Good!
Your a nut!
BEL: The record industry Gets Theirs 08-04-2003
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Your a nut!
I'd like to thank Knight for offing a better argument than I had seen before on this subject. It has forced me to re-think the way I present the argument. Anytime you get someone to change because of what you say in a debate, you know you are doing well.
Since I allowed my emotions to get in the way, and since I haven't been consistent with the direction of the debate, I'd like to recap and clarify the major points.
----------------------------------------------------
The first subject we are contending with is what the nature is of the music in question. Is the music a copy, like a physical copy of something (i.e., any physical copy cannot also be the original), or is the copied music not a copy, but the original/actual music?
Notice that when one puts a song on a CD (whether it is legal or illegal) they "burn a copy". We don't "burn another one of the original that isn't a real copy" because human brains don't think that way. So there must be more to the situation if one can even claim to say that a copy is not really a copy, as in "duplicate", but is a copy as in "the original again".
So don't be surprised if one makes the "another original" claim that there are people that "don't get it", say "it doesn't make sense", or "don't see the obvious". If one wants to say a copy is the original, they will have to support the assertion. Because to claim "a copy is a duplicate" does not need to be explained, but to say "a copy is not really a copy" needs to be supported since it is not intuitive.
----------------------------------------------------
The next subject we are contending with is quantifying the loss of what is claimed stolen. The simple claim is that every copy-er that successfully gives a copy-ee a copy owes the artist the retail price of the CD.
Why? When someone makes a copy they do not take money, time nor media from the artist to make a copy. This can be proven by back-up copies. Or media-shifting copies. In these cases the entire cost of the copy is borne by copy-er. The artist has lost nothing. All bank accounts involved with the creation and publishing of the CD are still intact. None of the money paid to the people who produced the CD ended up in the pockets of the copy-er. No equipment comes up missing. And nothing was done illegal, either (remember I'm talking about backups or media shifting).
But suddenly something is missing if that backup copy is given to a friend? Don't be surprised if not everyone thinks this makes sense. The intuitive view is that nothing was stolen, so nothing needs to be restored.
----------------------------------------------------
Although we haven't progressed this far, another area of contention will be with contracts. Copyright defenders claim that everyone who buys a copy of a CD has entered a contract with the publisher not to distribute the CD. The simple problem with this is that the contract in consideration is implied, not expressed. Implied contracts are used, in fact, almost exclusively in copyright/patent situations. The reason implied contracts are not used in business is because implied contracts are extremely weak. The reason they can be used in copyright situations, and not anywhere else effectively, is because the courts are without justice. If the very simple ways around implied contracts were justly upheld, then copyright by implication would effectively be defunct. This does not mean that expressed contracts could not be used. They could, and effectively.
It is up to the person who implies the contract to prove that the contract was broken. In this case, the publisher is the one implying the contract. If a CD starts to get distributed outside of the channels directed by the publisher, the onus is on the publisher to track down the source of the copies, and prove… what? Must the publisher prove that the copy-er is making copies? No. In a just system where contracts are defended the way God would want them defended, the publisher must prove the copy-er agreed to the contract, and then broke the agreement.
----------------------------------------------------
Our next stop on the road of copyright contention will be the nature of property. Why do we think ideas are property? If I say my duck is a dog, I can point to all the similarities among animals to try to prove my point. But there are differences between ducks and dogs that are so vast, that those differences must first be justified before we can all agree that my duck is a dog. It is the same with ideas. Before you can say that ideas are property, you must first justify the vast differences between the nature of ideas and the nature of physical property.
Perhaps I should start a new thread that only discusses the questions: "If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are?"
Or doesn't anyone think that God has a reason for making property laws the way He did?
Since I allowed my emotions to get in the way, and since I haven't been consistent with the direction of the debate, I'd like to recap and clarify the major points.
----------------------------------------------------
The first subject we are contending with is what the nature is of the music in question. Is the music a copy, like a physical copy of something (i.e., any physical copy cannot also be the original), or is the copied music not a copy, but the original/actual music?
Notice that when one puts a song on a CD (whether it is legal or illegal) they "burn a copy". We don't "burn another one of the original that isn't a real copy" because human brains don't think that way. So there must be more to the situation if one can even claim to say that a copy is not really a copy, as in "duplicate", but is a copy as in "the original again".
So don't be surprised if one makes the "another original" claim that there are people that "don't get it", say "it doesn't make sense", or "don't see the obvious". If one wants to say a copy is the original, they will have to support the assertion. Because to claim "a copy is a duplicate" does not need to be explained, but to say "a copy is not really a copy" needs to be supported since it is not intuitive.
----------------------------------------------------
The next subject we are contending with is quantifying the loss of what is claimed stolen. The simple claim is that every copy-er that successfully gives a copy-ee a copy owes the artist the retail price of the CD.
Why? When someone makes a copy they do not take money, time nor media from the artist to make a copy. This can be proven by back-up copies. Or media-shifting copies. In these cases the entire cost of the copy is borne by copy-er. The artist has lost nothing. All bank accounts involved with the creation and publishing of the CD are still intact. None of the money paid to the people who produced the CD ended up in the pockets of the copy-er. No equipment comes up missing. And nothing was done illegal, either (remember I'm talking about backups or media shifting).
But suddenly something is missing if that backup copy is given to a friend? Don't be surprised if not everyone thinks this makes sense. The intuitive view is that nothing was stolen, so nothing needs to be restored.
----------------------------------------------------
Although we haven't progressed this far, another area of contention will be with contracts. Copyright defenders claim that everyone who buys a copy of a CD has entered a contract with the publisher not to distribute the CD. The simple problem with this is that the contract in consideration is implied, not expressed. Implied contracts are used, in fact, almost exclusively in copyright/patent situations. The reason implied contracts are not used in business is because implied contracts are extremely weak. The reason they can be used in copyright situations, and not anywhere else effectively, is because the courts are without justice. If the very simple ways around implied contracts were justly upheld, then copyright by implication would effectively be defunct. This does not mean that expressed contracts could not be used. They could, and effectively.
It is up to the person who implies the contract to prove that the contract was broken. In this case, the publisher is the one implying the contract. If a CD starts to get distributed outside of the channels directed by the publisher, the onus is on the publisher to track down the source of the copies, and prove… what? Must the publisher prove that the copy-er is making copies? No. In a just system where contracts are defended the way God would want them defended, the publisher must prove the copy-er agreed to the contract, and then broke the agreement.
----------------------------------------------------
Our next stop on the road of copyright contention will be the nature of property. Why do we think ideas are property? If I say my duck is a dog, I can point to all the similarities among animals to try to prove my point. But there are differences between ducks and dogs that are so vast, that those differences must first be justified before we can all agree that my duck is a dog. It is the same with ideas. Before you can say that ideas are property, you must first justify the vast differences between the nature of ideas and the nature of physical property.
Perhaps I should start a new thread that only discusses the questions: "If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are?"
Or doesn't anyone think that God has a reason for making property laws the way He did?
Last edited:
Gads man, you aren't barging, your welcome.
It took me some time to give up my comfortable view of copyright and force myself to believe what is right.
Yeah.
Your sentence structure is a little confusing for me. If I rephrase the end of the sentence "and selling them as if they were the copies that I sold them.", it's the same, right?
Okay, we are acting as if a good justice system is in place, and we are working with good laws. If you have an expressed contract with the reseller that every copy they buy they must not copy, and every copy must stay in their control (in perpetuity or until you say otherwise) so as not be copied by anyone else without a contract of the same. Yeah, then get them for breaking the contract. Be sure to spell out the costs of violating the contract. For instance - they copy your CD in breach of contract and give it away without any mention of a contract, and one of the "given away" CD's ends up on the internet as a popular download. You must spell out the terms of restitution so they know what they are getting into. It will be a standard contract after all.
If you made no expressed contract, then no, you have no legal recourse. Why would you think you had control over the property of someone else? If they buy the CD's - they own them now, not you.
If "the Mozart of Clip Art" (hey, that sounds like a good advertising catch line!) happens to glance at a screen where someone is perusing your CD, and they make a copy of the work from memory much like Mozart could copy a symphony by hearing it, there again, you have no legal recourse even with the expressed contract.
What, you think I'm saying you should leave your doors unlocked? If you want to protect your CD's, then lock the door. If you want to protect the ideas on the CD's, don't let them out of your control without an expressed contract.
We will eventually get to the point of the following issue if this conversation progresses: If you find the cost of controlling the ideas becomes greater than the return for those ideas under your controlled conditions, you will find a more efficient way of exploiting those ideas for money.
novice
Who is the stooge now?
Yorzhik, thank you for your response.
And please correct me if anything I state misrepresents your position but it seems to me that you are stating that if I have a contract that would indeed protect my digital material, and thats good to hear - I agree!
However (under your view), if a contract is not in place then my content has no protection and could be copied and resold without protection.
Therefore, wouldn't it behoove my resellers to NOT sign a contract with me?
After all, if they sign a contract with me they are bound to that contract, yet if they do not sign a contract with me they would be free to copy my material and use it for their own benefit.
It seems to me your view would pretty much spell then end of any contracts.
And please correct me if anything I state misrepresents your position but it seems to me that you are stating that if I have a contract that would indeed protect my digital material, and thats good to hear - I agree!
However (under your view), if a contract is not in place then my content has no protection and could be copied and resold without protection.
Therefore, wouldn't it behoove my resellers to NOT sign a contract with me?
After all, if they sign a contract with me they are bound to that contract, yet if they do not sign a contract with me they would be free to copy my material and use it for their own benefit.
It seems to me your view would pretty much spell then end of any contracts.
This would be just like any business deal. If I give you a product out of the blue with no prior contact. Then I send an invoice charging you for the product I sent that you didn't ask for. I have no protection under the law. I cannot go to court and sue for the money you owe me - because there was no contract. There was no verbal or written contract, no Purchase Order (which is nothing but a purchase contract). It's the same…
Not always. Maybe they want your stuff. If they want it bad enough, then they will sign a contract.
Whoa there Nelly. They cannot make a copy if they don't have something to copy from. Look - if they don't sign a contract, then don't sell them the CD's.
Perhaps you can come up with an example? I don't quite understand why you think that requiring contracts would spell the end of contracts.
novice
Who is the stooge now?
Yorzhik, are you actually suggesting that I sign a contract with everyone that buys my CD's????
Don't you realize that would be a bit unreasonable? I would never sell another CD!
I can't sign a contract with every customer! Therefore I place my little copyright on every CD and on every page of my catalog similar to what the record industry does. I also put a similar disclaimer about end users not having the right to redistribute my digital content without agreement.
So why is you think that end users have the right to disregard that copyright?
Don't you realize that would be a bit unreasonable? I would never sell another CD!
I can't sign a contract with every customer! Therefore I place my little copyright on every CD and on every page of my catalog similar to what the record industry does. I also put a similar disclaimer about end users not having the right to redistribute my digital content without agreement.
So why is you think that end users have the right to disregard that copyright?
I'm more than a little surprised that the only attempt to answer this question was a complete punt. Does God just make up laws for no reason? Is He just an arbitrary force floating through our existence pushing us to act on whatever whim happens to be in the wind or suffer the "natural" consequences?
FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION (it's all one question really - answer 1 and you've answered them all):
If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are?
---------------------------------------
You mean like every other business in the world? How could I suggest something so wild, so anarchistic, so crazy!?! Welcome to real life. I'm in retail sales and purchasing. I don't sell anything without a contract, I can't buy anything without a contract. I can't do anything in business without a contract. Just because you might do business with *ideas*, what makes you so special? Please note, when dealing with physical things, contracts are much easier to handle because things can only be in one place at any one time.
Don't forget; you've never seen an economy where good laws were in place, and the Justice System was just. That is where I'm actually suggesting you sign a contract with everyone that buys your CD's. It would be suicidal in the current economy/justice system.
Are you sure? Consider: the first state enforced patent laws were made somewhere in the 1400's. Copyright laws came after that. You'd think they would have come in the 1500's or so when the press (the machine, not the newspaper industry) was relatively ubiquitous. It did, kind of, when the Printer's Guild in London received exclusive right to all printed works. You had to license a copy of anything you wanted to print with them. So it was a "copyright for a single publisher" that had nothing to do with what the author might want. The real copyright law was first enacted in the early 1700's, similar to what we have today. This was England, and it appears the rest of the world didn't have copyright laws until after England took the lead.
The idea of copyright embedded in the law(and it was invented, not discovered) is almost brand new. Why did anyone publish anything before this recent invention of copyright? Did no one make a living as an artist? I'll leave you to research that.
BTW, although it is only an argument from silence, the reason sighted in the first copyright law was that authors were being ruined by people who would today be called pirates. However, no example was ever sighted. This doesn't mean much until we get to the internet age, where we can actively look for a "ruined" artist that could have been compensated for their work if only pirates hadn't stolen all their customers. Really, look for one. You won't find any. In fact, when the artist encourages copyright violations, it seems (if they have any branding power at all) to make no difference to sales.
Neither can I. Many of the contracts I deal with in business (retail sales and purchasing) are "handshake" contracts (verbal contracts, if you will). Although when one agrees to the kinds of liability you sight, I'm sure you would want a contract signed. The point to be made is that you can go back to the person you made a contract with who broke it and prove they agreed to a contract - and then broke it.
Sure. You, me, everyone who would publish rely on the copyright system. It's the only system we have. We all rely on the injustice of our system.
If you are taken to court, do you rely on lawyers (assuming you want to win)? Should our Justice System, if it were right, need lawyers?
I don't. Not unless they want to risk getting caught and punished. Personally, I think the risk is too great for the return.
Do you think tax laws are right? Do you support the 50% tax rate? Do you pay taxes? I do.
Just because a law is enacted doesn't make it right.
FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION (it's all one question really - answer 1 and you've answered them all):
If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are?
---------------------------------------
You mean like every other business in the world? How could I suggest something so wild, so anarchistic, so crazy!?! Welcome to real life. I'm in retail sales and purchasing. I don't sell anything without a contract, I can't buy anything without a contract. I can't do anything in business without a contract. Just because you might do business with *ideas*, what makes you so special? Please note, when dealing with physical things, contracts are much easier to handle because things can only be in one place at any one time.
Don't forget; you've never seen an economy where good laws were in place, and the Justice System was just. That is where I'm actually suggesting you sign a contract with everyone that buys your CD's. It would be suicidal in the current economy/justice system.
Are you sure? Consider: the first state enforced patent laws were made somewhere in the 1400's. Copyright laws came after that. You'd think they would have come in the 1500's or so when the press (the machine, not the newspaper industry) was relatively ubiquitous. It did, kind of, when the Printer's Guild in London received exclusive right to all printed works. You had to license a copy of anything you wanted to print with them. So it was a "copyright for a single publisher" that had nothing to do with what the author might want. The real copyright law was first enacted in the early 1700's, similar to what we have today. This was England, and it appears the rest of the world didn't have copyright laws until after England took the lead.
The idea of copyright embedded in the law(and it was invented, not discovered) is almost brand new. Why did anyone publish anything before this recent invention of copyright? Did no one make a living as an artist? I'll leave you to research that.
BTW, although it is only an argument from silence, the reason sighted in the first copyright law was that authors were being ruined by people who would today be called pirates. However, no example was ever sighted. This doesn't mean much until we get to the internet age, where we can actively look for a "ruined" artist that could have been compensated for their work if only pirates hadn't stolen all their customers. Really, look for one. You won't find any. In fact, when the artist encourages copyright violations, it seems (if they have any branding power at all) to make no difference to sales.
Neither can I. Many of the contracts I deal with in business (retail sales and purchasing) are "handshake" contracts (verbal contracts, if you will). Although when one agrees to the kinds of liability you sight, I'm sure you would want a contract signed. The point to be made is that you can go back to the person you made a contract with who broke it and prove they agreed to a contract - and then broke it.
Sure. You, me, everyone who would publish rely on the copyright system. It's the only system we have. We all rely on the injustice of our system.
If you are taken to court, do you rely on lawyers (assuming you want to win)? Should our Justice System, if it were right, need lawyers?
I don't. Not unless they want to risk getting caught and punished. Personally, I think the risk is too great for the return.
Do you think tax laws are right? Do you support the 50% tax rate? Do you pay taxes? I do.
Just because a law is enacted doesn't make it right.
Last edited:
Copies
Copies
Chances are none of you have ever read a Bible. You've read a COPY of the Bible, at best, and that is not the same thing!!
:kookoo:
Copies
Chances are none of you have ever read a Bible. You've read a COPY of the Bible, at best, and that is not the same thing!!
:kookoo:
ShadowMaid
New member
Jason. Okay, if you say so...
Anything else?
Anything else?
Again... a digital copy of a song IS the song! Its not a knock off, its not even a covered version by another artist - ITS AN ACTUAL COPY! In this case the copy IS the product!
And this is exactly why the information cannot be property. It is unlimited in it's reproducibility. Intellectual property proponents are trying to own something for which ownership is against it's nature. Information is not property.
And this is exactly why the information cannot be property. It is unlimited in it's reproducibility. Intellectual property proponents are trying to own something for which ownership is against it's nature. Information is not property.
And there is another take on this as well. Copyright is an anathema to property rights. If one owns a printing press, one cannot do with it as they please because anything you actually own (a book you bought), you may not own. And trying to find the owners may be nearly impossible.
We see this in the movie industry. Many old films can be archived, but the copyright holders on some of these old films are not all accounted for. So people that archive film won’t touch them for fear that a copyright holder will appear and sue. A number of old films can be lost forever. It will always be the nature of copyright.
Since intellectual property exists in the ether, there is no safe place to put it so you can keep track of it. Sure, we know who owns the film itself, but that guy hasn’t a clue as to where or who the film’s owners are.
So the printing press and the archiving equipment owned by one are controlled by someone else. Copyrights trample property rights every time.
We see this in the movie industry. Many old films can be archived, but the copyright holders on some of these old films are not all accounted for. So people that archive film won’t touch them for fear that a copyright holder will appear and sue. A number of old films can be lost forever. It will always be the nature of copyright.
Since intellectual property exists in the ether, there is no safe place to put it so you can keep track of it. Sure, we know who owns the film itself, but that guy hasn’t a clue as to where or who the film’s owners are.
So the printing press and the archiving equipment owned by one are controlled by someone else. Copyrights trample property rights every time.
shilohproject
New member
Then own the press and write your own stuff.:doh:
Last edited:
shilohproject
New member
You work for years on a book and have someone tell you that it's not yours...This is the most bizarre thread ever. Absolutely nuts.:kookoo:
- Status