Intellectual Property

[Amelius]

Property, as I understand it, is granted to the owner when said owner employs her own resources to obtain it(without the use of force, of course)How does this apply to intellectual property? I think, according the above definition, that intellectual property is therefore "property", except that it is usually non-tangible.But, I believe, something is usually over-looked when defining property in general, and that is the will of the owner.So, for example, if I create a piece of music using my own resources, I ought to have the right to specify(when going into a consumer-producer contract) the conditions by which said consumer goes about using the potential property before a transaction of resources occurs between consumer and producer.What are your thoughts on this? 

[Nezumi]

The need for the concept of "property" comes from the fact that things are scarce. Since things are scarce, if I work to produce or obtain something and you take it, then I have suffered the loss of my invested work. On the other hand, intellectual property (IP) tries to apply the characteristics of property to ideas and information (for brevity, I will henceforth only say "information"), which are not scarce. If I produce some information through my work and then you copy that information, then I still have my information. You have not caused you any suffering through the copying of my information.

 

The objection I expect to this is that taking information may result in the loss of some future gain and thus cause harm to its producer. For instance, suppose I make an album and sell it on iTunes. If you pirate my song, I may claim that you have deprived me of a sale and therefore that I have suffered because of your actions. This would seem to contradict the claim that copying information doesn't cause harm. However, I object to this notion.

 

My reasoning is this. When you produce something, generally you know what its characteristics are. It is based on those characteristics that you decide what to produce. For instance, an apple farmer produces apples knowing that its characteristics are deliciousness and nutritiousness. But suppose the farmer imagined that his apples also had the characteristic of giving the power of flight to its eater for 10 minutes. This would cause him to believe that the value of his apples was much greater than otherwise. Suppose he goes to the market and offers the apples for $100 each, and he gets some buyers. However, after a while people realize that the apples don't grant temporary powers of flight, and everyone stops buying them at $100. The farmer is left with no choice but to reduce the price to say, $1. He may feel that every sale is a loss of $99, but that notion is based in the fiction that his apples grant flight. He is actually not "losing" anything, as he would realize if he realized that his apples are normal apples.

 

Now consider information. Is anyone harmed when one pirates a song? Of course, proponents of IP believe that they are, since they believe that potential sales are lost. But what if there were no potential sales? The only reason that there are future sales is that people believe in IP (or at least they obey the law, which believes in IP) and therefore pay money for the songs. So you can see there is a cyclical process going on here. Pirating harms the artist if there is IP, but IP only exists if pirating harms the artist. Being that its a cycle, suppose that no one paid for information. Then would it harm anyone to copy their information? No, because the original owner still has their copy, and no one is going to pay to obtain a copy in the future.

You can see the ridiculousness of the farmer believing that the sale of an apple at $1 is a loss of $99, I'm sure.

 

Suppose the farmer was still listing the apples at $100 and no one is buying. Then someone comes up and steals an apple. The farmer would believe that the theft cost him $100. However, everyone else puts the size of the loss at $1. The extra $99 that the farmer believes he lost are based in fiction.

 

Likewise, many people today realize that the entire price of copying information is $0 and therefore when they copy it, they are not harming the originator, and therefore the information should not be considered property. The artists believe that piracy is costing them money... but that notion is based on the fact that people are treating information as if it had a trait that is does not, namely scarcity.

 

Suppose the government mandated that this flight power be treated as real and insisted that the price of apples is $100. Some people would probably start paying that, simply because they don't want to live without apples. But does the fact that people are willing to pay that much in this scenario mean that they believe the apples actually have that value? No, it just means that $100 is the closest available price to the real price at which they can get apples.

[Pepin]

I don't think "intellectual" is a very good term, because what you are claiming a right to ownership over is a particular arrangement of a form of data with some generality. Data is a concept, and doesn't not exist in reality, rather it is just used to describe purposeful arrangements. A specific magnetic arrangement of what could be labeled 1's and 0's on your hard drive do exist in reality, but the data the bits describe does not. You can't sue someone for stealing something from you that does not exist.

 

With that said,this does not mean that piracy is good, just that you cannot use force against a pirate. I can make a decent case to that is aesthetically unpreferable behavior and could guess as to how this issue could be addressed through voluntary means.

[Kawlinz]

I'd agree with the comments following your question.

 

When you call something non-tangible property, that's just another way of saying "not property". If I said I had a non-tangible pen, I wouldn't have a pen

[Libertus]

'Scarce' in property rights means 'rivalrous'. If you use my car, it means you're interfering with my usage of it. A piece of information can be known by an unlimited amount of people. In that sense, ideas, concepts, plans are not scarce, and therefore cannot be property (which is all about scarce resources).

[Alan C.]

The fundamental problem with IP is that it confers a State-granted property right over a person by another person.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtfP4KxBYcM#t=22m44s

 

Begins at the 22m:44s mark.

[fer]

I can make a decent case to that is aesthetically unpreferable behavior

I feel that piracy is wrong but I would like to see it proved as aesthetically unpreferable behavior.

Could you(or anyone) make the case?

[Pepin]

I feel that piracy is wrong but I would like to see it proved as aesthetically unpreferable behavior.

Could you(or anyone) make the case?

 

The content provider produces the product with the expectation that they will receive money in exchange. If the content provider knew ahead of time that they would not make any [significant] return due to close to 100% piracy rates, then their actions would be far different in that they would not make the product.

 

To put it in universal terms, if software was universally pirated by everyone, then it wouldn't be considered pirating because all software release would be under the pretense that nobody would pay for it anyway. Essentially, everyone would know that they were making freeware ahead of time. Anybody who released a product with a price tag would be insane.

 

To make an odd comparison, imagine you go into a wedding dress store during very busy hours and spend about three hours having an employee helping you try on various dresses. Towards the end you tell them that you aren't getting married and that if you were you wouldn't buy a dress from this store. If that is aesthetically unpreferable behavior, then if a group of people spend 4-36 months taking a huge risk to produce a piece of software that you consume the software without compensation, well that is a little worse.

 

I think it is important to remember that APB isn't as cutthroat as UPB, and it shouldn't be. Being late or not showing up for a meeting is not APB. It doesn't require nearly as much scrutiny as UPB because you aren't able to use force in response.

[Kawlinz]

The wedding dress scenario could be resolved with a question at the beginning... "are you getting married?" Then it's up to the woman coming to try the dress on to lie or just tell the truth. 

 

I think you can release software with a pricetag, people would just pay upfront instead of after you've made it. Just like if i come to your house and build you a deck without us arranging it prior. I can't call you a bad guy for not wanting to pay, even if you really like the deck, even if you have kick ass BBQs on the deck afterwards.

[Hannibal]

The validity of copyright and the fact that IP is a contradiction in terms, are not mutually exclusive. This is a big mistake which I think all of the above posts are making...

 

1) Non-scarce things are not ownable, as already highlighted. To own a non-scarce thing (like "IP") is a contradiction in terms. Fine.

2) Copyright is not dependant on the concept of IP (although it may be in our current legal framework). Copyright violation, in a word where IP doesn't exist, is not theft. It IS, however, fraud. 

 

Why is it fraud?  

If you buy a cd you agree to a contract whereby the sale is contingent on you promising not to copy and to not distribute any copy. So the copier is engaging in fraud.

 

What about the guy who receives the copy?

When a thief steals a car is is obviously determined to be a thief. When someone then knowingly buys that car they are complicit in the theft. I don;t know what the differences in the law are in the US/UK, or wherever, but whether it be receiving stolen goods, conspiracy to steal, or whatever (depending on the details of the circumstance), the second person is complicit in the crime.

When someone engages in fraud, and someone else conspires to commit that fraud, or knowingly takes advantage of that fraud to the detriment of the victim of that fraud, then they too are complicit. 

 

I imagine in a world where IP isn't legally recognised that it may be difficult to enforce copyright infringements very far down the chain - it gets hard to analyse the whole situation to judge if a person really is complicit. That, however, doesn't stop copyright from being a perfectly valid, and enforceable concept. And I imagine that it wouldn;t be too problematic to prosecute the immediate copier, and those next in the chain of complicity.

 

I should mention that I used to write off the concept of copyright as being dependant on IP, but in a conversation with Agalloch, who i think lurks around here, he managed to get e to see the truth. The key for me was to abandon thinking of it as theft, and to concentrate on the fraudulent element.

[Kawlinz]

Why is it fraud?  

If you buy a cd you agree to a contract whereby the sale is contingent on you promising not to copy and to not distribute any copy. So the copier is engaging in fraud.

 

Do you mean this hypothetically or now?

[Hannibal]

Do you mean this hypothetically or now?

 

Both. Now the focus tends to be on theft of IP, but behind that there is still a violation of contract. You don;t sign your signature, but it's the same as the contract that you implicitly agree to when you park in a clearly signposted car park. 

[Kawlinz]

I understand putting conditions on the use of your property, like a car park. I don't understand putting conditions on what I can do with my property, simply because it resembles your property (cds or mp3s).

[Hannibal]

I understand putting conditions on the use of your property, like a car park. I don't understand putting conditions on what I can do with my property, simply because it resembles your property (cds or mp3s).

 

Why not? It's just like when I bought my house - all of the land round here used to be owned by the church, and when you buy a house on my street (among others) it comes with a covenant that states that I am required to pay a certain amount of money towards repair of the cathedral roof, should it be struck by lightening, etc. One typically pays around £25 when purchasing the house for an insurance policy to cover this, even though it's unlikely anything would ever come of it.

 

I didn't have to buy the house, and the church, however long ago, didn't have to sell it. We collectively struck a deal which and agreed to it in a contract.

 

In the same way, in a free society where people paid for their own police/fire service I imagine that it would be very likely that housing developments being built would be sold on the condition that the purchasers agree to purchase fire service protection, for the good of the neighbourhood collectively.

 

Deciding that contractual obligations stop as soon as property becomes yours is just nonsense.  Otherwise I could contract myself to do some work, and not bother turning up with no consequences. My body is my own property after all.

[Kawlinz]

With the land you purchased, you made an agreement to pay for the cathedral roof insurance. There might be agreements in the future that say you can't turn your house into an all night disco, but that's also handled by agreement. I've made no agreements to the effect of "If I hear your song I can't make a copy of it" or "I'll never configure my property to make it sound like property you own"

[ribuck]

Property, as I understand it, is granted to the owner when said owner employs her own resources to obtain it(without the use of force, of course)

And with your opening sentence, you have answered your subsequent questions.

 

If Mary has a music file and makes a copy of it, she has employed her own resources to make a new piece of property (the new copy of the music file), without the use of force.

 

The original performer created their performance, using their own resources and without force. The performer didn't make all future digital representations of that performance. Those were made by others, using those people's own resources and without force.

[Hannibal]

With the land you purchased, you made an agreement to pay for the cathedral roof insurance. There might be agreements in the future that say you can't turn your house into an all night disco, but that's also handled by agreement. I've made no agreements to the effect of "If I hear your song I can't make a copy of it" or "I'll never configure my property to make it sound like property you own"

 

You do make such an agreement when you purchase a CD/DVD/Book, etc.

If an advert was played on a tv screen in a public place, for example, then you can recreate that advert if you like. But if you enter into an agreement with someone not to recreate whatever you see on screen in the cinema, as a condition of entry, and you do then you are committing fraud. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

The problem is that people continue to conflate "patents" and "copyrights" into a homogeneous category. This issue has been exhaustively dealt with by Rothbard

(Man, Economy, and the State).

 

"Turning now to patents and copyrights, we ask: Which of the two, if either, is consonant with the purely free market, and which is a grant of monopoly privilege by the State?"

 

Rothbard goes on to show that the original meaning of monopoly is a grant of privilege (by the King, or, whoever). A patent falls into this category, as it is an artificial prevention of innovation caused by State fiat. (Please read Rothbard for a better explanation.)

 

Copyright, on the other hand is, partially, what the free market is all about. It is about voluntary contract. If "I" create a book, song, movie, etc., and license a copy to you, "the CONSUMER", with the condition that you are not legally allowed to distribute copies (especially, for profit), it is a voluntary contract, in which "you" have the power of choice: agree, or not.

 

What it boils down to is YOU. If you created a non-innovatable work [a machine (patent) is innovatible, a book, movie, or song (copyright) is not] would you be okay with others using your work, for whatever reason? If you invented a machine (patent), do you truly believe that no one else could have invented it independently?

[Kawlinz]

You do make such an agreement when you purchase a CD/DVD/Book, etc.

If an advert was played on a tv screen in a public place, for example, then you can recreate that advert if you like. But if you enter into an agreement with someone not to recreate whatever you see on screen in the cinema, as a condition of entry, and you do then you are committing fraud. 

I've already said that I agree with this much, if you make an agreement before the purchase not to do certain things with that piece of property, then you're bound by the terms you agreed to.

 

I think the confusion is my not quoting your entire first passage, where you say

 

 

 

2) Copyright is not dependant on the concept of IP (although it may be in our current legal framework). Copyright violation, in a word where IP doesn't exist, is not theft. It IS, however, fraud. 

 

there are two ways copyright violation occurs today. The first is the one where people implicitly or explicitly agree to not make copies or distribute certain materials. This I agree with. The other side of copyright violation is if I haven't made that agreement and I hear a song or see a video outside of any agreement, copyrights say that i can't duplicate or recreate that idea, even when I haven't agreed to any such terms. It's not fraud if you haven't agreed. 

 

You've made the analogy of the car thief, but i don't think it holds up. Lets say you wrote a song. Then you made an agreement with your friend doug that he could enjoy the song you wrote, if he promised/agreed/contracted not to let anyone else hear it. Doug then makes this song heard to me... either he sings along out loud while listening on headphones, or he plays it in his back yard while he's tanning on his patio.

 

I don't see any argument you could make that says "Since doug agreed to not let anyone hear my song in any form, you kawlinz, can not arrange your property in a way I think is too close to the way I've arranged mine." Wheras I can see an argument that says "kawlinz, you can't use that car because it's mine, and someone stole it from me to sell to you. Here's your money back. sorry for the confusion."

[Hannibal]

I've already said that I agree with this much, if you make an agreement before the purchase not to do certain things with that piece of property, then you're bound by the terms you agreed to.

 

I think the confusion is my not quoting your entire first passage, where you say

 

 

 

 

there are two ways copyright violation occurs today. The first is the one where people implicitly or explicitly agree to not make copies or distribute certain materials. This I agree with. The other side of copyright violation is if I haven't made that agreement and I hear a song or see a video outside of any agreement, copyrights say that i can't duplicate or recreate that idea, even when I haven't agreed to any such terms. It's not fraud if you haven't agreed. 

 

You've made the analogy of the car thief, but i don't think it holds up. Lets say you wrote a song. Then you made an agreement with your friend doug that he could enjoy the song you wrote, if he promised/agreed/contracted not to let anyone else hear it. Doug then makes this song heard to me... either he sings along out loud while listening on headphones, or he plays it in his back yard while he's tanning on his patio.

 

I don't see any argument you could make that says "Since doug agreed to not let anyone hear my song in any form, you kawlinz, can not arrange your property in a way I think is too close to the way I've arranged mine." Wheras I can see an argument that says "kawlinz, you can't use that car because it's mine, and someone stole it from me to sell to you. Here's your money back. sorry for the confusion."

 

I think we're in agreement then. Buying a copyrighted artefact, like a CD for example, and copying it is clearly fraudulent. Hearing that CD being played, and then singing it out loud in the park is not. So, for example, an original work of literature, posted as an advert of a billboard on the side of the road could clearly not be protected under copyright, as the people seeing this work have no choice to agree or not to any contract before they get it blasted into their eyes.

 

The car thief was just meant to demonstrate a chain of complicity. The complicity is dependant on a free choice - so if you bought that car not knowing it was stolen, then that's ok. If you hear the music - it;s in your head now. Too late to stop. If, though, you have the cd in your hand, you have the choice to copy it or not.

 

 

I thought i'd already made a similar distinction actually, but scrolling up I can't see one. I always remember banksy (if thats how its spelled) saying that everyone should use trademarked images (eg on billboards) in artwork, because its forced down your throat whether you want it or not.

 

So the point is (and i think we're in agreement after what you said) that CopyRight (albeit in a lightly different form from now) is a valid concept - so all you pirate music downloaders should stop feeling all righteous by not believing in IP!!! 

The problem is that people continue to conflate "patents" and "copyrights" into a homogeneous category. This issue has been exhaustively dealt with by Rothbard

(Man, Economy, and the State).

 

"Turning now to patents and copyrights, we ask: Which of the two, if either, is consonant with the purely free market, and which is a grant of monopoly privilege by the State?"

 

Rothbard goes on to show that the original meaning of monopoly is a grant of privilege (by the King, or, whoever). A patent falls into this category, as it is an artificial prevention of innovation caused by State fiat. (Please read Rothbard for a better explanation.)

 

Copyright, on the other hand is, partially, what the free market is all about. It is about voluntary contract. If "I" create a book, song, movie, etc., and license a copy to you, "the CONSUMER", with the condition that you are not legally allowed to distribute copies (especially, for profit), it is a voluntary contract, in which "you" have the power of choice: agree, or not.

 

What it boils down to is YOU. If you created a non-innovatable work [a machine (patent) is innovatible, a book, movie, or song (copyright) is not] would you be okay with others using your work, for whatever reason? If you invented a machine (patent), do you truly believe that no one else could have invented it independently?

 

Thanks for this - I didn't already know that Rothbard had written about it. That makes me feel better about it, and might help me make the same case more concisely in future.

[Kawlinz]

I think it's just easier to say "fraud is wrong" than to say "copyright is valid", because of the two very different meanings of the word copyright.

[Frosty]

The objection I expect to this is that taking information may result in the loss of some future gain and thus cause harm to its producer. For instance, suppose I make an album and sell it on iTunes. If you pirate my song, I may claim that you have deprived me of a sale and therefore that I have suffered because of your actions. This would seem to contradict the claim that copying information doesn't cause harm. However, I object to this notion.

 

This is where I stand on this issue, I don't see any good way of demonstrating potential future loss of income to any reasonable standard. I also personally consider information to be covered by free speech, speech is a subset of information and so all information can be represented fundamentally in speech.

 

From a practical standpoint, I believe regulating something like the distribution of information is fundamentally impossible, so I'm not sure how important the discussion about IP really is.

 

The upshot for people "harmed" by copyright infringement is really somewhat of a self correcting problem, if there is a genuine demand for some particular type of information that people are willing to pay for then consumers will always pay producers of valuable information, otherwise the producers will disappear and cease to produce that information.

 

Despite information getting easier to copy, faster to copy, more portable and in greater quantities we still see continued growth of information providers, I think this is good evidence the above theory is correct.

[Hannibal]

I think it's just easier to say "fraud is wrong" than to say "copyright is valid", because of the two very different meanings of the word copyright.

 

I'm not sure i'd agree with that. The post is about the validity of the concept of IP, and the implications of that to people who mistake copyright with IP are that no IP means no copyright. This isn't valid.

 

I understand that the legal frameworks we have to mix the two concepts together, but that doesn't mean that it's now morally ok to download pirated music, for example.  Just saying "fraud is wrong" isn't sufficient (to me at least) because the people that mistakenly tie copyright to IP (the point of my original objection) will completely miss the point and feel righteous in engaging in copyright violations because they've failed to see that it is in fact fraudulent to do so.

 

I know it seems like a minor point, but I personally think it;s important. We can't make any convincing argument for the invalidity of IP, and the immorality of enforcing it, while we simultaneously engage in fraudulent activities which we mistakenly feel are legitimised, due to our own lack of understanding of the topic.

This is where I stand on this issue, I don't see any good way of demonstrating potential future loss of income to any reasonable standard. I also personally consider information to be covered by free speech, speech is a subset of information and so all information can be represented fundamentally in speech.

 

From a practical standpoint, I believe regulating something like the distribution of information is fundamentally impossible, so I'm not sure how important the discussion about IP really is.

 

The upshot for people "harmed" by copyright infringement is really somewhat of a self correcting problem, if there is a genuine demand for some particular type of information that people are willing to pay for then consumers will always pay producers of valuable information, otherwise the producers will disappear and cease to produce that information.

 

Despite information getting easier to copy, faster to copy, more portable and in greater quantities we still see continued growth of information providers, I think this is good evidence the above theory is correct.

 

What do you think about the fraud that is occurring when a copyrighted work is copied?

[Guest darkskyabove]

What do you think about the fraud that is occurring when a copyrighted work is copied?

 

I think there is another distinction worth examining: Is there a difference between me copying your "work" and reselling it, versus me copying your "work" for personal use, or to give to another who would never have paid for it?

 

It is obvious to me that "reselling" is theft (fraud). I also see a strong case could be made for copies that are available indiscriminately, such as pirated downloads; this provides an avenue for potential customers to avoid the cost.

 

Where I don't see as strong a case is if I buy your "work" and make a copy (or copies) to give to friends who had no interest in paying for the material; you have not lost income, but have gained notoriety, which may lead to increased revenue in the future.

 

Just thought I'd throw another fly into the web...

[Hannibal]

I think there is another distinction worth examining: Is there a difference between me copying your "work" and reselling it, versus me copying your "work" for personal use, or to give to another who would never have paid for it?

 

It is obvious to me that "reselling" is theft (fraud). I also see a strong case could be made for copies that are available indiscriminately, such as pirated downloads; this provides an avenue for potential customers to avoid the cost.

 

Where I don't see as strong a case is if I buy your "work" and make a copy (or copies) to give to friends who had no interest in paying for the material; you have not lost income, but have gained notoriety, which may lead to increased revenue in the future.

 

Just thought I'd throw another fly into the web...

 

Well it's still a contract violation. Whether it would be worth prosecuting is another matter. I personally think record companies these days are flogging an obsolete business model and should give up prosecuting illegal downloaders, but that's besides the point. 

 

I recently got a spotify subscription and see no need to download music now. Whether it's a decent business model, in terms of profits, or not I don't know.

[Kawlinz]

I'm not sure i'd agree with that. The post is about the validity of the concept of IP, and the implications of that to people who mistake copyright with IP are that no IP means no copyright. This isn't valid.

 

I understand that the legal frameworks we have to mix the two concepts together, but that doesn't mean that it's now morally ok to download pirated music, for example.  Just saying "fraud is wrong" isn't sufficient (to me at least) because the people that mistakenly tie copyright to IP (the point of my original objection) will completely miss the point and feel righteous in engaging in copyright violations because they've failed to see that it is in fact fraudulent to do so.

 

I know it seems like a minor point, but I personally think it;s important. We can't make any convincing argument for the invalidity of IP, and the immorality of enforcing it, while we simultaneously engage in fraudulent activities which we mistakenly feel are legitimised, due to our own lack of understanding of the topic.

 

What do you think about the fraud that is occurring when a copyrighted work is copied?

I don't see the issue with downloading pirated music. I'm not a part of the agreement, so if I download something available online, I'm rearranging my property in a way that's more enjoyable for me. Sure, the person who put it up might be engaging in some sort of fraud, or someone before them, but replicating a concept is not taking property, nor is it engaging in fraud.

 

If someone says they won't make copies of your work, you give them a copy of your work, and they in turn copy it, then you have a fraud issue. I don't see why you need the word copyright to explain the same thing. To me it's like when you ask someone what they mean by "God" and they reply "God is everything"... then we don't need the word God.

 

Maybe for simplicity sake, you could write out a few "rights" (for lack of a better word at the moment) that you think a copyright holder would have. If copyright isn't just a synonym for fraud, what additional properties would a copyright violation have that regular ol' fraud doesn't?

[Frosty]

What do you think about the fraud that is occurring when a copyrighted work is copied?

 

Fraud is inherently linked to deception or misrepresentation, copying alone cannot be fraud.

 

If you were selling someone else's copyright material to others, or representing it as your own original work then fraud would be applicable, however not all copyrighted materials that are copied are done in this context. Morally I do not condone these actions, but would support copying for personal use. Fraud is part of that distinction which makes my world view coherent with regards to copyright.

[Hannibal]

I don't see the issue with downloading pirated music. I'm not a part of the agreement, so if I download something available online, I'm rearranging my property in a way that's more enjoyable for me. Sure, the person who put it up might be engaging in some sort of fraud, or someone before them, but replicating a concept is not taking property, nor is it engaging in fraud.

 

If someone says they won't make copies of your work, you give them a copy of your work, and they in turn copy it, then you have a fraud issue. I don't see why you need the word copyright to explain the same thing. To me it's like when you ask someone what they mean by "God" and they reply "God is everything"... then we don't need the word God.

 

Maybe for simplicity sake, you could write out a few "rights" (for lack of a better word at the moment) that you think a copyright holder would have. If copyright isn't just a synonym for fraud, what additional properties would a copyright violation have that regular ol' fraud doesn't?

 

Without thinking too deeply, the salient point for me is that by copyrighting a work, you are drawing up a contract whereby you agree to sell a product on the condition that the buyer agrees not to copy and redistribute it. It doesn't have to be much more complicated than that. Copyrighting a product is to put it's distribution under a ubiquitous model of contractual obligation. Copyrighting is the contractual agreement, whereas fraud is simply what occurs when someone violates a contact.

 

Now...  if you think that you can download pirated copyrighted music without being complicit in fraud, then how is that any different from saying to your pal "hey, if you break into that lab and steal the secret formula, give me a copy!" ?

 

You're suggesting it's more like someone broke into the lab, stole the secret formula, and dropped a file on their escape through the woods. Then 2 years later you stumble across the file when walking your dog, pick up the papers and think "what's this?  i'll go home see if I can make something with the interesting looking details on this anonymous piece of paper.".

 

Clearly the two aren't the same, and I honestly think that to equate pirate music downloading with the second scenario is intellectual dishonesty from someone who wants to appropriate unearned value.

Fraud is inherently linked to deception or misrepresentation, copying alone cannot be fraud.

 

If you were selling someone else's copyright material to others, or representing it as your own original work then fraud would be applicable, however not all copyrighted materials that are copied are done in this context. Morally I do not condone these actions, but would support copying for personal use. Fraud is part of that distinction which makes my world view coherent with regards to copyright.

 

Is deliberate contract violation, and evasion of any penalties contained within that contract, not a kind of fraud then?

[Kawlinz]

Without thinking too deeply, the salient point for me is that by copyrighting a work, you are drawing up a contract whereby you agree to sell a product on the condition that the buyer agrees not to copy and redistribute it. It doesn't have to be much more complicated than that. Copyrighting a product is to put it's distribution under a ubiquitous model of contractual obligation. Copyrighting is the contractual agreement, whereas fraud is simply what occurs when someone violates a contact.

 

Now...  if you think that you can download pirated copyrighted music without being complicit in fraud, then how is that any different from saying to your pal "hey, if you break into that lab and steal the secret formula, give me a copy!" ?

 

You're suggesting it's more like someone broke into the lab, stole the secret formula, and dropped a file on their escape through the woods. Then 2 years later you stumble across the file when walking your dog, pick up the papers and think "what's this?  i'll go home see if I can make something with the interesting looking details on this anonymous piece of paper.".

 

Clearly the two aren't the same, and I honestly think that to equate pirate music downloading with the second scenario is intellectual dishonesty from someone who wants to appropriate unearned value.

i guess I'm still wondering why bring the word copyright. If copyright is the contractual agreement, and copyright violation is fraud, why not just use the words contractual agreement and fraud? Is there something different between a contractual agreement and a copyright?

 

This is what I'm saying pirating music is like. Imagine if most business owners had secret formulas, and they decided to keep them secret by making millions of copies of these formulas, put them in stores, and sell them to people anonymously. Even if customers agree not to copy them, some do. Time and time again, these business owners see that this model of keeping secrets doesn't work. Can we really say that the business owners have a strong interest in keeping their secret formulas secret? Even if they choose models that are proven not to work, and allow anonymous "contracts"?

 

So why is every musician contracting with people who will violate their agreements? Musicians can't say with a straight face that they don't want their music pirated, and at the same time contract with millions of people on an anonymous basis.

[Hannibal]

i guess I'm still wondering why bring the word copyright. If copyright is the contractual agreement, and copyright violation is fraud, why not just use the words contractual agreement and fraud? Is there something different between a contractual agreement and a copyright?

 

I'm not especially concerned if you don't like the word copyright. It's not particularly important, although there is an enormous number of seemingly redundant words in the english language, which actually illustrate subtleties depending on which redundant word is chosen. Copyright, assuming a tweak to it's legal definition, seems like a perfectly good word to me to describe the idea that a person has contractual rights over the copying/distribution of a work. "Contractual agreement" is unnecessarily vague. 

 

 

This is what I'm saying pirating music is like. Imagine if most business owners had secret formulas, and they decided to keep them secret by making millions of copies of these formulas, put them in stores, and sell them to people anonymously. Even if customers agree not to copy them, some do. Time and time again, these business owners see that this model of keeping secrets doesn't work. Can we really say that the business owners have a strong interest in keeping their secret formulas secret? Even if they choose models that are proven not to work, and allow anonymous "contracts"?

 

So why is every musician contracting with people who will violate their agreements? Musicians can't say with a straight face that they don't want their music pirated, and at the same time contract with millions of people on an anonymous basis.

 

It sounds like you're not interested in principle, and are reverting to pragmatics to justify a lack of moral integrity in pirate downloaders. Nothing you've said there addresses whether downloading is complicity in fraud. Saying "oh, the musician probably wants me to violate our contract because i read somewhere that this other musician does" isn't really a justification, is it?

 

How is going to the pirate bay and downloading known-to-be copyrighted music any different to your pal Bob breaking into the lab, taking photos of the secret formulas, and giving copies of the photos to you?  By your own logic you should be entirely free to make use of those 'stolen'/copied formulae. 

[Kawlinz]

I'm not especially concerned if you don't like the word copyright. It's not particularly important, although there is an enormous number of seemingly redundant words in the english language, which actually illustrate subtleties depending on which redundant word is chosen. Copyright, assuming a tweak to it's legal definition, seems like a perfectly good word to me to describe the idea that a person has contractual rights over the copying/distribution of a work. "Contractual agreement" is unnecessarily vague. 

 

 

It sounds like you're not interested in principle, and are reverting to pragmatics to justify a lack of moral integrity in pirate downloaders. Nothing you've said there addresses whether downloading is complicity in fraud. Saying "oh, the musician probably wants me to violate our contract because i read somewhere that this other musician does" isn't really a justification, is it?

 

How is going to the pirate bay and downloading known-to-be copyrighted music any different to your pal Bob breaking into the lab, taking photos of the secret formulas, and giving copies of the photos to you?  By your own logic you should be entirely free to make use of those 'stolen'/copied formulae. 

I'm not reverting to pragmatics. How is the download complicit in fraud?

 

It's different, because in one case, someone's securing their secrets in a lab, and the other is letting 2 million people look at their secrets anonymously for a fee and crying fowl when the 3rd million people learn those secrets without paying.

 

I didn't say the musician wants me to pirate, I say they can't say they don't want people to pirate it with a straight face if they use the exact same model that every other pirated album has used. It's been proven not to be effective at keeping their documents out of the hands of people who don't pay for them.

 

If I have a secret fetish that I don't want my wife to know about, but I tell her best friend sally who gossips when she drinks, and she drinks a lot, even if sally agrees to not tell anyone, how justified could I be in my anger when sally tells my wife? When sally's blabbered my last 5 secrets? Even if my wife asks sally if i'm hiding any secrets, it's up to sally to tell her. My wife wouldn't be complicit in fraud simply for asking about any information, because she's not the one who made an agreement with me. It would just be an excuse for me to be mad at someone for MY mistake. I can't tell sally secrets without her blabbering, and I can't contract with millions of anonymous people and blame them when my album gets pirated. 

 

I don't have a contract with any musician. I am a musician. I've looked over the issue. When I release my first album, the title would probably shock you as to how much I believe in what I'm saying to you right now. And no, I can't tell you the name of the album, because of how much I believe in what I'm saying. That is, If I truly want something to be a secret, I can't tell a single fucking soul.

[Hannibal]

I'm not reverting to pragmatics. How is the download complicit in fraud?

 

It's different, because in one case, someone's securing their secrets in a lab, and the other is letting 2 million people look at their secrets anonymously for a fee and crying fowl when the 3rd million people learn those secrets without paying.

 

I didn't say the musician wants me to pirate, I say they can't say they don't want people to pirate it with a straight face if they use the exact same model that every other pirated album has used. It's been proven not to be effective at keeping their documents out of the hands of people who don't pay for them.

 

If I have a secret fetish that I don't want my wife to know about, but I tell her best friend sally who gossips when she drinks, and she drinks a lot, even if sally agrees to not tell anyone, how justified could I be in my anger when sally tells my wife? When sally's blabbered my last 5 secrets? Even if my wife asks sally if i'm hiding any secrets, it's up to sally to tell her. My wife wouldn't be complicit in fraud simply for asking about any information, because she's not the one who made an agreement with me. It would just be an excuse for me to be mad at someone for MY mistake. I can't tell sally secrets without her blabbering, and I can't contract with millions of anonymous people and blame them when my album gets pirated. 

 

I don't have a contract with any musician. I am a musician. I've looked over the issue. When I release my first album, the title would probably shock you as to how much I believe in what I'm saying to you right now. And no, I can't tell you the name of the album, because of how much I believe in what I'm saying. That is, If I truly want something to be a secret, I can't tell a single fucking soul.

 

If you can't see how it's complicity in fraud, then I have nothing else to talk about. It should be clear as day, and if its not clear to you then I can only assume that it;s because you don't want to see the truth. Perhaps it's inconvenient for you; I don't know. 

[Kawlinz]

Then my wife is complicit in fraud for asking those questions, yeah?

[SnowDog]

Property should have nothing to do with scarcity. It should be designed to protect the product of labor. If someone spends three years working on a movie, say, then that person should be able to decide how and when that movie is distributed and seen. That's the point. This whole idea that property is related to scarcity is just Kinsella's nonsense. We can see this by exaggerating the point. If scarcity is the basis for property, the someone should be able to claim the Moon. Afterall, it's scarce. But no, the point is to protect someone's labor. He can then claim the use of unowned resources he needs to work, and he can use the product of his labor, which is property, to trade for other property. People should not be able to claim vast amounts of unowned land, or any other resource, as property. The fact that the entire world has already been claimed when only a small amount of it is used, is just an inconvenient truth. 

[NoTreason]

Scarcity is not the basis for property. rivalrous is.

 

If you make a movie, what is the rivalrous property, the idea or the cd's it's printed on?

 

If i make a movie with the same plot, the same script written on my own paper, the same actors hired and paid be me, the same equipment purchased or rented by me, and printed to dvd's that i owned...what property has been stolen? you still have your paper with the script on it, your money, your equipment, and your dvd's.

 

The plot is not a rivalrous because two people can both use the same idea that the same exact time without infrining on the others ability to use it.

 

The IP dispute is never over the idea though, it's always over rivalrous property. You claim that youhave an individual right to control the use of my property (cameras, money, and paper with the script on it) and ultimately to control my body to prevent me from doing something. You're claiming the right to control my body and property.

Scarcity is not the basis for property. rivalrous is.

 

If you make a movie, what is the rivalrous property, the idea or the cd's it's printed on?

 

If i make a movie with the same plot, the same script written on my own paper, the same actors hired and paid be me, the same equipment purchased or rented by me, and printed to dvd's that i owned...what property has been stolen? you still have your paper with the script on it, your money, your equipment, and your dvd's.

 

The plot is not a rivalrous because two people can both use the same idea that the same exact time without infrining on the others ability to use it.

 

The IP dispute is never over the idea though, it's always over rivalrous property. You claim that youhave an individual right to control the use of my property (cameras, money, and paper with the script on it) and ultimately to control my body to prevent me from doing something. You're claiming the right to control my body and property.

Labor is also not property.