DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: William Wallace on December 29, 2011, 01:00:06 PM
-
Speaking of crazy libertarian ideas: Time to end intellectual property (https://www.policymic.com/articles/3095/internet-piracy-is-not-the-problem-it-s-time-to-eliminate-intellectual-property)
Internet piracy is widely practiced today. According to the Economist, recorded music sales fell by 8% in 2007 alone, and industry experts blamed most of the decline on illegal downloading...The effected industries have naturally gone on the attack, claiming the practice harms the people who create the illegally downloaded content and stifles innovation. The effort to pass the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) is the latest example of this blowback.
But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.
-
I think your article ignores the elephant in the room: Corporate IP. The protection of that knowledge and the availability to prosecute corporate espionage or whistle-blowing employees is really the life-blood of a company.
Looking at my company (a software company), our source code is what we differentiate ourselves by from other competitors. Given that it is all digital, it really is pure IP, nothing on top. Should it not be illegal to steal it? That is, should a hacker who breaks into our corporate network and steals our source code to distribute it to the world (or to a high-selling bidder) only be charged with trespassing, but not for making a copy of our source code?
IMHO, the current business models of record companies and book publishers are no longer viable in their current form. Doesn't mean that theft should be made legal.
rumborak
-
That is, should a hacker who breaks into our corporate network and steals our source code to distribute it to the world (or to a high-selling bidder) only be charged with trespassing, but not for making a copy of our source code?
rumborak
Yes to breaking into your database. The penalty should be severe, too. Though prosecuting people under the guise of IP protection leaves way to many loopholes, like censoring internet content and arresting 14-year-olds who download lady gaga albums.
-
So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?
rumborak
-
So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?
rumborak
Yes, I'm a mean man, with my downloadings on the internets. Now answer the arguments. By the way, I said breaking into your network should be prosecuted.
-
WW, you really think you're not the one being evasive here? Rumbo has a good point.
-
WW, you really think you're not the one being evasive here? Rumbo has a good point.
I addressed it. Breaking into someone's network is wrong and would be prosecuted.
-
So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?
rumborak
Yes, I'm a mean man, with my downloadings on the internets. Now answer the arguments. By the way, I said breaking into your network should be prosecuted.
Trespassing is something very different than theft. Under your scheme, the hacker (to use an analogy) essentially did nothing but walk through your house, took some pictures, and left again. What's the maximum possible penalty for something like that? Nowhere near close to the damage incurred to the company whose IP was just stolen.
And btw, I indeed *did* address your points. I pointed out that you are only looking at a minute subsection of the total complexity of the problem.
Intentional or not, you actually gave a perfect example how Libertarianism is overly simplistic.
rumborak
-
So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?
rumborak
Yes, I'm a mean man, with my downloadings on the internets. Now answer the arguments. By the way, I said breaking into your network should be prosecuted.
Trespassing is something very different than theft. Under your scheme, the hacker (to use an analogy) essentially did nothing but walk through your house, took some pictures, and left again. What's the maximum possible penalty for something like that? Nowhere near close to the damage incurred to the company whose IP was just stolen.
And btw, I indeed *did* address your points. I pointed out that you are only looking at a minute subsection of the total complexity of the problem.
rumborak
A whole body of literature, which I linked to, destroys your assertion. And I don't see why the penalty for trespassing, or whatever the charge would be, can't be severe. And if anybody is missing the big picture, it's you, looking specifically at your own profession and failing to consider the impacts on other sectors of the economy.
-
The articles you linked to either talked about publishing (audio or books), or just shrugged their shoulders ("we don't know what the effect would be"). If you want to make a case for the non-harmfulness of removing IP, YOU have to prove that it isn't. Lack of studies isn't implicit proof that it doesn't harm. On a sidenote, you're also committing the classic Libertarian oversight: Have you ever wondered how the current laws came into place?
Can you really, with a straight face,say that you don't see a problem with not making it a crime to distribute software companies' source code?
rumborak
-
Getting rid of intellectual property is a bad idea. A really bad idea.
-
This is also a statement.
-
The articles you linked to either talked about publishing (audio or books), or just shrugged their shoulders ("we don't know what the effect would be"). If you want to make a case for the non-harmfulness of removing IP, YOU have to prove that it isn't. Lack of studies isn't implicit proof that it doesn't harm. On a sidenote, you're also committing the classic Libertarian oversight: Have you ever wondered how the current laws came into place?
Can you really, with a straight face,say that you don't see a problem with not making it a crime to distribute software companies' source code?
rumborak
This is from the first on the linked list:
https://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-x-2008-2009/torrance/
Patent systems are often justified by an assumption that innovation will be spurred by the prospect of patent protection, leading to the accrual of greater societal benefits than would be possible under non-patent systems. However, little empirical evidence exists to support this assumption.
I know how the current laws came into being; that's not an argument in and of itself. And again, breaking into somebody's network is and should remain a crime. So quit asking me about stealing and distributing source code. If you have to break a law to do it, it isn't acceptable.
-
Companies would just end up putting user-end agreements on every product they sold, and if it ever got copied, they'd sue; if you copied it, you would either have stolen the product, or broken your contractual agreement. You'd basically make the situation worse, where intellectual property would never expire, whereas today it does.
Only people who don't produce *edit* something to be sold *edit* could be so naive as to think that intellectual property isn't important.
-
Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.
rumborak
-
Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.
rumborak
Well, Austrians don't actually define information as property. And the only way to treat it like it is property is to have the state restrict what other people do with their physical property. And the concept of IP goes back to the 17th century, so I don't know how you could say it was of no concern.
-
Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.
rumborak
Well, Austrians don't actually define information as property.
Yeah, but how much more fail can you put into an economic theory really? The majority of Western economic transactions involve the sale and acquisition of information. If you have an economic theory that essentially relegates this volume of trade to trading hot air, you might as well close the book right there. Which is what all modern Economists did on the Austrian School. In the days it came out it brought important insights. But then it showed its shortcomings and was superceded.
rumborak
-
Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.
rumborak
Well, Austrians don't actually define information as property. And the only way to treat it like it is property is to have the state restrict what other people do with their physical property.
The only way for there to be "property" is for the state to restrict what other people can and cannot do.
-
But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.
Bullshit. Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit. Why? How can I prove it? I've got the empty wallet to prove it.
$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone" (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)
To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times. While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been.
You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist? As I mentioned in my first sentence: Bullshit
-
But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.
Bullshit. Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit. Why? How can I prove it? I've got the empty wallet to prove it.
$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone" (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)
To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times. While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been.
You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist? As I mentioned in my first sentence: Bullshit
No see, you're supposed to just go out and tour 11 months of the year in order to get money. THat doesn't harm you! Plus, your fans get to see you live! I mean, win win for everybody.
-
Sarcasm green noted
-
As I've said in another thread in GMD, IP has a very important place in accounting. The simple fact that time and effort are put into something like new music, or in Rumbo's case software needs to count for something. When you take away an artists ability to control the distribution of their own music you are diluting the value of that music. We have had many great innovations in the past 15 or so years involving the internet and electronic distribution, but piracy is just plain wrong and to think to just make away with IP is ridiculous in my mind. If piracy were somehow impossible plenty of bands/companies would still be giving away albums or some software for free as a means of promotion, but it would all be locked into their business model in how they are trying to distribute IP. With how things are nowadays everyone is competing with the ability to just get things for free, and you can't have healthy industry that way.
-
But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.
Bullshit. Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit. Why? How can I prove it? I've got the empty wallet to prove it.
$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone" (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)
To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times. While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been.
You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist? As I mentioned in my first sentence: Bullshit
Don't be so self righteous. I penned that statement as both a musician and a writer, so lay off the starving artist routine. By the way, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? I actually supported my proposition with arguments.
As you said, you don't know how many who downloaded your album would have purchased it. I discussed in my "bullshit" article why people who download aren't necessarily the same people who buy. And that makes sense. The normal trade off required to purchase an album doesn't exist thanks to piracy. You could also look at it as extra listeners who wouldn't have listened to your music otherwise.
No see, you're supposed to just go out and tour 11 months of the year in order to get money. THat doesn't harm you! Plus, your fans get to see you live! I mean, win win for everybody.
So quick to be sarcastic that you failed to mention (or realize) that his music isn't being protected by enforced anti-piracy measures, as he so emotionally pointed out.
Yeah, but how much more fail can you put into an economic theory really? The majority of Western economic transactions involve the sale and acquisition of information. If you have an economic theory that essentially relegates this volume of trade to trading hot air, you might as well close the book right there. Which is what all modern Economists did on the Austrian School. In the days it came out it brought important insights. But then it showed its shortcomings and was superceded.
All that smug is slowing your thought process, I think. This concept you think is so vital to modern economies actually creates more costs than benefits to everybody involved. But facts like that don't fit your enlightened worldview, so they aren't relevant. In any event, you have the relationship with modernity reversed. Owning ideas goes back 400 years, and it has very haphazardly limped through the centuries to become what it is now. So quit pretending that I'm the one foisting old ideas on everybody.
-
No see, you're supposed to just go out and tour 11 months of the year in order to get money. THat doesn't harm you! Plus, your fans get to see you live! I mean, win win for everybody.
So quick to be sarcastic that you failed to mention (or realize) that his music isn't being protected by enforced anti-piracy measures, as he so emotionally pointed out.
Is that really the best you have? That, because people are acting illegaly and immoraly, we should just roll over, and accept the illegality and the immorality? There will always be rape, so let's just go ahead and make rape legal.
-
Intellectual property is still property, and the ability to create, improve and sell property is the foundation of a market - without property rights, this can't happen. That is largely because businesses won't invest in the creation of a new product if they can't ensure a commercial return (or at least be assured there is a high likelihood of a return).
Music, eventually, will be affected by this; and in some ways it already has (as with Nick I think I've expound this already). Major labels are focussing less on artistry and inventiveness and more on creating ready-made shovelware (first term that came to mind) - milking an artist as quick and hard as they can before moving to the next one. I can't remember any of the top artists from 2010.
So in my eyes, rumborak is right (as he is about most things), the business model doesn't suit the new prevailing market conditions, which is what they are doing. Is removing IP protection the answer? I'm not convinced it is.
-
But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.
Bullshit. Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit. Why? How can I prove it? I've got the empty wallet to prove it.
$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone" (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)
To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times. While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been.
You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist? As I mentioned in my first sentence: Bullshit
Don't be so self righteous. I penned that statement as both a musician and a writer, so lay off the starving artist routine. By the way, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? I actually supported my proposition with arguments.
As you said, you don't know how many who downloaded your album would have purchased it. I discussed in my "bullshit" article why people who download aren't necessarily the same people who buy. And that makes sense. The normal trade off required to purchase an album doesn't exist thanks to piracy. You could also look at it as extra listeners who wouldn't have listened to your music otherwise.
Yawn. I've heard all of this nonsense before and that' just what it is. Nonsense. And I'm hardly a starving artist. That's not my point. I read the entire thing, and your arguments are, from my point of view, invalid. Having an argument does not validate that argument.
You want an argument, fine, you won't like it, but here's my argument: I spent REAL money paying to create a piece of art that I did not have any intention of giving away for free. I intended to sell it at fair market value. I own said art. As the owner of said art, I have a right to be compensated when someone takes a copy of said art at the price I set. Anyone who then takes that piece of art without paying for it has stolen it from me, the owner. I did not give one single downloader permission to take what they took. Thus, they engaged in theft. The result of that theft is I am not being fairly compensated for property that has been stolen from me - taken without my permission. There is no getting around the fact that this is wrong nor is there any getting around the fact that I am owed fair compensation for my product. Getting rid of intellectual patent laws (and frankly your entire argument) doesn't solve anything, it's a weak rhetorical rationalization for theft.
-
Kirk, I think you may have inadvertently hit on the biggest problem with libertarianism out there. It actually "solves" very few problems; instead, it provides rationalizations that satisfy very few people, aside from the predominately mid-upper class teenage males who, frankly, aren't affected by a whole lot of problems to begin with.
-
But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.
Bullshit. Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit. Why? How can I prove it? I've got the empty wallet to prove it.
$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone" (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)
To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times. While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been.
You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist? As I mentioned in my first sentence: Bullshit
Don't be so self righteous. I penned that statement as both a musician and a writer, so lay off the starving artist routine. By the way, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? I actually supported my proposition with arguments.
As you said, you don't know how many who downloaded your album would have purchased it. I discussed in my "bullshit" article why people who download aren't necessarily the same people who buy. And that makes sense. The normal trade off required to purchase an album doesn't exist thanks to piracy. You could also look at it as extra listeners who wouldn't have listened to your music otherwise.
Yawn. I've heard all of this nonsense before and that' just what it is. Nonsense. And I'm hardly a starving artist. That's not my point. I read the entire thing, and your arguments are, from my point of view, invalid. Having an argument does not validate that argument.
You want an argument, fine, you won't like it, but here's my argument: I spent REAL money paying to create a piece of art that I did not have any intention of giving away for free. I intended to sell it at fair market value. I own said art. As the owner of said art, I have a right to be compensated when someone takes a copy of said art at the price I set. Anyone who then takes that piece of art without paying for it has stolen it from me, the owner. I did not give one single downloader permission to take what they took. Thus, they engaged in theft. The result of that theft is I am not being fairly compensated for property that has been stolen from me - taken without my permission. There is no getting around the fact that this is wrong nor is there any getting around the fact that I am owed fair compensation for my product. Getting rid of intellectual patent laws (and frankly your entire argument) doesn't solve anything, it's a weak rhetorical rationalization for theft.
In short, that music is your property and how dare anybody question such an obvious truth. Cool.
Kirk, I think you may have inadvertently hit on the biggest problem with libertarianism out there. It actually "solves" very few problems; instead, it provides rationalizations that satisfy very few people, aside from the predominately mid-upper class teenage males who, frankly, aren't affected by a whole lot of problems to begin with.
Again, no discussion of the evidence. You're obviously right, and those who disagree are just spoiled white people.
Intellectual property is still property, and the ability to create, improve and sell property is the foundation of a market - without property rights, this can't happen. That is largely because businesses won't invest in the creation of a new product if they can't ensure a commercial return (or at least be assured there is a high likelihood of a return).
That's certainly a fair starting point and a testable hypothesis, but I don't think it's a legitimate conclusion. The absence of IP doesn't automatically result in decreased investment and innovation.
Music, eventually, will be affected by this; and in some ways it already has (as with Nick I think I've expound this already). Major labels are focussing less on artistry and inventiveness and more on creating ready-made shovelware (first term that came to mind) - milking an artist as quick and hard as they can before moving to the next one. I can't remember any of the top artists from 2010.
I would argue that it has been that way for many years, long before piracy was a threat to sales. Labels pick up artists they can market to a mass audience. That's just the reality of any major industry.
-
That's certainly a fair starting point and a testable hypothesis, but I don't think it's a legitimate conclusion. The absence of IP doesn't automatically result in decreased investment and innovatio
The absence of IP may not result in decreased investment and innovation, but the absence of revenue certainly does. Investments usually require a base level of capital, and if you don't have that capital, you cant' invest and innovate. What you would have done is almost the socialization of revenue from the innovators, to just about anybody who cares to try. Each individual may not have enough to invest and innovate, so that would suffocate the actual innovation and investments made.
Many products have a very slim profit margin after all the investments, so if you divert even just 20% of capital away from the investor, you could seriously harm that companies ability to make profit off their investment. Under such a scenario, why invest? It not only because rationally stupid to do, it becomes downright impossible given the business model.
In short, that music is your property and how dare anybody question such an obvious truth. Cool.
Why are other properties such obvious truths to you? It's certainly not a universal concept that people can own property, own land, etc, yet you take it for granted that you are able to purchase land, and "own" it, making it your property. The problem with your argument is that it undermines just about everything else you believe, meaning it's more sophist than philosophical, and thus invalid for all practical purposes.
-
Will, you can snap-back against criticisms of libertarianism with one-liners all you want, but the truth is libertarianism is perceived the way it is for good reason, and there was a very real truth to my post regardless of whether or not you wanted to discuss it. Deny it all you want, but I think we both know why you apparently spend so much time in the arena of "Libertarian Apologetics".
I mean, come on. For all the points brought up here, you've little to offer in rebuttal aside from sarcastic jabs and contrarinism. You've ignored the most pressing issues brought up against your opinion (like the survival of the IT industry), and seem like your playing off every criticism as people "not getting the point."
In the end, I don't even care really. You're the libertarian here and it's you (and not me) who has to decide why and how these things you write are actually... relevant and acceptable answers to real problems. If you think you're doing that then more power to you. If I'm right, though, a couple weeks will go by and you will have a new article out which covers the very questions you're being so dismissive about right now.
-
Will, you can snap-back against criticisms of libertarianism with one-liners all you want, but the truth is libertarianism is perceived the way it is for good reason, and there was a very real truth to my post regardless of whether or not you wanted to discuss it. Deny it all you want, but I think we both know why you apparently spend so much time in the arena of "Libertarian Apologetics".
I don't think that's the case. You said we're all rich, white kids. Not only is that a baseless generalization, but it doesn't deal with any of the arguments advanced in favor of libertarianism. I don't know why you think I take the positions that I do, but I take them because I find them convincing and worth defending. If you're referring to my thread about libertarianism being too simplistic, I started it because I want to know why other people aren't convinced as I am - genuine curiosity.
I mean, come on. For all the points brought up here, you've little to offer in rebuttal aside from sarcastic jabs and contrarinism. You've ignored the most pressing issues brought up against your opinion (like the survival of the IT industry), and seem like your playing off every criticism as people "not getting the point."
I concede that my replies aren't short on sarcasm, but they're not devoid of arguments either. For example, Rumbo said the IT industry would come crashing down without IP. I cited peer-reviewed research in response that clearly contradicts his claim.
In the end, I don't even care really. You're the libertarian here and it's you (and not me) who has to decide why and how these things you write are actually... relevant and acceptable answers to real problems. If you think you're doing that then more power to you. If I'm right, though, a couple weeks will go by and you will have a new article out which covers the very questions you're being so dismissive about right now.
As I said, I'm not dismissing criticism so far as I can tell. You're sort of right about future articles. I post stuff here because I know most of you disagree; it's a great way to tighten up my arguments if they're flawed. But I don't think they are on this issue.
-
You said we're all rich, white kids. Not only is that a baseless generalization, but it doesn't deal with any of the arguments advanced in favor of libertarianism.
No, I didn't. I said the majority of libertarians I've met seem virtually untouched by the problems which they consequently sweep away (like IP, foreign policy, poverty, the environment and so-on). Is that not true?
I concede that my replies aren't short on sarcasm, but they're not devoid of arguments either. For example, Rumbo said the IT industry would come crashing down without IP. I cited peer-reviewed research in response that clearly contradicts his claim.
You mean this? https://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-x-2008-2009/torrance/
I'm not sure a model can measure such things effectively. In the real world, who would bother pouring hours into writing some code when they new it'd be copied and distributed by free a second after it was published? Would you? Honestly, it seems to fly in the face of everything else you believe about property rights.
And anyway, what does that have to do with people rightly being able to get credit for what they've done? Like I said above, libertarians just kinda seem to sweep away the problems because it's they think it's justified enough that they can point to a consequence that some things might be improved in the long run. But it just goes to show, they don't understand or even care about the actual problems. They are just applying the same worn-out theory to another set of circumstances.
-
The paper analyzes the patent system. Not the concept of IP protection. It's long been questioned whether the current patent system isn't hurting things more than it's helping.
I also have to make the comment that it's hilarious to see Libertarians here essentially argue for Communism (i.e. the free-handing-out of labor's fruit) simply because they can't see outside the narrow box of 19th century Libertarianism they put themselves into.
rumborak
-
You said we're all rich, white kids. Not only is that a baseless generalization, but it doesn't deal with any of the arguments advanced in favor of libertarianism.
No, I didn't. I said the majority of libertarians I've met seem virtually untouched by the problems which they consequently sweep away (like IP, foreign policy, poverty, the environment and so-on). Is that not true?
I can't say much about the ones you know. But you seem to be extending the description to all or most of the people who fall under the banner of libertarianism. In the latter case it's clearly not true. But it's a moot point because an idea's validity isn't determined by the people who endorse it.
I'm not sure a model can measure such things effectively. In the real world, who would bother pouring hours into writing some code when they new it'd be copied and distributed by free a second after it was published? Would you? Honestly, it seems to fly in the face of everything else you believe about property rights.
It's funny, we're cranks for criticizing economics' obsession with modeling - until the models destroy the case for a policy like IP protection. Anyway, you would have a point if the modeling weren't corroborated by empirical evidence. But it is, as the study explains, focusing specifically on open source systems.
And anyway, what does that have to do with people rightly being able to get credit for what they've done? Like I said above, libertarians just kinda seem to sweep away the problems because it's they think it's justified enough that they can point to a consequence that some things might be improved in the long run. But it just goes to show, they don't understand or even care about the actual problems. They are just applying the same worn-out theory to another set of circumstances.
Not at all. I mentioned in the article that creative commons licenses can prevent outright plagiarism, without the crippling effects of current IP laws. Again, I'm a musician. I've been in bands and I write for a living. Please stop pretending that I'm disconnected from this debate.
-
Ya know, having used quite a bit of open source software, I gotta say, most of it is far inferior to something you have to pay for. And it's obvious why.
I can generally go and hear some live music for free, as well, but it's usually not nearly as good as the music with a cover charge, or god forbid, a ticket.
Hey WW, would you like it if I copied all our articles, crated my own blog, and got my own advertisers to pay for it? It would require nothing out of me, really, and I'd profit off of your writing, your thinking, and your work. Given the size of the internet, who would know? Perhaps some would eventually found out the original source, but many, many, many others would not - and that's something anyone who's spent any amount of time on the internet should know full well. Things are copied all the time, when it's illegal, and no one's the wiser. One reason people are able to trace it back to the original source is becuase of sourcing, copyrights, etc.
There's something I've noticed about libertarian theories; they often hinge upon some sort of government or some sort of theory they don't like to support it. It's like environmentalism, where libertarians insist the a strong personal definition of property rights would solve everything, but in order for that to solve anything, you have to have a fiat judicial system - i.e. government - in order for it to work. The same goes with IP, where every example given is possible due to at least some conception of IP; it's argued that people would favor the original artists, etc; but that favoring is only possible due to knowledge, which is only possible due to IP.
-
It's funny, we're cranks for criticizing economics' obsession with modeling - until the models destroy the case for a policy like IP protection. Anyway, you would have a point if the modeling weren't corroborated by empirical evidence. But it is, as the study explains, focusing specifically on open source systems.
What are you talking about? The research argues against the case for the current patent system, not IP in general, which is much less a draconian slash-and-burn solution than what the libertarians usually come up with1. And besides, if I were allowed to freely steal all of your things, I'd have a lot more room to be "innovative" too. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be punishing you in the process. Isn't that what you aren't accepting here? Your whole idea seems to be that getting rid of IP is protection good for innovation. Fine. But then you take it a step further, pretending that doing so won't have any adverse effects on the people doing the actual intellectual work. That's where the whole libertarian solution dives into la la land.
Again, I'm a musician. I've been in bands and I write for a living. Please stop pretending that I'm disconnected from this debate.
Dude, doing covers of glam-rock with Boskers does not count :P
1And, frankly, that's not surprising. "Reform", rather than "removal", means even if problems with the patent system were handled, Lady Gaga might still be able to keep you from downloading her next album. I'd be surprised if people the pushing doing something about IP would ever go for that, since free-for-all downloads seem like the real motivation to begin with.
-
Hey WW, would you like it if I copied all our articles, crated my own blog, and got my own advertisers to pay for it? It would require nothing out of me, really, and I'd profit off of your writing, your thinking, and your work. Given the size of the internet, who would know? Perhaps some would eventually found out the original source, but many, many, many others would not - and that's something anyone who's spent any amount of time on the internet should know full well. Things are copied all the time, when it's illegal, and no one's the wiser. One reason people are able to trace it back to the original source is becuase of sourcing, copyrights, etc.
Writing for a reputable website, promoting with social media and developing an audience makes that virtually impossible on a large scale. But it does happen. I've found my stuff on obscure blogs and news aggregators without attribution. Still, most writers want to develop their own style and produce original content. Lifting other people's work will only get you so far.
There's something I've noticed about libertarian theories; they often hinge upon some sort of government or some sort of theory they don't like to support it. It's like environmentalism, where libertarians insist the a strong personal definition of property rights would solve everything, but in order for that to solve anything, you have to have a fiat judicial system - i.e. government - in order for it to work. The same goes with IP, where every example given is possible due to at least some conception of IP; it's argued that people would favor the original artists, etc; but that favoring is only possible due to knowledge, which is only possible due to IP.
Not so. There's a logical basis for property ownership. For example, it's not judicial fiat to say property owners own their property because they have a better claim on it than anybody. That's one of the reason I own the computer I'm typing on. Similarly it's not baseless to say property rights are a way to distribute scarce resources among people in a society.
Furthermore, you don't need intellectual property for attribution. Many creators simply don't bother with copyright or patent protection, yet they're well known for their work because people like what they produce.
What are you talking about? The research argues against the case for the current patent system, not IP in general, which is much less a draconian slash-and-burn solution than what the libertarians usually come up with1. And besides, if I were allowed to freely steal all of your things, I'd have a lot more room to be "innovative" too. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be punishing you in the process. Isn't that what you aren't accepting here? Your whole idea seems to be that getting rid of IP is protection good for innovation. Fine. But then you take it a step further, pretending that doing so won't have any adverse effects on the people doing the actual intellectual work. That's where the whole libertarian solution dives into la la land.
The study is one example out of a giant stack of literature that argues against IP. I wouldn't expect one study to refute every kind IP law or every supposed utility it provides.
And since we're discussing public policy, I'm talking about the aggregate effects of IP. There are individual examples that go both ways, of course. But that's not the point.
Dude, doing covers of glam-rock with Boskers does not count :P
If you would've seen those chubby HR ladies bouncing in the moshpit during "Bohemian Rhapsody," you would be of a different opinion.
-
Hey WW, would you like it if I copied all our articles, crated my own blog, and got my own advertisers to pay for it? It would require nothing out of me, really, and I'd profit off of your writing, your thinking, and your work. Given the size of the internet, who would know? Perhaps some would eventually found out the original source, but many, many, many others would not - and that's something anyone who's spent any amount of time on the internet should know full well. Things are copied all the time, when it's illegal, and no one's the wiser. One reason people are able to trace it back to the original source is becuase of sourcing, copyrights, etc.
Writing for a reputable website, promoting with social media and developing an audience makes that virtually impossible on a large scale. But it does happen. I've found my stuff on obscure blogs and news aggregators without attribution. Still, most writers want to develop their own style and produce original content. Lifting other people's work will only get you so far.
If you want to be a writer, yes, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about simply making money, with no artistic intent. I could make a lot of clones of the "reputable" website that are common typos of the website, or so close, that a lot of people won't notice. We've all seen people's responses to onion articles as if they're real - people don't always look at what site their own, where it's sourced from, etc.
The problem, which is my point below, is that it's not very common in todays world due to IP laws, which do prevent it from happening more. If it was a free for all, the web would be full of hoax and clone sites, and it would become increasingly harder to tell which is the original and legitimate site. I don't have much computer programming experience, but I'm pretty sure I could write a program with a little research that would pretty much update my site the instant your site is updated; it's not hard to copy and steal source code, or source pages.
There's something I've noticed about libertarian theories; they often hinge upon some sort of government or some sort of theory they don't like to support it. It's like environmentalism, where libertarians insist the a strong personal definition of property rights would solve everything, but in order for that to solve anything, you have to have a fiat judicial system - i.e. government - in order for it to work. The same goes with IP, where every example given is possible due to at least some conception of IP; it's argued that people would favor the original artists, etc; but that favoring is only possible due to knowledge, which is only possible due to IP.
Not so. There's a logical basis for property ownership. For example, it's not judicial fiat to say property owners own their property because they have a better claim on it than anybody. That's one of the reason I own the computer I'm typing on.
Furthermore, you don't need intellectual property for attribution. Many creators simply don't bother with copyright or patent protection, yet they're well known for their work because people like what they produce.
There's a logical basis for IP ownership, and it's in fact the same logical basis for property ownership. Have you read Locke's essays on the topic? It's fundamentally about doing the work, taking something which is in common, and working on it, thus making it your own.
And yes, you are correct that you can still source and attribute without IP laws; I got a tad hyperbolisitc, and what I mean is that, the large-scale knowledge of who does what, etc, is possible due to IP laws. Without IP, you may know, some of the time, who did what, etc, but the process of IP and patents makes that knowledge much easier and more readily known, and that's something you're relying upon.
Similarly it's not baseless to say property rights are a way to distribute scarce resources among people in a society.
Wealth is a scarce resource, at any given time, and only so much money will go towards a given product - as in, only so much money can be made selling iPads, regardless of who is selling it. Should we, as a society, make that wealth less concentrated by doing away with IP laws? You might start appealing to some socialists that way, but it seems a fundamental dissonance with your libertarianism.
-
BTW, I don't think anybody has failed to notice either that the population that most heavily supports Libertarianism, i.e. computer-literate people in their teens and twenties, stand to have the most gain from a policy that virtually decriminalizes digital theft. They want their software and music for free, so they support the theory that gives them that, no matter whether it makes sense or not. And the two current threads about it have so far left Lbertarianism as intellectual roadkill.
rumborak
-
??? I thought it was "computer-literate people in their 30s - 50s who spend 75% of their waking lives in front of their computers and/or in their parents' houses."
-
I was trying to be kind :D
rumborak
-
Oops. My bad. Once again, I am the proverbial bosk in a china shop.
-
BTW, I don't think anybody has failed to notice either that the population that most heavily supports Libertarianism, i.e. computer-literate people in their teens and twenties, stand to have the most gain from a policy that virtually decriminalizes digital theft. They want their software and music for free, so they support the theory that gives them that, no matter whether it makes sense or not. And the two current threads about it have so far left Lbertarianism as intellectual roadkill.
rumborak
::) You can't possibly know that, and even if it's true it doesn't refute the arguments made against IP.
The problem, which is my point below, is that it's not very common in todays world due to IP laws, which do prevent it from happening more. If it was a free for all, the web would be full of hoax and clone sites, and it would become increasingly harder to tell which is the original and legitimate site. I don't have much computer programming experience, but I'm pretty sure I could write a program with a little research that would pretty much update my site the instant your site is updated; it's not hard to copy and steal source code, or source pages.
That's in no way demonstrable. People lift content all the time, but saying it would be worse without IP protection isn't much better than asking me to prove a negative. Furthermore, anybody mimicking a website in the fashion you describe implies that the source is already reputable. It would probably already have a large audience and advertisers, and affiliate contracts with retailers like Amazon, and your argument ran into a wall three posts ago.
There's a logical basis for IP ownership, and it's in fact the same logical basis for property ownership. Have you read Locke's essays on the topic? It's fundamentally about doing the work, taking something which is in common, and working on it, thus making it your own.
I haven't. But I will if it's online. Link? I'll reserve judgement on specifics until I read it.
And yes, you are correct that you can still source and attribute without IP laws; I got a tad hyperbolisitc, and what I mean is that, the large-scale knowledge of who does what, etc, is possible due to IP laws. Without IP, you may know, some of the time, who did what, etc, but the process of IP and patents makes that knowledge much easier and more readily known, and that's something you're relying upon.
No, they don't. That's why there was such a massive lobbying effort behind SOPA, because IP protection as it stands doesn't prevent piracy or other unapproved sharing.
Wealth is a scarce resource, at any given time, and only so much money will go towards a given product - as in, only so much money can be made selling iPads, regardless of who is selling it. Should we, as a society, make that wealth less concentrated by doing away with IP laws? You might start appealing to some socialists that way, but it seems a fundamental dissonance with your libertarianism.
I don't have to appeal to contradictory points of view. My whole interest in this issue stems from the fact that these laws don't do what they're supposed to do, and often do the opposite, and I don't want flagrant internet censorship enacted in the name of protecting creators. In other words, my motivation is consistent with the idea at the base of all my political views: individual liberty.
??? I thought it was "computer-literate people in their 30s - 50s who spend 75% of their waking lives in front of their computers and/or in their parents' houses."
Why are you reminding me that I spend an obscene amount of time here? I thought we were friends, bro.
-
That's in no way demonstrable. People lift content all the time, but saying it would be worse without IP protection isn't much better than asking me to prove a negative. Furthermore, anybody mimicking a website in the fashion you describe implies that the source is already reputable. It would probably already have a large audience and advertisers, and affiliate contracts with retailers like Amazon, and your argument ran into a wall three posts ago.
Just because you aren't realizing all the consequences of what I'm saying doesn't mean my argument ran into a wall. I'm not nor ever have said it would steal every bit of revenue that the site made, which is for some reason the rather stupid line of thinking you seem to be assuming I follow. It'd be diverting some rightful money to someone who does nothing but leech. In some area's, this could easily mean not enough capital to invest, and innovate.
There's a logical basis for IP ownership, and it's in fact the same logical basis for property ownership. Have you read Locke's essays on the topic? It's fundamentally about doing the work, taking something which is in common, and working on it, thus making it your own.
I haven't. But I will if it's online. Link? I'll reserve judgement on specifics until I read it.
Well, I guess not "essay" but section of the Second Treatise of Government where he talks about what property is. He is talking about land and the Commons, but I'm using his rational whereby something becomes your property by doing the work. Some other similarities I could draw, but recalling back, work was basically the building block for his concept of property.
And yes, you are correct that you can still source and attribute without IP laws; I got a tad hyperbolisitc, and what I mean is that, the large-scale knowledge of who does what, etc, is possible due to IP laws. Without IP, you may know, some of the time, who did what, etc, but the process of IP and patents makes that knowledge much easier and more readily known, and that's something you're relying upon.
No, they don't. That's why there was such a massive lobbying effort behind SOPA, because IP protection as it stands doesn't prevent piracy or other unapproved sharing.
I don't get how sharing really has anything to do with what I"m talking about in that quote? Either way, it's still a lousy argument, as it ignores what kind of effects there would be without any IP at all. There is less theft then compared to your proposal. I'm not sure who you think has ever argued that laws prevent crime from ever happening, but I sure have never made that argument. Your argument, that theft happens, therefor our laws against theft don't work, is completely fallacious.
Your logic:
A
:B
~B
:~A
It's called denying the Anteceent, and it's invalid; that is, wrong, not true.
If it isn't clear, the argument as to why IP is good is two-fold: moral, and innovation. In some area's you are right that our laws can get in the way if innovation - but not in all areas! In all area's, however, it is as immoral as theft of property.
Wealth is a scarce resource, at any given time, and only so much money will go towards a given product - as in, only so much money can be made selling iPads, regardless of who is selling it. Should we, as a society, make that wealth less concentrated by doing away with IP laws? You might start appealing to some socialists that way, but it seems a fundamental dissonance with your libertarianism.
I don't have to appeal to contradictory points of view. My whole interest in this issue stems from the fact that these laws don't do what they're supposed to do, and often do the opposite, and I don't want flagrant internet censorship enacted in the name of protecting creators. In other words, my motivation is consistent with the idea at the base of all my political views: individual liberty.
Except "liberty" does not mean can do whatever you want to, and you know that.
Are there any studies, at all, which look at the effects of IP in the pharmaceutical and technology field? Ya know, area's of the economy where it takes capital - i.e. money - in order to research and innovate? You need labs, you need materials, you need a team of scientists. Software needs one guy, some for music, and same for writing. And as others have said, suggesting changes and modification to the patent system is a lot different then saying we should do away with IP. Lessen the time a patent is exclusive, modify the rules so anyone can make changes to anyone elses idea, but that a small royalty is required for a few years, or hell, simply require a royalty, and never have a patent be exclusive. There are ways to change the laws which make innovation possible, and don't require us to just screw over people who come up with idea's, and try to justify theft because a lot of people are stealing.
-
By the way, I thought I'd share a potential outcome of IP laws: Google Book's. It happened to come up in the book I'm reading, and it's basically a perfect example for me to use.
So basically, they just started scanning anything and everything they could, and they took their route of only removing content at the request of infringers. They got sued, an negotiations proceeded. What resulted was similar to what I suggest IP can do, and that is Google continued to do what they were doing, with a portion of the revenue going to the copyright holders as a royalty, and some other ad perks.
Now, the whole thing happened becuase of IP laws, and a court system to back it up. Without that, lawsuits could not have been filed, or at least lawsuits could not have been forced to pay attention to, and the kind of cooperation we like to see the market create, comes about in a manner consensual to both parties involved.
-
But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.
Bullshit. Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit. Why? How can I prove it? I've got the empty wallet to prove it.
$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone" (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)
Just out of curiosity what are your thoughts on people who illegally upload your music on sites like youtube?
-
I don't like it any more than I like them illegally downloading it from ThePirateBay. But I don't think uploading it to youtube is quite as damaging to sales as uploading MP3s to torrent sites.
-
I mentioned youtube because I saw that you posted a youtube link of a song of your band on 5/8. I can see why you would; you want more people to listen to your music. But don't you think you're being a little hypocritical? If you really believed that your music being on youtube was hurting sales wouldn't you be trying to remove the link, rather than spread it more on the internet? And by your logic aren't you hurting sales yourself by posting that link?
-
My record label posted the link to it on youtube. (https://10trecords.com/artists/genres/progressive-experimental/the-anabasis/videos/)
(edited to add the link on my label's website)
Once the cat was out of the bag, might as well swim with the tide instead of against it. Like I wrote above, I don't think YouTube has as big of a negative impact on sales as illegal downloading of MP3s does, but the bottom line for me is still that technically, if you rip a CD to your computer and upload it to youtube, you have most likely violated the artist's copyright, which is why YouTube routinely removes stuff.
(edited again for clarity)
-
That's interesting because no where in the link (the one posted on 5/8) or even on the user's page (https://www.youtube.com/user/progmetalrock) does it indicate that the account belongs to the record label. Nor are there any links to where you can buy the album. It's like they're doing the exact thing as people who upload music illegally do, except they have a different motive.
-
If you're looking for an argument, I'm not the one. I edited the post above for clarity.
Here's what happened: Someone posted that song and a few others on YouTube. The entire album was already streaming on my label's website long before this, so the fact that the songs got posted on youtube long after that wasn't all that big of deal to them. In fact, since they have a video section on their website for their artists, as I mentioned above, they said "what the heck" and decided to just post the video on their site. It doesn't really make any sense to swim against the tide in these situations, the cat, as I mentioned above, was already out of the bag.
With that said, we, as the owners of the copyright on this music, did not give permission to the person who uploaded it, so in theory I am not in favor of what they did, but it is what it is.
And as I mentioned above, because YouTube is more of a streaming thing when it comes to music, I don't think it's as damaging as downloading, so to me it's not all that big of a deal at the end of the day. 5700+ downloads from _____________ yeah, that kind of pissed me off.
-
Besides that, I see nothing hypocritical about saying essentially, "I think it's wrong for fans to get free access to music, so as a fan, I wouldn't do that, but as a musician, I have to recognize that fans do get free access to music, so if I want to compete in this marketplace at all, I have to recognize that and at least use it to best promote the album."
-
I guess I just would want you to be more clear about your frustration. Which of these would you not approve of?
- A person who bought the album, then illegally uploaded it on youtube.
- A person who listened to a song on youtube, illegally downloaded downloaded the album but later bought a copy after deciding that they like it.
- A person who illegally obtained the album and posted a download link on their popular blog with a note "Support the artists, buy the music". Assume that 1,000 people learned about your band and 5 people actually ended up buying the album.
-
I guess I just would want you to be more clear about your frustration. Which of these would you not approve of?
- A person who bought the album, then illegally uploaded it on youtube.
- A person who listened to a song on youtube, illegally downloaded downloaded the album but later bought a copy after deciding that they like it.
- A person who illegally obtained the album and posted a download link on their popular blog with a note "Support the artists, buy the music". Assume that 1,000 people learned about your band and 5 people actually ended up buying the album.
I don't "approve of" ANY of the illegal activity,but as bosk1 pointed out, I have tn choice but to accept certain realities.
-
Besides that, I see nothing hypocritical about saying essentially, "I think it's wrong for fans to get free access to music, so as a fan, I wouldn't do that, but as a musician, I have to recognize that fans do get free access to music, so if I want to compete in this marketplace at all, I have to recognize that and at least use it to best promote the album."
Yeah, pretty much this. And to clarify a bit.....I don't really have a problem with "free access to music" as long as my label controls it via free downloads or streaming from their site. Or even the Progstreaming.com website, where we've uploaded the entire album. That's all good. Torrents, not so much. That's just blatant theft.
-
I guess I just would want you to be more clear about your frustration. Which of these would you not approve of?
- A person who bought the album, then illegally uploaded it on youtube.
- A person who listened to a song on youtube, illegally downloaded downloaded the album but later bought a copy after deciding that they like it.
- A person who illegally obtained the album and posted a download link on their popular blog with a note "Support the artists, buy the music". Assume that 1,000 people learned about your band and 5 people actually ended up buying the album.
I don't "approve of" ANY of the illegal activity,but as bosk1 pointed out, I have tn choice but to accept certain realities.
I'd say if you don't "approve" of the first example and yet you proliferate its very results by linking it, then you're being hypocritical. IMO though, arguing whether sales would be better or worse if online piracy didn't exist in nonsensical since the kind of market environment we're in is far too complicated and interlinked (for example, how many other things must not exist in a world with no online piracy?). What you could argue about though is enforcement of the law. I'll stop though since this isn't really relevant to the thread.
-
If you're looking for an argument, I'm not the one.
Have a nice day, Rathma :)
-
I can imagine enough differences to mean it's worth asking, but Kirk, does the radio bother you in the same way?
-
Nice guitar work btw.
-
I can imagine enough differences to mean it's worth asking, but Kirk, does the radio bother you in the same way?
Why would the radio bother me? Radio stations, be they on the web or on the air (and we're on both) seek and obtain permission to use our material. My primary beef here is with people who use the material without permission.
Rathma, thanks for the compliments on the guitar playing. I can only take credit for the rhythm guitar, acoustic guitar, bass guitar (except for Fly and Carpe Diem) and any time you hear harmony lead guitars, other than that it was all guests.
-
I can imagine enough differences to mean it's worth asking, but Kirk, does the radio bother you in the same way?
Why would the radio bother me? Radio stations, be they on the web or on the air (and we're on both) seek and obtain permission to use our material. My primary beef here is with people who use the material without permission.
Cause the radio is really going to be very similar to youtube, given the fact that there is the internet now. Some small changes need to be do be done so that it's more fair to copyright holders, but there's also copyright issues internal to the record industry that is unfair in my opinion.
-
You lost me there, Scheavo. AFAIK we're not being broadcast without permission on any internet radio stations. I know that my label sent out about 200 promotional copies of our CD to reviewers and radio stations. We've had airplay in 10 different countries and on at least 20 internet radio stations that I am aware of, all of the ones I am aware of had permission to use the content.
When my label saw that some people had uploaded a few of the tracks to YouTube, we talked about whether or not it was worth it to make a copyright claim and get it taken down. We came to the conclusion that YouTube doesn't really hurt sales all that much so why bother. I think you could even make an argument that YouTube has the potential to help sales by getting you in front of some people you may not have been in front of. I just don't take the next step that a lot kids take and use that argument to rationalize downloading.
Basically, to me, any audio stream is probably fairly benign. It requires a lot of extra effort to record an audio stream from a place like YouTube or ProgStreaming or an internet radio station. I liken it to the 70's and 80's when we'd record albums they played on radio stations. None of that ever had the same impact on the music business as downloading did. It's not the same, nowhere near as damaging as downloading, so I don't really worry too much about it. Downloading is what's killing off small bands like mine. If it wasn't for the fact that I'm an almost-50 year old professional with a fairly substantial income, some of it discretionary, I would never have been able to afford to make that album because I would have had to depend on selling enough copies of it to break even and the odds of that happening in the age of downloads are very slim.
To tie this back into the thread here, I think eliminating intellectual property is insane. If anything, IP laws need to be given some more teeth.
-
The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break. Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.
-
The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break. Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.
Yeah, that's great! So now it's only got 47% more to go to break even with where it was in 2000 (https://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/) :) At least the trend is moving in the right direction.
-
I personally think more bands should utilize bandcamp. It's a wonderful website, you can set up your merch anyway you please, free, pay what you want, straight up pay, some even have bundles, and you can listen to the music for free before making any decisions.
-
You lost me there, Scheavo.
Not sure I really did, considering what followed. We're in like 99% agreement.
-
You lost me there, Scheavo.
Not sure I really did, considering what followed. We're in like 99% agreement.
No, you definitely lost me in that post, but it's good that we agree :)
-
You lost me there, Scheavo.
Not sure I really did, considering what followed. We're in like 99% agreement.
No, you definitely lost me in that post, but it's good that we agree :)
I was trying to just point out how similar someone uploading a song to youtube (especially that's already up there) is to what the radio is or was. Which is basically what you went into.
The other stuff was just how copyright holders should be able to negotiate with youtube to make the practice more fair, where applicable; but also that musicians often don't own their copyrights, which is bullshit. We don't have a patent/copyright system so that other people can take advantage of artists.
-
The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break. Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.
Yeah, that's great! So now it's only got 47% more to go to break even with where it was in 2000 (https://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/) :) At least the trend is moving in the right direction.
What trend? Did less people illegally download music? (I reeeally doubt it) Did people decide that they wanted to buy music instead of pirate it because of legal risk? (I doubt that too) The industry made more money. Okay. That really says nothing about whether the situation has gotten better for artists or not, which seems to be your major concern.
-
The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break. Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.
Yeah, that's great! So now it's only got 47% more to go to break even with where it was in 2000 (https://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/) :) At least the trend is moving in the right direction.
What trend?
This one:
(https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/chart_music.top.gif)
-
Or maybe the whole record-music-once-and-sell-it-to-as-many-people-as-possible business model simply lead to level of sales that was unsustainable and the bubble is slowly shrinking.
(https://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d5c3e1e4bd7c86216030000/chart-of-the-day-the-death-of-the-music-industry.jpg)
EDIT:
Er, on second thought that's not a very good chart since it's not inflation adjusted. This one's probably more accurate.
(https://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg)
If sales rose in 2011 than that probably means we are at a more realistic level for the industry (1982 level).
-
Bubble? Nah, I don't think there was any bubble, I think piracy has steadily shrunk the business of music sales but now digital sales are helping it rebound a bit.
-
I don't see why you think you can treat "piracy" as a single independent factor. File sharing is an intimate feature of what the internet is today, and without the internet many bands (especially non-mainstream ones) would loose their main base for advertising. What I'm curious about is why it took the industry until 2003 to be innovative and use the internet to their advantage through digital music sales. Seems like they just became stuck in their ways and failed to realize that CDs would eventually fade away just like cassettes, vinyl, etc.
-
I don't see why you think you can treat "piracy" as a single independent factor. File sharing is an intimate feature of what the internet is today, and without the internet many bands (especially non-mainstream ones) would loose their main base for advertising. What I'm curious about is why it took the industry until 2003 to be innovative and use the internet to their advantage through digital music sales. Seems like they just became stuck in their ways and failed to realize that CDs would eventually fade away just like cassettes, vinyl, etc.
Do you remember trying to download a file in the 90's and early 2000's? You couldn't download a whole lot of music, especially not if you wanted quality, becuase the technology simply wasn't there. I remember getting DSL and being excited that megabyte downloads would no longer take like fucking 20 minutes.
Simply put, it wasn't a big enough issue with slow as fuck internet, and it wasn't as viable to create a company to sell media with a slow as fuck internet.
Even if it was a bubble, there can still be other factors. Why pick 1982 as your "realistic" level?
-
I don't see why you think you can treat "piracy" as a single independent factor.
Have you professionally released an album lately?