Modern Day Protectionism

[Steerpike]

I haven't avoided anything. I've addressed the fact that you're trying to create a difference between the physical cd and the songs on the cd, and I've explained why that's a fallacy.

That's faulty reasoning. But it's beside the point because you know that the owner of the property is offering to sell them to you as separate things. That's what has gone into the price, and that is what the owner is offering you to take or leave when you walk into the store. So again, how can you claim to have purchased something that was never offered to you for sale?

 

[Steerpike]

Anyway - I don't expect you to have an answer to that because there isn't one. Your position is a rationalization for theft.

So how about this:

What is CDs were all licensed rather than sold, just like software. If you respect property rights would you then conclude that you can't copy it, or would you rationalize that as well?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I haven't avoided anything. I've addressed the fact that you're trying to create a difference between the physical cd and the songs on the cd, and I've explained why that's a fallacy.

That's faulty reasoning. But it's beside the point because you know that the owner of the property is offering to sell them to you as separate things. That's what has gone into the price, and that is what the owner is offering you to take or leave when you walk into the store. So again, how can you claim to have purchased something that was never offered to you for sale?

How can they maintain their controlling interest in that which doesn't exist? "That" being the "rights" to the song. It's an artificial construct.

 

[Steerpike]

Any thoughts on the license question (in case you missed it)?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Anyway - I don't expect you to have an answer to that because there isn't one. Your position is a rationalization for theft.

So how about this:

What is CDs were all licensed rather than sold, just like software. If you respect property rights would you then conclude that you can't copy it, or would you rationalize that as well?

What's been stolen? The artist and label has lost nothing.

 

[Steerpike]

License question?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Any thoughts on the license question (in case you missed it)?

You'll have to explain what you mean by licensing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

License question?

Sorry, the board is going extremely slow for me for some reason.

 

[Steerpike]

Any thoughts on the license question (in case you missed it)?

You'll have to explain what you mean by licensing.

Well, when you buy software you are buying a 'license.' It's a contract that specifies what you can do with the software. That what you are agreeing to when you buy software and install it on your computer.

Suppose when you bought a CD you bought a license to use and that the agreement specifically limited what you could do with it? Are you hostile enough to property rights that you'd say the owner can't even license it to you and you still have the right to do whatever you want with it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Any thoughts on the license question (in case you missed it)?

You'll have to explain what you mean by licensing.

Well, when you buy software you are buying a 'license.' It's a contract that specifies what you can do with the software. That what you are agreeing to when you buy software and install it on your computer.

Suppose when you bought a CD you bought a license to use and that the agreement specifically limited what you could do with it? Are you hostile enough to property rights that you'd say the owner can't even license it to you and you still have the right to do whatever you want with it?

The problem is that I'm buying a product, but being told how I can then use my property. Now if the software, or music, were to be rented under some kind of agreement then we have no problem. I don't know why anyone would rent a cd, but there you have it. But if I own something then the company I bought it from has no right to try and maintain a controlling interest in that property.

 

[Steerpike]

The problem is that I'm buying a product, but being told how I can then use my property. Now if the software, or music, were to be rented under some kind of agreement then we have no problem. I don't know why anyone would rent a cd, but there you have it. But if I own something then the company I bought it from has no right to try and maintain a controlling interest in that property.

You may not be aware of this but when you buy software at the store you are buying it under an agreement. A license. That's why you are limited in what you can do. You are agreeing to be bound by that license. Music CDs could be sold under the same terms.

But I'm more traditional in that I don't need every agreement to be in writing. I believe in the value of oral contracts and non-written agreements, and in the honest of the parties.

This gets me back to CDs - you KNOW when you go in the store what the terms are that you are being offered for sale. You KNOW they aren't offering you the songs but only that specific copy of the CD.

But because there isn't a 'written' Agreement in place, you feel free to pretend that the owner is selling you the actual songs?

I'd hate to see things like music CDs switch to some kind of licensing scheme instead of sales, but I suppose if you have enough people acting dishonestly that could happen.

Let me ask a final question - you keep saying the idea of the copyright as a separate thing is absurd. Well, I think that's nonsense and so, apparently, did the Founders. The Constitution is a pretty short document. Why do you think the Founders would go out of their way to provide Congress, among its limited powers, the SPECIFIC authorization to set up a copyright and patent system?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The problem is that I'm buying a product, but being told how I can then use my property. Now if the software, or music, were to be rented under some kind of agreement then we have no problem. I don't know why anyone would rent a cd, but there you have it. But if I own something then the company I bought it from has no right to try and maintain a controlling interest in that property.

You may not be aware of this but when you buy software at the store you are buying it under an agreement. A license. That's why you are limited in what you can do. You are agreeing to be bound by that license. Music CDs could be sold under the same terms.

But I'm more traditional in that I don't need every agreement to be in writing. I believe in the value of oral contracts and non-written agreements, and in the honest of the parties.

This gets me back to CDs - you KNOW when you go in the store what the terms are that you are being offered for sale. You KNOW they aren't offering you the songs but only that specific copy of the CD.

But because there isn't a 'written' Agreement in place, you feel free to pretend that the owner is selling you the actual songs?

I'd hate to see things like music CDs switch to some kind of licensing scheme instead of sales, but I suppose if you have enough people acting dishonestly that could happen.

Let me ask a final question - you keep saying the idea of the copyright as a separate thing is absurd. Well, I think that's nonsense and so, apparently, did the Founders. The Constitution is a pretty short document. Why do you think the Founders would go out of their way to provide Congress, among its limited powers, the SPECIFIC authorization to set up a copyright and patent system?

I don't assume that the artist or label is selling me the rights to the songs, I simply don't believe that the rights to the songs exist. I don't have the rights to the songs, the label doesn't have the rights to the songs, and the artist doesn't have the rights to the songs. However, if I buy a cd then I have the right to do with that cd whatever I want. The songs are a part of that cd, therefore I have the right to make a copy of those songs.

I don't agree with everything in the Constitution, or everything the founders believed.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't assume that the artist or label is selling me the rights to the songs, I simply don't believe that the rights to the songs exist. I don't have the rights to the songs, the label doesn't have the rights to the songs, and the artist doesn't have the rights to the songs. However, if I buy a cd then I have the right to do with that cd whatever I want. The songs are a part of that cd, therefore I have the right to make a copy of those songs.

I don't agree with everything in the Constitution, or everything the founders believed.

Well, that's convenient. Like I said - socialist. That's who I usually hear advocating your position. And it's an even worse rationalization when you consider that under our current legal system those rights definitely exist and are legally recognized.

Your position is no different than me deciding that no private property rights exist and acting accordingly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't assume that the artist or label is selling me the rights to the songs, I simply don't believe that the rights to the songs exist. I don't have the rights to the songs, the label doesn't have the rights to the songs, and the artist doesn't have the rights to the songs. However, if I buy a cd then I have the right to do with that cd whatever I want. The songs are a part of that cd, therefore I have the right to make a copy of those songs.

I don't agree with everything in the Constitution, or everything the founders believed.

Well, that's convenient. Like I said - socialist. That's who I usually hear advocating your position. And it's an even worse rationalization when you consider that under our current legal system those rights definitely exist and are legally recognized.

Your position is no different than me deciding that no private property rights exist and acting accordingly.

Except, unlike socialists, I'm defending the property rights of those who've purchased the cd. Socialists would say nobody owns anything. I'm defending real property rights.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm defending real property rights.

No, you aren't.

Nevertheless, my point remains. IP rights are legally recognized property rights. Even the government can't take them without due process.

Your position is no different to me ignoring real property rights because I don't agree with them.

Is it your view that every citizen should feel free to ignore any laws they disagree with?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm defending real property rights.

No, you aren't.

Nevertheless, my point remains. IP rights are legally recognized property rights. Even the government can't take them without due process.

Your position is no different to me ignoring real property rights because I don't agree with them.

Is it your view that every citizen should feel free to ignore any laws they disagree with?

Yes, I am.

I'm not advocating anyone break any laws. This is a theoretical discussion on intellectual property rights, not a discussion on whether I think people should go out buy cd's and immediately throw them up on the internet.

 

[Steerpike]

Well that's something at least.

I doubt we're going to agree. I can see quite easily the distinction between real and intellectual property and I agree with protecting both. I think disregarding the latter is merely an attempt to benefit from the labors of others (or at best an attempt to deprive them of the ability to benefit from their own labor).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nothing's depriving them of that ability, however. They can still sell their albums, and they're in a great position to be able to do so with the distribution prowess of the record labels. The labels and artists like to point to illegal file sharing as the source of their decreased sales, but the truth is that they're simply not putting out music that people want to buy. When there is an album that people want it sells just fine.

 

[Steerpike]

Nothing's depriving them of that ability, however. They can still sell their albums, and they're in a great position to be able to do so with the distribution prowess of the record labels. The labels and artists like to point to illegal file sharing as the source of their decreased sales, but the truth is that they're simply not putting out music that people want to buy. When there is an album that people want it sells just fine.

That's not entirely true.

And yet even if it were, you're advocating making copying and distributing a CD legal, which would be something else entirely and I have doubt would impact an artists ability to profit from it.

The argument that these aren't CDs people want to buy is a poor one. People download them, so apparently they still want them. They just want them for free. As all thieves want what they want for free.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nothing's depriving them of that ability, however. They can still sell their albums, and they're in a great position to be able to do so with the distribution prowess of the record labels. The labels and artists like to point to illegal file sharing as the source of their decreased sales, but the truth is that they're simply not putting out music that people want to buy. When there is an album that people want it sells just fine.

That's not entirely true.

And yet even if it were, you're advocating making copying and distributing a CD legal, which would be something else entirely and I have doubt would impact an artists ability to profit from it.

The argument that these aren't CDs people want to buy is a poor one. People download them, so apparently they still want them. They just want them for free. As all thieves want what they want for free.

Well we've been over and over the topic by now so there's no need to go around in circles.