Is copying a file still theft? Included propaganda

[William Wallace]

Sorry, but why are we still pretending that "the arts are growing" has anything to do with whether it's ethical to pirate music?

Well, we're "pretending" because artists are not necessarily being harmed by the downloading. If the file sharing isn't depriving the creators of compensation, how can it be unethical?

Downloading music that you didn't buy IS stealing. If you support it, you think stealing is OK, or at least not a big enough to deal to care about trying to stop. Maybe you and other people here should stop trying to shut down the discussion by pretending to be personally insulted every time someone makes that claim, which has been pretty well defended here and everywhere else in the world.

You're right. I still find the comments about theft a little Hannity-like on your part, but I'll let it go. Now about answering my arguments...

[Perpetual Change]

Well, we're "pretending" because artists are not necessarily being harmed by the downloading. If the file sharing isn't depriving the creators of compensation, how can it be unethical?

That's just not true. We've already established that sales by individual artists are going down, even if sales for music in general are going up. That's an important distinction, and a pretty empirically obvious one (note what the pop-icons of the 2000s were selling back then compared to what today's pop icons are. I'd be willing to be today's big artists like Jay-Z and Lady Gaga barely crack platinum with their records, while yesterday's Eminem and Britney Spears go 10x that).  So I don't see what your point is. I'm willing to admit that the health of art in general isn't at jeapordy here, and I'm even willing to bet that this doesn't hurt some indie and less known bands-- the dream theater's of the world, who may have never gotten famous without filing sharing but now may be seeing the extent of their fame limited by it-- but that has little to do with whether it's OK to download music you should be purchasing.  

You're right. I still find the comments about theft a little Hannity-like on your part, but I'll let it go. Now about answering my arguments...

I realize these threads usually go nowhere and declaring a victor becomes a mere test of endurance after awhile, but I expect more from you guys than to hear "well why don't you just leave the thread if you're just going to hurt my feelings." Three times. From three different posters.

[XJDenton]

Sorry, but why are we still pretending that "the arts are growing" has anything to do with whether it's ethical to pirate music?

Well, we're "pretending" because artists are not necessarily being harmed by the downloading. If the file sharing isn't depriving the creators of compensation, how can it be unethical?

Thats something extremely hard to measure, as you can't really say with any certainty how much more/less they would have made had the filesharing option not been present. Its possible to make a decent return on something whilst also being deprived of income.

[El Barto]

Hey PC.  Out of curiosity, would you insist on people paying money for a Bob Marley CD? 

[Nigerius Rex]

"well why don't you just leave the thread if you're just going to hurt my feelings." Three times. From three different posters.

Maybe its not the the three different posters that have the problem.

We've already established that sales by individual artists are going down, even if sales for music in general are going up. That's an important distinction, and a pretty empirically obvious one (note what the pop-icons of the 2000s were selling back then compared to what today's pop icons are. I'd be willing to be today's big artists like Jay-Z and Lady Gaga barely crack platinum with their records, while yesterday's Eminem and Britney Spears go 10x that).

That doesn't make any sense to me. During the era of cd's we had a much smaller number of artists producing less music and licensing/selling it one way. Now, we have a massive and diverse group of people creating (more), selling (more), and licensing and selling it hundreds of different ways. Why then, should the sales made before the internet be expected to match up?

[rumborak]

Sorry, but why are we still pretending that "the arts are growing" has anything to do with whether it's ethical to pirate music?

Well, we're "pretending" because artists are not necessarily being harmed by the downloading. If the file sharing isn't depriving the creators of compensation, how can it be unethical?

Thats something extremely hard to measure, as you can't really say with any certainty how much more/less they would have made had the filesharing option not been present. Its possible to make a decent return on something whilst also being deprived of income.

It's not just impossible to measure, but also unreasonable to expect consistently enough that it would justify the stealing. Not only that, but it's very interesting how Libertarians will pound the "a single de-libertized individual is worth the rejection of the system" on people's head, but in this thread you see them arguing that as long as some people can demonstrably not be suffering from deprivation of money, it's ethical to steal everybody's creations.

I think it's rather obvious by now in this thread how the pro-downloading argumentation is not based on a solid theory of wealth, but simply by "I want this to be true, so I'll try to come up with arguments for it".

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

Maybe its not the the three different posters that have the problem.

Considering one already admitted he was in the wrong, the other also has stopped, and the moderator has already told you to stop sulking I'd say no. But believe what you want. I'm not going to let you try and knock the thread off in this direction again so this is all I'll say about that.

Now, we have a massive and diverse group of people creating (more), selling (more), and licensing and selling it hundreds of different ways. Why then, should the sales made before the internet be expected to match up?

Not getting this. No one is telling artists they can't use the internet to try different things. We're telling the people they can't just download what they want contrary to the artists' permission.

Hey PC.  Out of curiosity, would you insist on people paying money for a Bob Marley CD?  

I'm not insisting people do anything, other than admit downloading music illegally is almost always closer to stealing than it is to "backing up copies of your CD's in case they ever get scratched" or "downloading online because you don't feel like getting a box of CDs out of the attic."

If you feel morally "in the right" about stealing from a record company which, for some reason, still has rights over a dead artist's work, that's on you. I can admit that's too much of a gray area for me to care either way about. But we're not talking about how stupid copyright laws are, or how they could be improved. We're talking about whether downloading music and games online is stealing or not, and I'm saying 9 times out of 10 it is.

[ehra]

Sorry, but why are we still pretending that "the arts are growing" has anything to do with whether it's ethical to pirate music?

Well, we're "pretending" because artists are not necessarily being harmed by the downloading. If the file sharing isn't depriving the creators of compensation, how can it be unethical?

Thats something extremely hard to measure, as you can't really say with any certainty how much more/less they would have made had the filesharing option not been present. Its possible to make a decent return on something whilst also being deprived of income.

It's not just impossible to measure, but also unreasonable to expect consistently enough that it would justify the stealing. Not only that, but it's very interesting how Libertarians will pound the "a single de-libertized individual is worth the rejection of the system" on people's head, but in this thread you see them arguing that as long as some people can demonstrably not be suffering from deprivation of money, it's ethical to steal everybody's creations.

rumborak

Not to mention the point I brought up before that got ignored; if piracy is ok because artists can still make money from their music despite it (because of "free advertisement" or whatever) then what happens when everyone decides to do it? Is it only ok as long as too many people don't start doing it, or what?

[rumborak]

It's "ok" as long as whoever does gets away with it. Seriously, that's the extent of this whole discussion. The rest is the attempt to resolve the perpetrators' cognitive dissonance.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

@Ehra, rumby: That's by far my biggest issue here with what people are saying. I really don't see how downloading music you didn't pay for is somehow "OK" because some people are able to use the internet to promote themselves without the help of the labels. No one here is arguing that file-sharing itself should be made illegal, amirite?

This is like one of those illegal-immigration debates where suddenly someone bursts into the conversation and starts yelling because he perceive people are actually saying legal immigration should be illegal.

[rumborak]

It really makes no sense whatsoever. Saying that it is ok to download music for free as long one can show the entities are still thriving is like saying child labor is ok, as long as the kid still grows up.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

Is it only ok as long as too many people don't staConsidering one already admitted he was in the wrong, the other also has stopped, and the moderator has already told you to stop sulking I'd say no. But believe what you want. I'm not going to let you try and knock the thread off in this direction again so this is all I'll say about that.
rt doing it, or what?

To me it comes down to what you could pull off in a discussion in real life and the way you have been talking to me would not be the conduct I would expect or tolerate given you were a stranger on the bus/train/street. Not to mention the forum rule about maintaining a respectful atmosphere which imo you haven't in the slightest.

Not getting this. No one is telling artists they can't use the internet to try different things. We're telling the people they can't just download what they want contrary to the artists' permission.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the idea that artists should be compensated for work they want to make money on. What is more important to me is what ill effects it has on sales, and what ill effects it has on the industry, and how government legislation is going to play into the matter. Thus far there don't seem to be any measurable negative effects on sales or the industry, and I don't doubt an increase in intrusive and inconvenient anti piracy legislation is on the horizon.

then what happens when everyone decides to do it?

What is everyone waiting for? Everyone has internet access. The thing that is going to drive more people to illegal file sharing than there are now, more than the prospect of getting something for free, is over the top and generally inconvenient anti piracy and copy protections.

[El Barto]

Hey PC.  Out of curiosity, would you insist on people paying money for a Bob Marley CD?  

I'm not insisting people do anything, other than admit downloading music is almost always closer to stealing than it is to "backing up copies of your CD's in case they ever get scratched" or "downloading online because you don't feel like getting a box of CDs out of the attic."

If you feel morally "in the right" about stealing from a record company which, for some reason, still has rights over a dead artist's work, that's on you. I can admit that's too much of a gray area for me to care either way about. But we're not talking about how stupid copyright laws are, or how they could be improved. We're talking about whether downloading music and games online is stealing or not, and I'm saying 9 times out of 10 it is.

I've been fairly up front that filesharing is stealing.  Where I seem to differ with others is that stealing isn't some black or white concept where there is never a moral basis.  Personally, I've said all along that I'd love to see the entire industry crumble to dust.  If the major labels cease to be, the effect on the creation of music will be exactly zero.  As far as I'm concerned, supporting a system that most people recognize as completely absurd is unethical.  

Edit:  You guys bring up sweatshops.  Is stealing from a sweatshop any more immoral than supporting them buy purchasing their products?

[ehra]

I've been fairly up front that filesharing is stealing.  Where I seem to differ with others is that stealing isn't some black or white concept where there is never a moral basis.  Personally, I've said all along that I'd love to see the entire industry crumble to dust.  If the major labels cease to be, the effect on the creation of music will be exactly zero. As far as I'm concerned, supporting a system that most people recognize as completely absurd is unethical.  

The thing is, it's not just the "absurd" systems that people pirate from. Just look at the Humble Indie Bundle. Six indie games that you could pay whatever price you wanted for, and you could choose how much of your money went to the developers or to charity. No copy protection or DRM of any kind. A good 25% or so decided to just take it without paying anything and that's just counting the people who downloaded it straight from their servers and didn't use a torrent, actually costing them money. Pretty much shoots down the "sticking it to The Man" argument.

then what happens when everyone decides to do it?

What is everyone waiting for? Everyone has internet access. The thing that is going to drive more people to illegal file sharing than there are now, more than the prospect of getting something for free, is over the top and generally inconvenient anti piracy and copy protections.

That doesn't answer my question. If piracy is ok because the artist can still make money despite the piracy, then how does the artist make money off of their music if everyone decides to do it? You can't say "it's ok that I downloaded it for free because I can convince two other people to buy it in my place" when, according to your claim that piracy is ok, there's no reason for them to not pirate it themselves. We're not discussing how easy it is to pirate.

[Perpetual Change]

To me it comes down to what you could pull off in a discussion in real life and the way you have been talking to me would not be the conduct I would expect or tolerate given you were a stranger on the bus/train/street. Not to mention the forum rule about maintaining a respectful atmosphere which imo you haven't in the slightest.

Listen: if that's really what you think, report me (probably for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time). I've been nothing but respectful. It's a shame you can't tolerate the opinions of others, but theft is a touchy subject and that's what we're talking about here. If you're gonna run into the discussion and call me an asshole and a dick again because you don't like that I think something you may or may not do is considered theft, that's too bad. But please, I told you multiple times I'm not talking about this with you anymore. So drop it. Go ahead and hit the report button if you want to. But I'm done entertaining this nonsense.

Thus far there don't seem to be any measurable negative effects on sales or the industry, and I don't doubt an increase in intrusive and inconvenient anti piracy legislation is on the horizon.

So it's OK to copy other people's work because the government might impose intrusive legislation if we agree that it's wrong? Well at least you're admitting the blatant ideological motive here.

Personally, I've said all along that I'd love to see the entire industry crumble to dust.  If the major labels cease to be, the effect on the creation of music will be exactly zero.  As far as I'm concerned, supporting a system that most people recognize as completely absurd is unethical.  

I don't think the industry is as ridiculous as you're assuming everybody thinks it is. Regardless, I still wouldn't feel comfortable hurting the artist in the process. And I doubt our libertarian friends would agree with the notion that you can just steal things produced by institutions you dislike.

[El Barto]

I've been fairly up front that filesharing is stealing.  Where I seem to differ with others is that stealing isn't some black or white concept where there is never a moral basis.  Personally, I've said all along that I'd love to see the entire industry crumble to dust.  If the major labels cease to be, the effect on the creation of music will be exactly zero. As far as I'm concerned, supporting a system that most people recognize as completely absurd is unethical. 

The thing is, it's not just the "absurd" systems that people pirate from. Just look at the Humble Indie Bundle. Six indie games that you could pay whatever price you wanted for, and you could choose how much of your money went to the developers or to charity. No copy protection or DRM of any kind. A good 25% or so decided to just take it without paying anything and that's just counting the people who downloaded it straight from their servers and didn't use a torrent, actually costing them money. Pretty much shoots down the "sticking it to The Man" argument.

I'm not familiar with what you speak of, but it sounds to me like they said people could take it for free if they wanted to, and 75% chose to pay something for it.  I'd call that a good thing, not a bad one.

Personally, I've said all along that I'd love to see the entire industry crumble to dust.  If the major labels cease to be, the effect on the creation of music will be exactly zero.  As far as I'm concerned, supporting a system that most people recognize as completely absurd is unethical. 

I don't think the industry is as ridiculous as you're assuming everybody thinks it is. Regardless, I still wouldn't feel comfortable hurting the artist in the process. And I doubt our libertarian friends would agree with the notion that you just steal things that what produced by institutions you dislike.

I don't think that many would deny that the industry has been ripping off artists to the fullest extent possible for 75 years, both actively and passively.  Frankly, I don't think file sharing has hurt artists anywhere near the extent that the label system has and continues to.  And since when do I care about falling in line with our libertarian friends? 

[ehra]

I've been fairly up front that filesharing is stealing.  Where I seem to differ with others is that stealing isn't some black or white concept where there is never a moral basis.  Personally, I've said all along that I'd love to see the entire industry crumble to dust.  If the major labels cease to be, the effect on the creation of music will be exactly zero. As far as I'm concerned, supporting a system that most people recognize as completely absurd is unethical.  

The thing is, it's not just the "absurd" systems that people pirate from. Just look at the Humble Indie Bundle. Six indie games that you could pay whatever price you wanted for, and you could choose how much of your money went to the developers or to charity. No copy protection or DRM of any kind. A good 25% or so decided to just take it without paying anything and that's just counting the people who downloaded it straight from their servers and didn't use a torrent, actually costing them money. Pretty much shoots down the "sticking it to The Man" argument.

I'm not familiar with what you speak of, but it sounds to me like they said people could take it for free if they wanted to, and 75% chose to pay something for it.  I'd call that a good thing, not a bad one.

The 25% is only people who downloaded it straight from their servers, there were a lot more who torrented it. While this case wasn't necessarily piracy perse because you could set your own price, it does show that people taking these things really has nothing to do with annoying copy protection or not wanting to support an exploitative system, it's because they want free stuff.

[emindead]

An interesting video titled: Where Good Ideas Come From?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU

[Perpetual Change]

I don't think that many would deny that the industry has been ripping off artists to the fullest extent possible for 75 years, both actively and passively.  Frankly, I don't think file sharing has hurt artists anywhere near the extent that the label system has and continues to.  And since when do I care about falling in line with our libertarian friends?  

I'm not saying you're in line with them, but what your saying just puts me in a weird position because on one angle I'm trying to argue that this is theft, and you're bringing up a completely different argument yet posing it in response to the "it's stealing guys" ones I'm posing to the libertarians. I honestly haven't thought about whether certain record companies are evil enough to steal from yet.

[El Barto]

I'm merely throwing this out there because of the number of posts criticizing people for making up their own sense of ethics to legitimize an inherently wrong thing.  People absolutely are doing this, and I'm one of them, but that doesn't mean that some of the moral wrangling isn't correct.  What we're talking about is theft, but theft isn't always inherently wrong.   

[ehra]

If someone's starving and they try to steal some food then, yeah, I'd agree that you can't really blame them. I'd say the important distinction is taking something you absolutely need compared to taking something you want, and I can't think of anything someone could download that would fall under the "need" category.

[rumborak]

What we're talking about is theft, but theft isn't always inherently wrong.    

I know what you mean, but you can't build a consistent law on some kind of retributive or "the current system is doomed anyway" ethics. It's a free market, and thus it's not up to us to enforce the market we want, other than through buying (or not buying) the items we want.
I mean, is stealing from a dying person ok since you know they won't need it?

rumborak

[El Barto]

If someone's starving and they try to steal some food then, yeah, I'd agree that you can't really blame them. I'd say the important distinction is taking something you absolutely need compared to taking something you want, and I can't think of anything someone could download that would fall under the "need" category.

What we're talking about is theft, but theft isn't always inherently wrong.   

I know what you mean, but you can't build a consistent law on some kind of retributive or "the current system is doomed anyway" ethics. It's a free market, and thus it's not up to us to enforce the market we want, other than through buying (or not buying) the items we want.
I mean, is stealing from a dying person ok since you know they won't need it?

rumborak

I was born into wretched poverty.  So one day I stole a loaf of bread ... put it into the freezer until it was very hard, then robbed a bank with it!

All I'm suggesting is that there's, for lack of a better term, a sliding scale at work here.  We Most of us agree that this is theft.  I'm just defending the ethical wrangling that we all do to varying extent.  I have what I believe to be several valid reasons for ripping off the bastards at Capitol.  I don't think that makes me any more or less ethical than anybody else. 

[Nigerius Rex]

Listen: if that's really what you think, report me (probably for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time). I've been nothing but respectful. It's a shame you can't tolerate the opinions of others, but theft is a touchy subject and that's what we're talking about here. If you're gonna run into the discussion and call me an asshole and a dick again because you don't like that I think something you may or may not do is considered theft, that's too bad. But please, I told you multiple times I'm not talking about this with you anymore. So drop it. Go ahead and hit the report button if you want to. But I'm done entertaining this nonsense.

The problem is not your opinions or your arguments. What you are doing is reading what I say, assuming something different, and then responding to what you think I was saying. Example:

you can't tolerate the opinions of others.
you don't like that I think something.
Just because you don't think people deserve the right to charge for their art doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be able to.
I know not everyone is perfect, but the level of intellectual dishonesty people stoop to to justify wrongdoing is just a sad reflection on human nature I guess.
your opinion is completely hypocritical and self-serving.
Oh great, we're back to playing the victim instead of responding to people's posts

Every time you say "you believe" "you think" and "so now we" which you have done numerous times to several people you assume you know what that poster is thinking or feeling when you may not even be close and that to me is extremely disrespectful.

And if you tried saying any of those things to someone in your day to day, you would not see positive response if you got one at all. Stubbornly declaring you have done no wrong makes you more deserving of being labelled an intolerant child than anything I have done in this thread. Also, I never called you an asshole

If you are done talking about it, then fine, stop posting about it.

So it's OK to copy other people's work because the government might impose intrusive legislation if we agree that it's wrong? Well at least you're admitting the blatant ideological motive here.

So in spite of the fact that I just said it was a sum total of three things that I was currently looking at to make a decision you assume that my choice in political ideology is now the only influence?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Looks like we all need to relax a bit

[XJDenton]

So do you not support property rights then? Or at least not class a design as property?

The latter.

I'd still like to know why you think this.

[j]

If someone's starving and they try to steal some food then, yeah, I'd agree that you can't really blame them. I'd say the important distinction is taking something you absolutely need compared to taking something you want, and I can't think of anything someone could download that would fall under the "need" category.

You can't blame them, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is "unethical".  It's still unethical (in most cases) to take somebody else's food, even if you're doing it to feed your family.  You're just willing to compromise your ethics in certain situations.

Like it or not, trade in this country is largely capitalistic, which comes with its own set of pros and cons.  If we assume that a given record company actually is crooked, it's scamming its artists, being unnecessarily detrimental to them and their music, and knowingly conniving to keep a system in place that screws them over, would you say that they are earning their profits ethically?  If they aren't, does it justify going "Robin Hood" on them?  I don't know.

I know most people's motivations are self-serving anyway and not out of some righteous desire to fight injustice at every turn.  Just a thought though.

Also, personally, I'm not a fan of the recording industry based on what I do know, but I'm not all that familiar with it or how it came about.  I'm baffled that such a seemingly disadvantageous system hasn't been uprooted by a reasonable alternative, if there haven't been a lot of corrupt pressures to keep it in place.

-J

[William Wallace]

So do you not support property rights then? Or at least not class a design as property?

The latter.

I'd still like to know why you think this.

The basic concept is that you can't own ideas in the same way that you can own tangible things. For example, you own your body because you live in it and have a better claim to it than anybody else. That's why you get to decide what you do with it. The same is true with physical property. If you claim a piece of previously unowned property, you have a better claim to it than anybody after you does. This also applies to contractual exchange, if I buy something from you at an agreed upon price. In all those instances I have a better claim to the property in question than anybody else. This is why IP is in conflict with property rights. In order to enforce IP the government must dictate to people how they are allowed to use what demonstrably belongs to them. That's the root of the disagreement.

Now, this doesn't mean that creative works aren't valuable. As I already said, I know they are. But creating something of value isn't a means of ownership in and of itself. Here's the example I quoted earlier:

If you carve a statue using your own hunk of marble, you own the resulting creation because you already owned the marble. You owned it before, and you own it now. And if you homestead an unowned resource, such as a field, by using it and thereby establishing publicly visible borders, you own it because this first use and embordering gives you a better claim than latecomers. So creation is not necessary.

But suppose you carve a statue in someone else's marble, either without permission, or with permission, such as when an employee works with his employer's marble by contract. You do not own the resulting statue, even though you "created" it. If you are using marble stolen from another person, your vandalizing it does not take away the owner's claims to it. And if you are working on your employer's marble, he owns the resulting statue. So creation is not sufficient...While production or creation may be a means of gaining "wealth," it is not an independent source of ownership or rights. Production is not the creation of new matter; it is the transformation of things from one form to another — the transformation of things someone already owns, either the producer or someone else.

[rumborak]

WW, this type of stance is anachronistic, to say the least. It sounds like 19th century, and I wouldn't be surprised if the argument has been leveraged straight from those times.
Our current economies have shifted from trading physical objects to trading information. Information, the possession of it, the ability to transform it, is what makes and breaks a 21st century company. It's the reason why the richest man in the world (Gates) made his money from something that couldn't lift a fly off the ground.
Any economic theory that wants to be taken seriously needs to appoint an inherent value to information.

And to allow myself a more biting remark, I'm not in the least surprised to see this line of argument from adherents of the Austrian school, a 19th century school of thought. It's what happens when the admiration for a theory makes you lose sight of what part of the theory had actually lasting value, and what was simply a product of the time it was created in.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

WW, this type of stance is anachronistic, to say the least. It sounds like 19th century, and I wouldn't be surprised if the argument has been leveraged straight from those times.
Our current economies have shifted from trading physical objects to trading information. Information, the possession of it, the ability to transform it, is what makes and breaks a 21st century company. It's the reason why the richest man in the world (Gates) made his money from something that couldn't lift a fly off the ground.

These are true statements. But the transition has not been aided by the enactment of IP, as many studies have illustrated, and as we have discussed Ad nauseam in this thread. It's simply an unfounded assumption that has become the basis for policy.   

Any economic theory that wants to be taken seriously needs to appoint an inherent value to information.

And the Austrian school does, but it doesn't classify value as a means of ownership.

And to allow myself a more biting remark, I'm not in the least surprised to see this line of argument from adherents of the Austrian school, a 19th century school of thought. It's what happens when the admiration for a theory makes you lose sight of what part of the theory had actually lasting value, and what was simply a product of the time it was created in.

rumborak

Don't fool yourself. Most of the economic ideas we debate have origins in the 18th and 19th centuries, some even earlier. The concept that ideas can be owned like physical property originated, ironically, in the 1600s.   

[Perpetual Change]

I'm merely throwing this out there because of the number of posts criticizing people for making up their own sense of ethics to legitimize an inherently wrong thing.

Well, I don't think I criticized anyone people here, just arguments. But if people here to think I'm trying to drive this at a personal level, I'll back off. So I guess this post is directed toward WW and NR too. I'm just a little flabbergasted though because if we had been talking about the income tax or the government taking small percentages of the top of people's paychecks I would have been told I was justifying "forced coercion" by now.

[Perpetual Change]

Also, an early case of file-sharing.

[Nigerius Rex]

Pc your inbox is full.

[rumborak]

Don't fool yourself. Most of the economic ideas we debate have origins in the 18th and 19th centuries, some even earlier. The concept that ideas can be owned like physical property originated, ironically, in the 1600s.   

Of course, but none of those economic theories are being used in their original version, as essentially you guys are doing. They have been updated to reflect modern realities.

rumborak

[ack44]

Just to throw a wrench in the mix, what do you think about buying used CD's?  Even if we assume that no one copies it before selling it to a store or individual, aren't you essentially "robbing" the artist of potential earnings on a new album purchase? 

This post has too many mind-blowing implications that it got ignored. But I'd just like to make one observation. When you buy a physical CD, you're allowed to sell it, but things get complicated with copy rights. Can you burn the music onto a new disc and sell that disc? What if you keep the disc for yourself and sell the original CD? Can you give it away? No matter what kind of restrictions you try to enforce, there are going to be loopholes where you can legally multiply the items that contain the same music.

When you buy songs on iTunes, you're stuck with something that you can't sell. This in itself makes no sense. Every person should have the legal right to sell what they purchased, and at whatever price they wish. If the purchasing was through duplication (aka purchasing information), then they can sell through duplication. Obviously this is too extreme to enforce suddenly, but it's where I see we're going because it makes sense.

@ haters: please provide good reasons why purchased physical products shouldn't be treated the same as purchased informational products.