Why intellectual property is such a confusing concept

[Louigi Verona]

Yeah. Influencing kids is a strong move on their part and it can create confusion in minds of whole generations. It really is very similar to Soviet propaganda in schools during USSR.

The funny thing is is that several days ago I went to UK and, bringing along my laptop, thought - in Russia I feel totally free in terms of information and all that kind of stuff. In the UK I am not sure. I mean, a policeman may have the right, I dunno, to ask me to show him my laptop to check for "illegal" content.
I mean, for a Russian person, after the 70 years of USSR all the western world was typically associated with progress and freedom. Today, however, the stereotype is just a stereotype. Those 70 years of oppression and putting the whole country into underground culture mode have made it literally impossible to impose copyright restricting laws on the Russian society today.
In the western world, however, the restrictions on freedom are now more than serious. In fact, I wouldn't want to go to USA today at all - or else I'll go without my laptop and why would I want to do that =)))

[uncloned]

definitely if you travel to the USA do not bring your laptop.

For a couple years or so computers have been seized to be searched for "kidde porn + terrorism" and never returned - that caused a stink so there is a move now to "image" the hard drive and impound the computer for a few days - even the computers of returning US citizens.

the "land of the free" has become the "prison of the "safe""

[Louigi Verona]

At TorrentFreak we had a very interesting discussion. Those of you who are interested in copyright problematic, do read up - lots of people made really good arguments. I personally found a lot of interesting points on both sides.

http://torrentfreak.com/french-opposition-to-challenge-3-strikes-in-court-090923/

[Louigi Verona]

The guy there - Mystik - says:

"they have created a generation of people who are marked by an almost total refusal to pay for any content."

If you follow how Reasoned Mind person speaks and other several people too, I can see that the shift went towards selling music.

'Selling music' in my opinion is a bad term because it implies that music itself can have a set price. But art is subjective and basically priceless and nobody ever tries to place price on music itself - all such attempts are pathetic and people do not react well to buying "content".

In reality, the record "industry" is selling discs - material carriers with copies of music. And in the Internet they are now trying to place a price on music itself, which really is impossible.

[uncloned]

another good article about the lunacy of copyright

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars


This article tracks 100 years of fear mongering.

[uncloned]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm


"An assistant at a grocery store in Clackmannanshire, Scotland, was ordered by the Performing Right Society (PRS) to obtain a performer's license and to pay royalties because she was informally singing popular songs while stocking groceries. The PRS later backed down and apologized. This after the same store had turned off the radio after a warning from the PRS. We have entered an era where music is no longer an art for all to enjoy, but rather a form of private property that must be regulated and taxed like alcohol. "Music to the ears" has become 'dollars in the bank'."

[Sam_Zen]

As long as money is involded in all its ridiculous forms, I'm fed up taking part in a discussion about intellectual property.

[uncloned]

my fond hope is that the machinery will crash and places like modplug will be where music is found by most.

actions like this certainly do not help their case. it seems the industry in the UK is even worse that the RIAA - which is hard to believe.

[PabloLuna]

I see that IP is becoming more about ownership of content, not ownership of creative work.

For example, I say that I have the rights over the word "music", so you can't talk about music without paying me.  For example, if you want to make a movie called "Boomerang" you can't do it.  It is already registered.

If John Doe composed The Ultimate Soundtrack, since the company that hired him paid for it, the company has the rights.  Why is Doe not the owner of his own creation?  Is a payment enough to deny him his rights to dispose of his own work?

Scarsity of ideas... IP is great to make peopleowners of ideas, so scarsity will come when all ideas are owned and you have little chance to own one.

The good thing about being fined, arrested and convicted for "misusing" RIAA music, is that it makes non commercial free music more attractive.

[Sam_Zen]

Right on.

[uncloned]

I see that IP is becoming more about ownership of content, not ownership of creative work.

The good thing about being fined, arrested and convicted for "misusing" RIAA music, is that it makes non commercial free music more attractive.

Amen.

A pictorial representation of the RIAA and other such entities

[PabloLuna]

You may like to read this on file sharing and music consumption

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8337887.stm

[Louigi Verona]

First of all, "music consumption" is a propaganda term which should not be used. Music is not a sandwich to be consumed. Listening to music is much more than mere "consumption". It also assumes that the public can be divided into "producers" and "consumers". It makes it seem that there are several gifted musicians who benefit the rest and condescendingly deliver music to the cattle. All of this is ridiculous and far from truth. When a musician performs to any random audience of 100, chances are a third of them are involved into music in one way or another.

And finally, any argument that tries to show that file sharing in fact brings money to the publishers misses the point since it silently assumes that the profit of publishers is any important at all in the question of our freedom. The freedom to share information non-commercially is essential. And even if publishers weren't making money - I do not think it would be of any importance.

And actually, I would seriously question that information. It says that people who unlawfully download spend more money on music than those who don't. While the correlation here itself is questionable, I would go even further and question the conclusion itself. I, for one, do not buy copies of music anymore. I do not see a reason to buy cds - I have no place to store them and they also let you down while files don't. Last time I bought a cd was a year ago. I bought a classical music cd and later had to download different performance of the compositions anyway cause I did not like what was on that cd. So what free (as in freedom) access of information results in - I do not buy cds and do not plan to.
As for DVDs - I try not to buy them at all since most of them stop working within a year, especially the official ones - pirate copies usually last longer.

So I think this article misses the point.

[PabloLuna]

Tell a kid not to do something and he might try to do it.

From what i have seen in kids is that for them downloading is not immoral, it is just illegal sometimes.

For them it is not stealing, just copying.  Stealing implies removal of custody.

[PabloLuna]

First of all, "music consumption" is a propaganda term which should not be used. Music is not a sandwich to be consumed.

When I eat my music, it stops existing, so I need to buy more from my player...  :lol:

On a side note, there is controversy about Xbox ban.

Xbox console ban is 'permanent'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8356621.stm

Xbox ban: Gamers speak out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8355840.stm