Why intellectual property is such a confusing concept

[uncloned]

this would seemed to fit in here

anyone else seen this article?

Record Labels Face $6 Billion Damages for Pirating Artists


http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-face-60-billion-damages-for-pirating-artists-091207/

While the major record labels were dragging file-sharers and BitTorrent sites to court for copyright infringement, they were themselves being sued by a conglomerate of artists for exactly the same offenses. Warner, Sony BMG, EMI and Universal face up to $6 billion in damages for pirating a massive 300,000 tracks.

[Louigi Verona]

Yep. I am also reading TF (you can even see me commenting there from time to time).

But I also found a very in-depth site with lots of very good articles on IP. Including this news, actually. But specifically, this article:
http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000001957

[PabloLuna]

The perfect dictator would copyright all dissident material and the sue and sent dissidents to jail, and he could make money after collecting fines from dissidents too. After all dissidents may not want to reveal their identity as they would fear retaliation, so dictator could copyright them and use Yahoo services to hunt down dissidents as criminals.

Here an article about the prices to hunt down dissidents.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices

It seems that morality is a factor that is usually mentioned when talking about IP.  Let's see the current status of ethics...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B74AI20091208
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8363599.stm

[Louigi Verona]

This is a VERY substantial talk on IP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZgLJkj6m0A

[kit beats]

Do you mean the ''making music'' part or?

I can need some master help............

[PPH]

The guy who gave it is Stephan Kinsella, the author of the work I recommended the other day in another thread.

[Louigi Verona]

Yep, I am gonna be reading his work and a couple of other major works which are recommended at those sites.

After listening to this and having the understanding of IP which I have, I went to a book shop and decided to see what is there on IP. Well, what do you know - I stumbled upon a text book which actually critisized IP and showed how companies and governments misunderstand it and misuse it.
But there were also other books, which made me shiver - where in strict tones IP was pronounced to be the most important of the human rights and all the punishments you get and all the laws that support this and how this will not be tolerated and what laws are planned to be taken to fight "piracy" and make sure "nobody steals other people's hard work". And this is the official position, where they don't care about whether it's right or wrong - they care only about enforcement.



Btw, I do not agree with Kinsella's position on GNU GPL.

[PabloLuna]

Yep, I am gonna be reading his work and a couple of other major works which are recommended at those sites.

After listening to this and having the understanding of IP which I have, I went to a book shop and decided to see what is there on IP. Well, what do you know - I stumbled upon a text book which actually critisized IP and showed how companies and governments misunderstand it and misuse it.
But there were also other books, which made me shiver - where in strict tones IP was pronounced to be the most important of the human rights and all the punishments you get and all the laws that support this and how this will not be tolerated and what laws are planned to be taken to fight "piracy" and make sure "nobody steals other people's hard work". And this is the official position, where they don't care about whether it's right or wrong - they care only about enforcement.

Btw, I do not agree with Kinsella's position on GNU GPL.

As I see it, what should not be stolen is the credit for authorship.
Anything else is not theft.

Musicians can play live.  No one can replace them.
There are record companies that allow cheap downloading.

Piracy has 3 elements involved:
-Price
-Features
-Availability
-Uniqueness

Price: If you have a very expensive product, it creates an incentive to duplicate it.
Features: People do not like to pay too much for crap.
Availability:  Companies do not use to reach their customers.  Pirates cover that gap.
Uniqueness: All downloads are the same.  If it does not come with a useful service that gives you some uniqueness, there is an incentive to pirate.

I discovered that when a software I made for sale at university, was pirated.  It was indeed my fault.

[Louigi Verona]

Piracy is an industrial term. With the come of the copying technology piracy is generally non-existent in the digital world. File sharing is not piracy and at this moment in time and state of technology file sharing cannot be stopped by price control, since most files are available for no cost at all.

And not allowing distribution of software that is publicly released is generally unethical and is a wrong on part of the developer.

[uncloned]

and thus - their strategy is to throttle the internet user - preferably by making your internet service provider a policeman because it doesn't cost them anything.

[Louigi Verona]

Yep. Let's see where it leads. Read latest TF? BREIN wants to control what people say now.

[bvanoudtshoorn]

The problem with condoning piracy is that it has a very real impact on the people who develop the material you are pirating. Yes, the record labels are evil, and take far more than their fair share. Yes, a lot of software costs more than it needs to. However, as both a musician and a software developer, I am acutely aware of the fact that were people to start pirating the software we develop wholesale, the company I work for would go under.

Now I do believe that software companies can offer more than just the boxed product -- the company I work for sells the product once, and support on a yearly basis to the clients. This is a very sound, well-proven model; some people/companies run a very profitable business by giving the software away and selling their support.

When it comes to music software, though, this model generally doesn't fit. I recently bought Komplete, and I can't really see any need for support. I don't make enough money from my music to cover the costs of the purchases I've made for it (I've spent probably around $2200 so far, and I've only made around $200 from independent sales, last.fm, and thesixtyone). But I am more than happy to pay this price, because of the enjoyment I derive from using it. If I earn $x an hour of disposable income, then I consider a product "worthwhile" if the number of hours I'll use it for will (more than) cover this amount, given its price. I do the same with games, which explains why I tend to buy them two to five years after their initial release.

You see, I really appreciate the software that I use. And I appreciate the developers who write that software. I strongly believe that if you pirate software, you are not only taking money from the developers, you are also spitting in their faces. By pirating software, you are basically saying to the developers that their work lacks value, and that you don't consider it worth paying for.

Now, as I acknowledged earlier, software can be very pricey. In my opinion, a lot of it is severely overpriced (especially games). I don't believe that prices are necessarily this high because of lost revenue to piracy; rather, I believe that the high prices have led to an increase in piracy. Nevertheless, I can't condone it. There are nearly always alternatives, including, perhaps, just not using that particular piece of software. And saving up for something, be it a car, a house, or a piece of software (not necessarily in order of increasing cost) can make it have more "worth" to you personally.

I've mostly discussed software piracy so far, primarily because I do believe that it's a far greater problem, generally speaking, than music piracy. However, I also have problems with music piracy. Services such as last.fm and YouTube mean that the tired old "try before you buy" argument is no longer valid. An alternative argument is that "the RIAA deserves to kicked in the googlies", and although that's not necessarily a bad idea, I don't think that piracy is the solution: boycotting is. Perhaps more so than most other people, we "scene" musicians can enjoy and appreciate independent music and musicians more than most people. So why not support them? You can buy direct from the artist, and smaller sites like thesixtyone offer quite reasonable rates for free hosting and promotion. What I propose is rather than taking from the record labels, you give to the independent artists. It's a less selfish, more positive act that can have tangibly good effects in people's lives.

<disclaimer>Well, I think that I should probably climb down from my soap box. I know that I've probably raised a few hackles, arched a few eyebrows, and caused a few rye smiles. I'm not attacking any individual, nor am I judging anyone -- I'm just stating what I personally think. I know that quite a few people disagree with me, and that's their prerogative.</disclaimer>

Incidentally, I highly recommend that YouTube clip -- it's from an independent Australian artist, and the track is just awesome.

[Louigi Verona]

The problem with condoning piracy is that it has a very real impact on the people who develop the material you are pirating. Yes, the record labels are evil, and take far more than their fair share. Yes, a lot of software costs more than it needs to. However, as both a musician and a software developer, I am acutely aware of the fact that were people to start pirating the software we develop wholesale, the company I work for would go under.

I understand your point of view.

My point of view differs. While I do acknowledge that "piracy" might have a real impact on musicians and software developers, I think that it is a problem that they've created themselves.

First off, software development is much closer to science than most people would like to admit. And science is not an activity that is well suited for business - no matter how you put it. In fact, it is best when it is not a business.

Art is even less a business and what we have today in music is a perversion of what art is, fundamentally.

If we put music aside, where an average musician does not have problems raising funds if he is a real musician and not just some kid who dreams of sitting at home, doing breakbeats and earning millions, in the software world the situation is not much less transparent.

If your company cannot make business without undermining human society and ordering people not to cooperate and share with their friends, then your company deserves to go down - as harshly as it sounds, I do not see why it should be otherwise. And if your company is keen on staying in business and at the same conduct their business ethically, then perhaps software is not the best field for profit.

All of the reasoning that if people are not paid no software will be created does not stand up to critical thinking. And in fact, being part of the free software community and looking at what software arises from people who do not get paid - I can tell you that it is already a proven fact that software will be developed without it being a business quite normally. And the applications which I am using today in the music on GNU/Linux are very serious apps - they are not some buggy command line things, they are very robust, modern and flexible applications which in many cases outrun many of the commercial proprietary software on Windows and Mac OS. Linux has its own downsides, just like any system, but it has nothing to do with bad software.

Another thing is the word "piracy" itself.
I would agree that if by "piracy" you mean someone taking your product and delivering it on an industrial scale this might be not very good and should be controlled as an industrial regulation. But if by "piracy" you mean an act of, say, myself giving a copy of the software to my friend, then indeed - I do not need such software anywhere near my computer, my family and my friends.

I strongly believe that if you pirate software, you are not only taking money from the developers, you are also spitting in their faces. By pirating software, you are basically saying to the developers that their work lacks value, and that you don't consider it worth paying for.

This genuinely shows that you are speaking about things which you are not very familiar with - no offense meant. Since I have switched to GNU/Linux, I have already spend a lot of money on software - software which is available for no price. I am doing this because I respect the developers and want to support them in their work. And each month when I receive my salary, I go around sites of software I am using and donate money to the developers - this includes many of the apps I am using and which I also help to perfect by doing feedback work which is also very difficult at times.

So if I am distributing software freely, it does not mean I am not paying for it.

In the proprietary software world it is the developer who spits in your face, by trying to control your life with his licenses.
And, as the popular phrase goes - you can either deserve gratitude or demand it - but not both. If the developer of a proprietary app does not respect me to the point of telling me that he should control with whom I share things, then I do not see why I should be thankful to him. Really - I just don't.

Also, many proprietary developers do not allow you to be thankful. You either buy their 300$ software with a restrictive license or else you are a "pirate" and an "enemy of humanity". They do not put Donate buttons on their sites to allow people to pay up. They do not allow you to support the project at any time you want.

And there are actually so many wonderful schemes available to get some money for free software. No support? Fine. Set up a site, show demos of the software and start collecting money. As soon as you get 10000$, software gets released to the public. Before that - only demo versions are available? Realistic? Sure. It's not a major business, but it can be done.
Allow people to pay for software in parts. They set up an account on the site and it shows how much of the price they've covered with their small donations. Let's say a program is worth 300$. You are using the software and pay up from time to time. The meter in your account shows the amount of money left to pay the full price.

Another thing about "piracy", which is a deeper argument and about which I can write a book, is that the "piracy" problematic divides people into producers and consumers, which is generally not true. In fact, it is so untrue, that this argument alone can show, if properly explained, that all the proprietary schemes which disallow sharing, copying and transmitting of information bring a lot of harm to society in general and to all the individuals involved in particular.

Of course, this is just my view. The amount of proprietary software shows that lots of people do not share my values. But the strength and slow but steady growth of free software shows that I am not alone in my beliefs.

[Louigi Verona]

What I propose is rather than taking from the record labels, you give to the independent artists. It's a less selfish, more positive act that can have tangibly good effects in people's lives.

This is a good thing and many musicians are open to that scheme and it is very successful. It does have technical problems - there is yet no popular paying system which will allow for anonymous micro payments. PayPal has it's own problems, though it is quite ok for the moment.

However, nobody should be forced into paying and I do not believe that if you are listening to music, you automatically are in debt to the artist. In fact, such a notion is ridiculous and insulting.

[uncloned]

the paradigm for artist is:

the guy on the street corner or in the subway with a hat out for donations?