stealing music, and the future of copyright

Disclaimer: I have not read this thread in its entirety.

It's ironic that you use the legal colloquialism of "asked and answered" and then differentiated between creation and publication. Copyright law does not require publication in order to attain protection.

 

bring up pot legalization or separation of church and state and we will entertain you by agreeing.

i told these dudes twice, but it wont take:

selective listening in the anti-martin camp.

i have been trying to make a point that is appears to be arbitrary what sort of intellectual property is protected. well, i shouldnt say arbitrary, rather, what is protected is dictated by how powerful the lobby is, as well as how hard historically it has been to protect the information.

information that is easily copied, by memory or whatever, isnt protected, even though the creator is no less deserving, merely because it just isnt feasible to enforce copyright. for instance, jokes, poems, even dance. you can pretty much rip these off as much as you want, and i think the only reason for this is that they require less technology to copy and distribute. of course there historically has been a technological barrier, and we could not easily exchange huge music files the way we could exchange a joke or poem. but now we can compress them into an mp3 one tenth of the original file size, and shoot them around the internet in seconds.

and i think the fact that red would ignore my hypothetical writer who doesnt want his books loaned out in public libraries proves that the rights of the creator are not absolute. if it benefits us, we will distribute information, without considering the wishes of the creator. also i think any honest person will admit they have no qualms about giving away recipes to anyone who asks, even if the recipe is from a copyrighted book.

also i think my example of recipes demonstrates that even if we freely distribute information, the information will still be produced. pretty much everyone is willing to share all the recipes they own, whether they created them or not, and yet new recipes are still being created, and recipe books still sell.

a sort of peripheral point i like to make is that the production cost of information, even movies, is becoming so much cheaper . i think sthe next Scorsese is in his parents basement patching together a masterpiece right now on his mac for a total cost of 300$. and this movie will be no worse than a 200 million dollar tom cruise suckfest. so i dont think the changing revenue models of the future will prevent artists from making stuff we will like. i dont think quality art needs lots of money to make.

 

very good points. once you set your earlier trap it was clear its very arbitrary yet i also know its like that even with any industry like online gambling and just about anything else when possible.


congress couldnt make overseas betting illegal so they find ways to circumvent it to get their share of the pie they do not deserve. they do the same in a more direct way with recording media. whatever they can control, they do. whatever they can't, they overlook until technology allows them to do so or create ways when its feasible despite the hypocrisy.

however, time is working against them here obviously and will eventually surpass them and has. yet, dont get your hopes up as they have ways of getting their nasty mitts in the mix always. eventually they will start governing/controlling the internet. when this happens it will be a sad day for the world.

 

actually my sirius portable comes with 100 hrs of recording space which you can do then transfer the digital copy to a cd or whatever you like. given its comedy, any sort of music etc, im not sure how this little feature was allowed to bypass the nazis. certainly, its an infringement on the copyright laws yet there it is.

nifty little feature. you are making a digital copy legally.

 

i really think it is just apparent. if you and i start talking about a book we read, we both reference the copy of information about the the book we have in our brains. of course our copy isnt perfect, not even close. but sometimes we do have a pretty good copy. like the copy i have in my head of the guitar tabs for some simple songs i know. i could write them down and get every chord correct.

so are you giving away the original? because you just said you cant give away duplicates. or are you saying it is ok to give away a recipe as long as you do not type it up real nice or photocopy it? why does that matter. a recipe is a recipe. the thief just wants to steal the idea. he doesnt care what form it is.

and many new artists, and very established artists (prince) give music away for free. they believe it helps advertise.


i hate to say michael moore is right, but he is. when he found out sicko was pirated, he loved it. he knows it creates buzz. and sure enough people went to the theater in droves and he gets rich.

and with movies, stealing them is just not going to kill profits, not for a long time. the experience of going to the theater is too fun, with the massive screen and bass pounding your face off. we can already steal any movie, and yet we still go to the movies. i could have stolen transformers and watched it on my spectacular plasma. but i didnt, i paid 11 dollars to sit among the other dorks and enjoy the experience. so michael bay gets his paycheck and everyone is happy.

maybe if we steal enough movies, and it actualy does kill their profits, it will pressure the industry to make every film in IMAX, which we really cant match at home. that would be awesome.