining. That means digital sales are supplanting the CD sales. If you know what you're looking at you'll know the argument that digital distribution harming revenues isn't entirely true. Namely, that the decline in music sales has little to do with piracy and more to do with the economy. There are studies that show at most 'piracy' accounts for 10% of revenue lost (source: http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-not-that-bad-industry-says-090118/ (http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-not-that-bad-industry-says-090118/)). So, 10% accounts for a 50% decline in sales? I think the answer is pretty much a negative. What's more interesting is that digital distribution in PC gaming has been a boon by comparison, where revenues have gained significantly despite cries of piracy, especially among independent game developers where they have little in the way of protection against said piracy.

Furthermore, the argument that one is owed future revenue on the product of one's labor is a bit silly. Consider the fact that there's a Burger King and a McDonalds within a mile of each other in any given city. Now, if Burger King's revenues fall because McDonalds sells burgers too does that mean McDonalds is 'pirating' Burger King's revenues? Of course not. So, how is it any different than when I download a videogame to see if I like it, then finding out that I don't and never play it again? Or that I download the videogame, which I bought on DVD but I needed it cracked to have not require a DVD to play. Or maybe I do download it, play it, like it, and never bought it. In any of these cases, future revenues are what is lost, but not present revenues, the content creators still retain that. Their argument for the appeal to future revenues is idiotic at best and monopolistic at worse.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: The Green Bastard on January 30, 2012, 11:23:50 AM
The problem I have with IP is that I feel like am being forced at gunpoint to pay for the collections departments of these huge corporations.

If a record company or whatever wants to keep an artist's recording or movie under total control, then they should build a stadium or theater or something and charge admission and never let "copies" of their idea out in to the public.

If a company records an aritst or a movie etc and distributes an album, that company is using all types of "IP" to get their product distributed. Should the copyright holder of "roads", "electricity", "plastic", "the internal combustion engine" or the "wheel" or the miriad of things needed to distribute that album or movie be able to hold the record company liable for stealing their "IP"?

The original poster is missing one huge point when he says "If you don't want to support IP, stop consuming copyrighted material". Well, that doesn't stop the violence and theft that is being forced upon me. Even if I stop using copyrighted or corporate products, I am still forced at gunpoint to pay for fat salaries and retirements of the beurucrats that enforce IP laws.

If these companies want to control the distribution of their product, let them pay for it.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 06, 2012, 03:18:59 AM
The problem I have with IP is that I feel like am being forced at gunpoint to pay for the collections departments of these huge corporations.

If a record company or whatever wants to keep an artist's recording or movie under total control, then they should build a stadium or theater or something and charge admission and never let "copies" of their idea out in to the public.

If a company records an aritst or a movie etc and distributes an album, that company is using all types of "IP" to get their product distributed. Should the copyright holder of "roads", "electricity", "plastic", "the internal combustion engine" or the "wheel" or the miriad of things needed to distribute that album or movie be able to hold the record company liable for stealing their "IP"?

The original poster is missing one huge point when he says "If you don't want to support IP, stop consuming copyrighted material". Well, that doesn't stop the violence and theft that is being forced upon me. Even if I stop using copyrighted or corporate products, I am still forced at gunpoint to pay for fat salaries and retirements of the beurucrats that enforce IP laws.

If these companies want to control the distribution of their product, let them pay for it.


At gunpoint? Don't say goofy things if you want to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Bill Brasky on February 06, 2012, 07:01:58 AM
Heres the deal...  Back in "the day", it would be a real big deal if someone sold seventeen million albums. 

Now, someone can get seventeen million YouTube views, easy.

People pay a buck a song all the time. 

The big deal is, the record companies are left out.  The distribution companies, likewise.  I'm pretty sure thats why they call them distribution companies.

If a group is any good   ...  maybe  ..   they put out an "album" once a year, every year, for ten years, and it generates seventeen million hits a song, thats 170 million times ten years, which is 1.7billion.

Thats what Zeppelin did.

Theres no reason why a good band can't enjoy some success if they put out some songs.  I think a few million bucks is nothing to sneeze at, if they hit a streak of successful songs and some popularity. 

Everybody knows most bands got fucked by the recording labels, if they know anything about rock-n-roll.  So why not just exclude them, as a part of evolution.  They had their day in the sun, maybe the recording labels are just parasites. 




Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 06, 2012, 11:16:15 AM
Eggzachary, Sven.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 06, 2012, 11:42:55 PM
The problem I have with IP is that I feel like am being forced at gunpoint to pay for the collections departments of these huge corporations.

If a record company or whatever wants to keep an artist's recording or movie under total control, then they should build a stadium or theater or something and charge admission and never let "copies" of their idea out in to the public.

If a company records an aritst or a movie etc and distributes an album, that company is using all types of "IP" to get their product distributed. Should the copyright holder of "roads", "electricity", "plastic", "the internal combustion engine" or the "wheel" or the miriad of things needed to distribute that album or movie be able to hold the record company liable for stealing their "IP"?

The original poster is missing one huge point when he says "If you don't want to support IP, stop consuming copyrighted material". Well, that doesn't stop the violence and theft that is being forced upon me. Even if I stop using copyrighted or corporate products, I am still forced at gunpoint to pay for fat salaries and retirements of the beurucrats that enforce IP laws.

If these companies want to control the distribution of their product, let them pay for it.


At gunpoint? Don't say goofy things if you want to be taken seriously.

These must be rubber toys. (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=intellectual+property+raid&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1049&bih=834&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=8LhKdzcS8ed9OM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/12/09/the-dajaz1com-raid-one-year-later&docid=4fxRiEHL340vMM&imgurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/binary/4ef7/1323458802-shutterstock_68514634.jpg&w=500&h=334&ei=Z6swT7bgNcqwsAK13cihBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=240&sig=105953705952394973441&page=2&tbnh=141&tbnw=193&start=17&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:17&tx=113&ty=59)
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 06, 2012, 11:47:13 PM
The problem I have with IP is that I feel like am being forced at gunpoint to pay for the collections departments of these huge corporations.

If a record company or whatever wants to keep an artist's recording or movie under total control, then they should build a stadium or theater or something and charge admission and never let "copies" of their idea out in to the public.

If a company records an aritst or a movie etc and distributes an album, that company is using all types of "IP" to get their product distributed. Should the copyright holder of "roads", "electricity", "plastic", "the internal combustion engine" or the "wheel" or the miriad of things needed to distribute that album or movie be able to hold the record company liable for stealing their "IP"?

The original poster is missing one huge point when he says "If you don't want to support IP, stop consuming copyrighted material". Well, that doesn't stop the violence and theft that is being forced upon me. Even if I stop using copyrighted or corporate products, I am still forced at gunpoint to pay for fat salaries and retirements of the beurucrats that enforce IP laws.

If these companies want to control the distribution of their product, let them pay for it.


At gunpoint? Don't say goofy things if you want to be taken seriously.

These must be rubber toys. (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=intellectual+property+raid&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1049&bih=834&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=8LhKdzcS8ed9OM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/12/09/the-dajaz1com-raid-one-year-later&docid=4fxRiEHL340vMM&imgurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/binary/4ef7/1323458802-shutterstock_68514634.jpg&w=500&h=334&ei=Z6swT7bgNcqwsAK13cihBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=240&sig=105953705952394973441&page=2&tbnh=141&tbnw=193&start=17&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:17&tx=113&ty=59)


negro, please.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 06, 2012, 11:53:15 PM
The problem I have with IP is that I feel like am being forced at gunpoint to pay for the collections departments of these huge corporations.

If a record company or whatever wants to keep an artist's recording or movie under total control, then they should build a stadium or theater or something and charge admission and never let "copies" of their idea out in to the public.

If a company records an aritst or a movie etc and distributes an album, that company is using all types of "IP" to get their product distributed. Should the copyright holder of "roads", "electricity", "plastic", "the internal combustion engine" or the "wheel" or the miriad of things needed to distribute that album or movie be able to hold the record company liable for stealing their "IP"?

The original poster is missing one huge point when he says "If you don't want to support IP, stop consuming copyrighted material". Well, that doesn't stop the violence and theft that is being forced upon me. Even if I stop using copyrighted or corporate products, I am still forced at gunpoint to pay for fat salaries and retirements of the beurucrats that enforce IP laws.

If these companies want to control the distribution of their product, let them pay for it.


At gunpoint? Don't say goofy things if you want to be taken seriously.

These must be rubber toys. (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=intellectual+property+raid&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1049&bih=834&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=8LhKdzcS8ed9OM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/12/09/the-dajaz1com-raid-one-year-later&docid=4fxRiEHL340vMM&imgurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/binary/4ef7/1323458802-shutterstock_68514634.jpg&w=500&h=334&ei=Z6swT7bgNcqwsAK13cihBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=240&sig=105953705952394973441&page=2&tbnh=141&tbnw=193&start=17&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:17&tx=113&ty=59)


negro, please.


That's the best you can do?  I'm not a negro, and if I were, I'd find that even more distasteful.  Nevertheless, I'll stay on topic even when you refuse to.  The point is, eventually the violence will come to you and me.  Just ask one of the grandmothers that's been dragged into court.  The threats they first receive, if not taken seriously and responded to in favor of the pigopoly, will ultimately be followed by similar violence.  All you have to do is listen to personal accounts which are altogether too frequently relayed on Free Talk Live.

You're the corporations' bitch.  Get used to it, until someone takes a match to the whole thing, which will eventually happen unless we teach people all around some manners.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 07, 2012, 02:56:41 AM



At gunpoint? Don't say goofy things if you want to be taken seriously.

These must be rubber toys. (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=intellectual+property+raid&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1049&bih=834&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=8LhKdzcS8ed9OM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/12/09/the-dajaz1com-raid-one-year-later&docid=4fxRiEHL340vMM&imgurl=http://www.chicagoreader.com/binary/4ef7/1323458802-shutterstock_68514634.jpg&w=500&h=334&ei=Z6swT7bgNcqwsAK13cihBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=240&sig=105953705952394973441&page=2&tbnh=141&tbnw=193&start=17&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:17&tx=113&ty=59)


negro, please.


That's the best you can do?  I'm not a negro, and if I were, I'd find that even more distasteful.  Nevertheless, I'll stay on topic even when you refuse to.  The point is, eventually the violence will come to you and me.  Just ask one of the grandmothers that's been dragged into court.  The threats they first receive, if not taken seriously and responded to in favor of the pigopoly, will ultimately be followed by similar violence.  All you have to do is listen to personal accounts which are altogether too frequently relayed on Free Talk Live.

You're the corporations' bitch.  Get used to it, until someone takes a match to the whole thing, which will eventually happen unless we teach people all around some manners.

Calling it "thugs with guns" analogy dramatizes the whole thing unnecessarily, and sensationalizes a few incidents out of proportion. Also, one of the actual legitimate functions of a government is to enforce property rights. Unless you don't believe in government. But you still back property rights.

When you own something, no one else can use it without your permission. Its not different for physical property, your body, or the products of your mind. You own your own labor, not other people. They can not appropriate it without your consent.

Now, I wouldn't defend the way they're enforcing intellectual property rights, but somehow, people have to be stopped from stealing.

 
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 07, 2012, 11:00:20 AM
It's not drama or analogy.  Those things happen, and they will happen if you're caught and don't stuck suck the member of the pigopoly.  Those "few incidents" are the ones where people didn't suck the member or didn't do it fast enough.  You're denying the gun in the room.  You're claiming armed raids don't exist?  Are you also a holocaust denier?

One, I don't support government, and if I did, what it calls intellectual property today would not be property rights, nor would it be acceptable to use paramilitary raids on people who one has no reason to believe are violent.  The state doesn't care about things like that.  They think it's really COOL.

It's not stealing, because the people still have everything they had before, but you know that because it's been addressed.  Yet you're falling back on bullshit that's already been discussed, and disagreed, not the inherent violence, which I showed you and you still deny.  It isn't property, and agree or disagree on that, the extreme violence is unacceptable.

I repeat: those aren't rubber guns, and there's no reason to believe the people they're pointed at are violent.  You say you wouldn't defend it, but you said:

Quote
At gunpoint? Don't say goofy things if you want to be taken seriously.

...and when I showed you such violence, your response was a joke with an epithet...

Clearly, you don't take the violence of the remedy you support very seriously at all, or you'd be pissed about it, and/or looking for better solutions.

Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 07, 2012, 11:11:04 AM
I gotta go with Ken on this one.


Bringing guns to an IP conflict aint cool. But hey, what do I know? Maybe exploding someones head like a watermelon and making their kids grow up without a dad is what it takes to stop people from exchanging 1's and 0's, even if it only happens every now and then.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 07, 2012, 01:17:45 PM
Oh, for crimony...

It gets SO OLD, this constant mantra of "stealing is wrong" from IP defenders when they haven't yet convinced others that copying is the same as stealing. It's like a religious person continually repeating "because God says so" when they haven't yet convinced others of the existence of said god.

Look, I get that you feel that it's stealing, but it's a waste of your breath (or typing or whatever) to just keep repeating that. Those of us who don't buy the IP case have not been convinced regarding the foundation that that argument rests on.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 07, 2012, 03:53:35 PM
Do you at least think people own their labor?

Is writing, typing code, or drafting not labor?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 07, 2012, 03:59:58 PM
Do you at least think people own their labor?

Is writing, typing code, or drafting not labor?

Yep. I just don't think it's special. I don't think you get to keep controlling it after you sell it or give it away (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/10/07/the-trouble-with-selling-tribbles/).
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: SeanD on February 07, 2012, 05:15:33 PM
Do you at least think people own their labor?

Is writing, typing code, or drafting not labor?

Yes.  Until the 1st sale is made.  Once someone buys it - it is theirs to do with as they wish.  The sale transfers ownership.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 07, 2012, 06:24:42 PM
Do you at least think people own their labor?

Is writing, typing code, or drafting not labor?

Yep. I just don't think it's special. I don't think you get to keep controlling it after you sell it or give it away (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/10/07/the-trouble-with-selling-tribbles/).


Not only that, the price of your labor isn't necessarily > 0.  If your labor is spent doing something foolish, you don't have a right to get paid.  You have a right to offer it to someone to get paid, and they have a right to a counter-offer.  The reason I mentioned this is because you seem to be wandering into the labor theory of value, which is nonsense.  Value is far more subjective.


To be clear, I'm actually replying to DtC, not Dale (DtC is the "you.")
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: david on February 07, 2012, 09:28:39 PM
I have purchased 8-track tapes, tape cassettes, vinyl records and CDs of the exact same Beatles album. I have come to the conclusion that the container is what is being sold, not the data (songs) on it. If I was buying the "song" from the record label, I would be able to trade in my 8-Track of "Abbey Road" for a nice new iTunes download of the album. Obviously, I can't do this. The package is what matters, not the data (song) file. The data contained on all of these obsolete formats is thrown out as soon as a new technology comes up with a new form of delivery.

IP supporters should ask themselves this:

After you buy a bunch of MP3s, what happens when that data (song) file is made obsolete by a better sounding, smaller file format. What happens if I buy my songs from iTunes, Amazon or Zune, when those services are replaced by more innovative businesses? If you do not know the answer already, you should. If the format is made obsolete, the previously purchased songs will have to be repurchased again in whatever format or service gets pushed on us.

I agree that if a person wants a hard copy of a 180 gram collector's edition vinyl album/CD of the latest supergroups new album, they should buy it. However, people passing around data that they harvested from their soon to be useless and obsolete compact discs (ripped with their equipment and power) is not the same thing as theft.

If you still don't get it, try this:

Would the pro IP people consider this theft?

Imagine that my friend and I know how to sew clothing. We both buy a fancy dress, take it apart (rip it), make a paper pattern and duplicate it. Then we trade it with each other. My friend gets a dress that she did not buy and so do I. Have we stolen the clothing? Do we owe the dress designer money?

I think not.

I doubt that I am the only person that has purchased the same album in multiple formats. Am I?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: SeanD on February 08, 2012, 03:53:33 AM
Do you at least think people own their labor?

Is writing, typing code, or drafting not labor?

Yes.  Until the 1st sale is made.  Once someone buys it - it is theirs to do with as they wish.  The sale transfers ownership.
That is why it is not sold. It is leased with strict limitations.

Really.  I ain't leased a book, DVD or CD yet. 

Would like you to try walk out of a store and not pay taxes by claiming you was only leasing it.  Let me know how that goes.  Well in one of those States with a sales tax that is.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 08, 2012, 05:18:47 AM
Blah blah blah social contract.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 08, 2012, 12:24:01 PM
I have no problem with IP, on the condition that the creator is solely responsible for the costs of securing it.

I cant invent some new gadget in my work shed and expect two armed, taxpayer funded guards to posted on my property to ensure nobody steals it, so why should musicians and authors get special treatment?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 12, 2012, 05:44:27 AM
Do you at least think people own their labor?

Is writing, typing code, or drafting not labor?

Yep. I just don't think it's special. I don't think you get to keep controlling it after you sell it or give it away (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/10/07/the-trouble-with-selling-tribbles/).


Not only that, the price of your labor isn't necessarily > 0.  If your labor is spent doing something foolish, you don't have a right to get paid.  You have a right to offer it to someone to get paid, and they have a right to a counter-offer.  The reason I mentioned this is because you seem to be wandering into the labor theory of value, which is nonsense.  Value is far more subjective.


To be clear, I'm actually replying to DtC, not Dale (DtC is the "you.")

You are wandering into the Syndicalist waters yourself. I bet next you'll say "ownership is theft." That seems to be your point with IP.

If someone works, and they own themselves, and they sell the product of their labor, whomever they sell to obviously values their labor. The fact that musicians, authors, etc. make money is because there are people who value the products of their minds.

If anyone makes the claim that they "wouldn't have bought this cd anyways" they are a thief, and a liar. The intellectual property had to have some value to them for them to have copied it. If they were being charged by the kilobyte for all downloads, their downloading habits would change real fast.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 12, 2012, 11:55:34 AM
You're not even close.  Every transaction has a discreet value to every person.  What makes a sale in the free market is that the buyer values the product over the seller's offer.  It's a meaning of the minds.  When there is no meeting of the minds, there is no sale.  

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no "theft" if you still have what you had.  The ones and zeros that were in one place and were copied to another place had value, once moved to one's REAL property--there's no "property" in the ones and zeros themselves.  If they were charged for the bandwidth, they would be so charged under SERVICE AGREEMENT--a meeting of the minds.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 12, 2012, 12:45:42 PM
If I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, does the price the original sells for at auction become reduced because I've stolen some of its value?

Maybe they should outlaw taking and looking at pictures of the Mona Lisa, because the owner wants only people to see it who paid a fee to look at it in his museum.

Sound reasonable?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 12, 2012, 06:06:43 PM
Maybe they should outlaw taking and looking at pictures of the Mona Lisa...

I believe the museum doesn't allow photos, though not for the reasons given. The flashes from cameras have actually gradually degraded it. That's probably not the best example. The Mona Lisa is actually encased in a very light-controlled space and you just have peek through a window to see it.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 12, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
You're not even close.  Every transaction has a discreet value to every person.  What makes a sale in the free market is that the buyer values the product over the seller's offer.  It's a meaning of the minds.  When there is no meeting of the minds, there is no sale.  

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no "theft" if you still have what you had.  The ones and zeros that were in one place and were copied to another place had value, once moved to one's REAL property--there's no "property" in the ones and zeros themselves.  If they were charged for the bandwidth, they would be so charged under SERVICE AGREEMENT--a meeting of the minds.

Its only a transaction if the owner can say no.

The pirate does  not just end up with zero's and one's on a hard drive. Their SPECIFIC orientation is what give the product meaning and use. Your argument would have move weight if you placed the onus of actual copying to the pirate.  If these guys were retyping the code, or typesetting their books, it wouldn't be as bad.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 13, 2012, 10:35:54 AM
You're not even close.  Every transaction has a discreet value to every person.  What makes a sale in the free market is that the buyer values the product over the seller's offer.  It's a meaning of the minds.  When there is no meeting of the minds, there is no sale.  

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no "theft" if you still have what you had.  The ones and zeros that were in one place and were copied to another place had value, once moved to one's REAL property--there's no "property" in the ones and zeros themselves.  If they were charged for the bandwidth, they would be so charged under SERVICE AGREEMENT--a meeting of the minds.

Its only a transaction if the owner can say no.

The pirate does  not just end up with zero's and one's on a hard drive. Their SPECIFIC orientation is what give the product meaning and use. Your argument would have move weight if you placed the onus of actual copying to the pirate.  If these guys were retyping the code, or typesetting their books, it wouldn't be as bad.

Fuck, I hate when I read shit like this when I've got a headache, because I don't want you to get away with the bullshit.

You're only the OWNER if it's something you can own.

The "pirate" isn't a "pirate." pirate.  He's not holding anyone at gunpoint, or depriving anyone of any property.

I have no idea what your "onus" argument is supposed to imply.  It's absurd to say it would be any different if work was wasted in the process.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: BonerJoe on February 13, 2012, 01:01:49 PM
IP, UP, EP.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 13, 2012, 02:45:11 PM
There is no onus to put on anyone, the creator of media or the pirate. Digital media is instantly reproducible. That's the nature of the beast.

Imagine someone was selling hand-made burritos from a stand and I bought one, then carried it over to my stand where I had a Star Trek replicator and started giving away exact copies of your burrito for free. I could feed the homeless and poor people or just anyone who wanted to save some money for lunch that day, money they could spend on other things and boost the economy in areas where there is more need so those needs can be better satisfied now that burritos are overwhelmingly abundant. This would be massively beneficial to everyone except you.

It would be very dickish of the burrito-maker, to say the least, if he tried to pass a law against replicating food and giving it away for free, and it would be ridiculous to say that I had harmed him. Would he be making less money than he would otherwise be making if he could threaten people with violence in order to create an artificial food scarcity? Of course he is. But that's not harm. That's the result of him clinging to a business model that only made since before modern technology eliminated scarcity of the product he was producing.

The onus is on him to find a way to make money given the realities of the market. He can try custom building burritos to taste. He can try providing excellent service and an alluring atmosphere to eat the burritos in and maybe service a niche market of more wealthy people who will shell out money for extra perks over the insta-burritos. And if he just can't deal with it, he may need to go supply a different market need.

IP is a fucking made-up irrational religion that people cling to because they can't handle change.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 13, 2012, 08:45:30 PM
You're not even close.  Every transaction has a discreet value to every person.  What makes a sale in the free market is that the buyer values the product over the seller's offer.  It's a meaning of the minds.  When there is no meeting of the minds, there is no sale.  

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no "theft" if you still have what you had.  The ones and zeros that were in one place and were copied to another place had value, once moved to one's REAL property--there's no "property" in the ones and zeros themselves.  If they were charged for the bandwidth, they would be so charged under SERVICE AGREEMENT--a meeting of the minds.

Its only a transaction if the owner can say no.

The pirate does  not just end up with zero's and one's on a hard drive. Their SPECIFIC orientation is what give the product meaning and use. Your argument would have move weight if you placed the onus of actual copying to the pirate.  If these guys were retyping the code, or typesetting their books, it wouldn't be as bad.

Fuck, I hate when I read shit like this when I've got a headache, because I don't want you to get away with the bullshit.

You're only the OWNER if it's something you can own.

The "pirate" isn't a "pirate." pirate.  He's not holding anyone at gunpoint, or depriving anyone of any property.

I have no idea what your "onus" argument is supposed to imply.  It's absurd to say it would be any different if work was wasted in the process.

Time is an asset. It can be bought, sold, or traded.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 14, 2012, 12:16:45 AM
DON'T STEAL MY VIDEOS!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irYO8iIoe94#)
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 14, 2012, 12:30:28 AM
DAMN YOU DILAN............. DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Zhwazi on February 14, 2012, 01:30:17 AM
tl;dr

I'm anti IP. Yes you own the product of your labor, but that means nobody can deprive you of it, not necessarily that you can deprive others of it, if it is not a rivalrous thing.

It's not my fault that the MPAA/RIAA/etc have a retarded business model that fails to take into account the realities of information exchange. My money goes to netflix. What doesn't get to netflix, gets pirated.

I don't buy any music, period. I can live a fulfilling life without it. I rarely pay for movies except through netflix. I can live a fulfilling life without them.

They have created an artificial scarcity and overinvested themselves in a completely unnecessary industry that is dependent upon facts which are no longer true. That's not my problem, that's theirs. Reality is asserting itself, and there's nothing they can do about it. Boo hoo. Go do something important. We already have more movies and music and games and books than a single person can watch, hear, play, and read in their lifetime.

Unless you're documenting or writing about something completely new, or inventing something, your IP has zero marginal significance and I see no loss if you don't get compensated for it in any way, because you're being useless.

If you are doing something new then you don't need to follow the business model that is currently the most widely accepted. There are a number of alternatives that don't rely on things to be true which are false.

For you others who tl;dr: PIRATE ALL OF THE THINGS! :D
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
You're not even close.  Every transaction has a discreet value to every person.  What makes a sale in the free market is that the buyer values the product over the seller's offer.  It's a meaning of the minds.  When there is no meeting of the minds, there is no sale.  

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no "theft" if you still have what you had.  The ones and zeros that were in one place and were copied to another place had value, once moved to one's REAL property--there's no "property" in the ones and zeros themselves.  If they were charged for the bandwidth, they would be so charged under SERVICE AGREEMENT--a meeting of the minds.

Its only a transaction if the owner can say no.

The pirate does  not just end up with zero's and one's on a hard drive. Their SPECIFIC orientation is what give the product meaning and use. Your argument would have move weight if you placed the onus of actual copying to the pirate.  If these guys were retyping the code, or typesetting their books, it wouldn't be as bad.

Fuck, I hate when I read shit like this when I've got a headache, because I don't want you to get away with the bullshit.

You're only the OWNER if it's something you can own.

The "pirate" isn't a "pirate." pirate.  He's not holding anyone at gunpoint, or depriving anyone of any property.

I have no idea what your "onus" argument is supposed to imply.  It's absurd to say it would be any different if work was wasted in the process.

Time is an asset. It can be bought, sold, or traded.

So what.  I've never bought time from a movie or record label, nor have they offered it.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 14, 2012, 03:47:29 AM


Its only a transaction if the owner can say no.

The pirate does  not just end up with zero's and one's on a hard drive. Their SPECIFIC orientation is what give the product meaning and use. Your argument would have move weight if you placed the onus of actual copying to the pirate.  If these guys were retyping the code, or typesetting their books, it wouldn't be as bad.

Fuck, I hate when I read shit like this when I've got a headache, because I don't want you to get away with the bullshit.

You're only the OWNER if it's something you can own.

The "pirate" isn't a "pirate." pirate.  He's not holding anyone at gunpoint, or depriving anyone of any property.

I have no idea what your "onus" argument is supposed to imply.  It's absurd to say it would be any different if work was wasted in the process.

Time is an asset. It can be bought, sold, or traded.

So what.  I've never bought time from a movie or record label, nor have they offered it.

If someone programs for a living, they're selling their labor, right? What tangible asset comes from their "work?"

Do you think they're not working? Or does time not exist as a tradable commodity, or what?
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 14, 2012, 01:31:42 PM


Its only a transaction if the owner can say no.

The pirate does  not just end up with zero's and one's on a hard drive. Their SPECIFIC orientation is what give the product meaning and use. Your argument would have move weight if you placed the onus of actual copying to the pirate.  If these guys were retyping the code, or typesetting their books, it wouldn't be as bad.

Fuck, I hate when I read shit like this when I've got a headache, because I don't want you to get away with the bullshit.

You're only the OWNER if it's something you can own.

The "pirate" isn't a "pirate." pirate.  He's not holding anyone at gunpoint, or depriving anyone of any property.

I have no idea what your "onus" argument is supposed to imply.  It's absurd to say it would be any different if work was wasted in the process.

Time is an asset. It can be bought, sold, or traded.

So what.  I've never bought time from a movie or record label, nor have they offered it.

If someone programs for a living, they're selling their labor, right? What tangible asset comes from their "work?"

Do you think they're not working? Or does time not exist as a tradable commodity, or what?

They're not selling their time to me.  I have no contract with any of them.  It's possible they have contracts in their little clique, but not with me.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: dalebert on February 14, 2012, 02:29:19 PM
I can't even tell what point either of you is trying to make. Honestly.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 14, 2012, 04:03:16 PM
I can't even tell what point either of you is trying to make. Honestly.

I'm trying to understand and answer his ridiculous claims.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 15, 2012, 06:06:08 AM
I can't even tell what point either of you is trying to make. Honestly.

I'm trying to understand and answer his ridiculous claims.

Srsly?  :?

Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 15, 2012, 11:21:08 AM
YARLY
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: The Green Bastard on February 17, 2012, 04:59:56 PM
I have no problem with IP, on the condition that the creator is solely responsible for the costs of securing it.

I cant invent some new gadget in my work shed and expect two armed, taxpayer funded guards to posted on my property to ensure nobody steals it, so why should musicians and authors get special treatment?

This is one of the points I was trying to get across. If you want to secure your "IP", go ahead and secure it via any means you desire. Just stop forcing me to pay to secure it.

Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 17, 2012, 05:13:18 PM
I have no problem with IP, on the condition that the creator is solely responsible for the costs of securing it.

I cant invent some new gadget in my work shed and expect two armed, taxpayer funded guards to posted on my property to ensure nobody steals it, so why should musicians and authors get special treatment?

This is one of the points I was trying to get across. If you want to secure your "IP", go ahead and secure it via any means you desire. Just stop forcing me to pay to secure it.

I agree with this, to a point.  If "securing it," implies paying an army of thugs to hurt "wrongdoers," I might not be anxious to see that--even if "they" pay.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: jeffersonish on February 21, 2012, 10:52:37 PM
I also think many libertarians don't want to admit that downloads "harm" record labels because of the whole, "Do whatever you want unless it harms someone else," mantra.

That's only a 3rd grade level introduction to libertarianism. The real sentence should read, "Do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon other peoples' property rights." We harm people all the time. Go cheat on your significant other and see if it doesn't cause harm. But was it an infringement upon his/her rights? No.

Yes, downloads have "harmed" the music indutry....but so what? The music industry doesn't (at least shouldn't) own property rights in digital patterns.


Here is a graph I found of real revenue for the music industry in 2011 USD. I have no idea if its accurate, but it seems to show a sharp decline in revenue starting around 2000. Not that surprising, right?
(http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg)

Revenue is only part of the story. Consider that digital downloads cost much much less to the producer than CD's sold through an international distribution system that allows for buy backs of unsold product. You can see that every distribution media in the past has declined when a new, better media gained popularity. The only part of this graph that goes to the point of the poster is the decline in paid digital downloads.

As a DJ I buy CD's and digital downloads from known sources because I know I'm getting the best possible copy and the quality of my music is important.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 22, 2012, 01:32:41 AM
The only part of this graph that goes to the point of the poster is the decline in paid digital downloads.

Actually, the paid digital downloads are increasing (red portion getting fatter, though sales looked sorta flat from around 2007-2008, they do appear to have always increased.)  It's possibly the decline in CD sales that you're seeing.

BTW, good point about gross revenue not telling the whole story.

Oh, and it sure would be nice to see what happened from 2009-2011.  I'm guessing digital continued to increase, modestly, during the recession.  FWIW, you can see how badly the recession hit them in the late 70's and early 80's.
Title: Re: Cut the IP crap
Post by: JohnsonAnn on October 30, 2013, 08:40:56 AM
The graph shows the complete revenue of music industry plus P/L also.