Stealing Music Was the Late '90s Version of Drug Experimentation in the '60s

How Music Got Free author Stephen Witt on the creation of the MP3 and the death of the music industry

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Stealing Music Was the Late '90s Version of Drug Experimentation in the '60s

HD Video Download

"Widespread copyright infringement is like a generational shift and ignorance of existing law, similar to massive experimentation with illegal drugs in the 1960s," says Stephen Witt, author of How Music Got Free: The End of an Industry, The Turn of the Century and the Patient Zero of Piracy. The book was named on the "Best of the Year" lists of The Washington Post, Forbes, Slate, The Atlantic, Financial Times and others. 

In an interview with Reason TV, Witt discussed talked about the quirky German engineers who invented the MP3, and why he thinks they're hypocrites for claiming to be against piracy when they owe their own personal fortunes to it.

Also discussed were the lawsuit which led to the legalization of the MP3 player and the subsequent devastation to the industry's bottom line, as well as the North Carolina factory worker who personally leaked thousands of the biggest albums of the 2000s. 

Runtime about ten and a half minutes.

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Jim Epstein with help from Dan Rogenstein.

Music: "HEY DOOBIE" by Jared C. Balogh (http://www.alteredstateofmine.net)

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

Comments

[DEATFBIRSECIA]

Serious question: what is the basis in natural rights for so-called intellectual property? It seems to me that the idea that you can legally stop someone from copying your ideas is on very shaky footing from a free-speech perspective, even given its enshrinement in Article 1, Sec 8.

[Jickerson]

There is no basis. Copyrights and patents violate free speech and private property rights, as well as stifle competititon. The only acceptable solution is to scrap them completely.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Then you'll have no problems with the NSA collecting your metadata. It isn't real property after all. And if I aim a telescope at your house you can't complain because that telescope is my private property.

[Jickerson]

Then you'll have no problems with the NSA collecting your metadata.

Those are separate issues. Copyrights and patents have absolutely nothing to do with privacy, and nothing to do with the government stealing money from taxpayers to build a giant surveillance infrastructure. Copyrights and patents also have totally different effects on society than mass surveillance. When you say you support copyrights or patents, you are coming out in support of censorship and limiting private property rights

Comparing government-enforced monopolies on ideas to the NSA's mass surveillance is nothing short of insanity.

[lauren4713]

In our modern life various Today TechSpot and many technologies we are used, which helps to improve our life and easy going. Use of technology has a kind of the gift, which we can see in our society as well as our life also ...
http://todaytechspot.com/

[Jickerson]

And if I aim a telescope at your house you can't complain because that telescope is my private property.

As long as you have freedom of speech, you can always complain. You can also find it morally objectionable.

But this analogy is foolish for pretty much the same reasons as the first one. It's quite funny to see someone on Reason trying to justify government-enforced monopolies that violate free speech and private property rights by using absurd analogies.

[Rich]

DRINK!

[R C Dean]

what is the basis in natural rights for so-called intellectual property?

A starting place would be "what is the basis in natural rights for real and tangible personal property."

Then see if how that justification maps over to intangible property in general, and the subclass of intangible property that is intellectual property.

[Carston]

In relation to real/tangible property, read some Locke on natural rights. Those rights exist because two parties cannot work the same land or use the same tool at the same time.

This does not apply to ideas, a million people can use the same idea at once without degrading the use of the original idea.

The market exists to create the most productive, fair, and efficient dispersal of scarce resources. In the digital age, that which can be copied in infinite at no cost is no longer scarce, and should not be held subject to market forces relative to property law. IP laws create artificial scarcity, destroying innovation and progress.

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

Off the top of my head I can't think of one, frankly, which is awkward because I tend to support the idea of IP in some fashion. I guess I'd start off by saying that most people would agree that if I've written a story and you copy that story, put your name on it, and sell it without my permission you've done something wrong. The tricky part is that, WRT art at least, the research/theory/idea IS the product. It's not like reverse engineering a light bulb and then making your own to sell; you can't decouple the "intellectual" part from the "property" part. So maybe it's something like the labor theory of ownership, but limited in scope to account for the fact that ideas don't occupy fixed space and can't be exhausted. Although, ideas can decrease in value as they're shared; this is why first publishing rights are worth so much more than other publishing rights.

I'll readily admit I don't have a solid principled basis so much as a gut feeling, which I know isn't very reliable. And I refuse to resort to utilitarian arguments about opportunity costs.

[R C Dean]

I don't know that opportunity costs are a strictly utilitarian argument. Its a term that refers to lost potential, and I think it can apply, in principle, as a basis for "real" damages, utilitarianism be damned.

For example: If you steal my car, and I can show that your theft has cost me $X in Uber fares that I otherwise would have collected, that is both an opportunity cost to me of your theft, and the kind of damages you should make me whole for.

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think it's a cop-out to say that IP laws should exist because we "need" them to make sure people find inventing things worthwhile. Probably a poor choice of words on my part.

[dchang0]

I support your gut feeling in this matter, although I also side with the free-copiers.

There IS quite a bit of labor that goes into some intellectual works. That labor is borne by the first person or group to make the original that is later copied at a lower cost, and thus that first creator/inventor/author does desire to protect the fruits of his labors and faces a disincentive to invest the labor/capital if he knows his works will be immediately copied.

I understand this firsthand having had some great product ideas that I knew I could not protect, so I never bothered to introduce the ideas to market. Seeing as no one else did either, they probably also did the math and realized it would not be worth the effort.

Basically, in this product space, everybody is waiting for someone to first "prove a market exists," then they rush in and provide their copies. It is a form of shoving risk onto someone else. There probably is some game in game theory to describe this phenomenon since it is common in many areas of life, not just entrepreneurism.

[Rhywun]

Yeah, the music industry is so dead that I just can't find anything new worth listening to any more.

[DEATFBIRSECIA]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/re.....-Aventine/

You're welcome.

[Rhywun]

Looks interesting.

I was sarc'ing by the way. There is so much music that I like coming out, I can't even keep up.

[DEATFBIRSECIA]

Check out what she can do in approximately one and one half minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAR-7YatJxY

[lap83]

Pop music has really gone downhill since Ben Bernie

[Crusty Juggler]

Pop music died with Louis Prima.

[gachecrogu]

Google pay 66 $ per hour my last pay check was $45123 w0rking 96 hours a week 0nline. My younger brother friend has been averaging 8 k for months now and he w0rks about 18 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do.. check this link,,,

= http://www.workprospects.com

[Fist of Etiquette]

Low blow, calling music sharers goddamn hippies.

[AddictionMyth]

Bullshit. Taking drugs is a victimless crime and will soon be completely decriminalized. Stealing music is a real crime. It is theft of intellectual property. The result is the demise of good music.

[Rhywun]

The result is the demise of good music.

If you think there is no good music today, you're either not paying attention or not open to new things.

[AddictionMyth]

I mean, other than the Beebs. Sorry.

[Jickerson]

I agree that stealing music is bad. Stealing anything is bad. However, what about copying music? They are different things, you know, and I hope you didn't make the mistake of believing that you're stealing something when you copy certain data.

"Intellectual property" is nothing but a propaganda term designed to confuse people. Saying that "intellectual property" is being "stolen" is nothing short of incomprehensible for this reason, and because nothing that exists is actually being stolen from one person and being gained by another person. You can't steal something that is not tangible.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Post your social security number. If I make a copy that's not stealing, right?

[egould310]

Correct. That is not stealing. Do you have a point?

[Jickerson]

Yes. It's possible to use the SSN to steal something from me (which is why it's a good idea to try to keep it private), but merely copying the data is not stealing, and especially so if I voluntarily release the information.

[R C Dean]

Its possible to use a copy of someone's music to steal something from them, as well, by distributing those copies for free and imposing an opportunity cost on the creator. Of course, this assumes that there is a property right in intellectual property in the first place.

You can't steal something that is not tangible.

This is an enormous fallacy, that the anti-IP folks repeat endlessly.

Most money and most securities today, just for starters, exist entirely as intangible property. To say that you can't steal intangible property is to say that someone who empties your bank account digitally hasn't stolen from you.

Even worse: most real property rights are also intangible. That property line is intangible, for example. It doesn't exist in physical form.

[R C Dean]

One more: if digitally copying a song is "not stealing", then why wouldn't digitally copying/counterfeiting a share of stock also "not stealing"? The kind of "harm" inflicted by both copies are very similar: an opportunity cost on the third party asserting rights to intangible property - you are essentially diluting their economic interest when you do so.

This isn't to say that intellectual property is or isn't valid, just that people need better arguments either way.

[tarran]

why wouldn't digitally copying/counterfeiting a share of stock also "not stealing"?

IT isn't stealing. If you sell your counterfeit stock share whilst representing it as the real deal, then you are committing fraud.

[R C Dean]

Why is it wrong to "counterfeit", that is, create a convincing copy of, digital "property"?

What's the difference between a "legitimate" copy and a perfect "counterfeit" copy? What if my copy can pass as a real share, collect dividends, and be re-sold? Who is being defrauded?

[R C Dean]

Oops, one more:

What if you don't resell, but just cash dividend checks?

[tarran]

Why is the company sending you dividend checks?

Does the counterfeit stock share magically compel dividend checks to come in the mail, as in a Harry Potter novel?

[R C Dean]

Why is the company sending you dividend checks?

Its a hypothetical perfect copy.

Back in the day, you got interest payments on bonds by presenting a coupon you actually clipped from the bond itself. If you successfully counterfeited the bond, you got the interest. Same thing - it assumes that your perfect copy is accepted by the company.

[0x90]

Maybe I see it more or less pragmatically; first, we have to consider people who copy, but who would never have paid; i.e. what percentage of your calculated loss is actually illusory? Then, by fighting it, how much do you make yourself a target, versus going quietly about your business? Then, what precautions can you reasonably take to minimize the loss, without threatening people legally? And after all that, if you're for enforcing IP, I'd only ask: would you be willing to do this yourself, personally, or only indirectly, by sending in govt thugs? The more someone would tend to answer in the affirmative, the more I'd be apt to respect their position, even if I can't see arriving at that conclusion, myself.

Certainly, that doesn't constitute any sort of definite answer, but then, maybe there isn't one. Personally, I happen to be a software developer, who is of a mind that when we put draconian license protection schemes in place, not only do we find they are generally ineffective (our stuff gets cracked in a matter of hours or days, regardless), but we are actively pushing away honest customers, since if any error occurs, they are the ones who pay the price. And errors will occur, because licensing is neither simple, nor our core competency; we've done it ourselves, and we've used third-party solutions, with licensing issues dominating support calls in either case. And what of lost productivity -- time spent integrating licensing, is time lost improving the product.

[Jickerson]

Its possible to use a copy of someone's music to steal something from them, as well, by distributing those copies for free and imposing an opportunity cost on the creator.

Nonsense. You don't impose any actual costs on them by copying data. In order for that to be stealing, you would have to take something that they currently possess into your own possession. There isn't even an actual loss here. They've lost nothing that they already had. You don't own people's money before they give it to you merely because they could have given it to you. Unless you can explain exactly what tangible things they have lost due to this copying, I don't think I'll ever agree with this.

You might as well be saying it's stealing when you decide to visit one store over another store, because the store you didn't go to would have had more money had you bought something from it. Look at all the opportunity costs here!

Not giving something to someone is not the same as taking that something from them.

This is an enormous fallacy, that the anti-IP folks repeat endlessly.

I am not "anti-IP", because "intellectual property" is nothing but a propaganda term used by suckers. It lumps together numerous things that are similar in only the most superficial ways.

Besides that, there is no fallacy there. How can you take something that doesn't exist from someone?

[Jickerson]

Most money and most securities today, just for starters, exist entirely as intangible property. To say that you can't steal intangible property is to say that someone who empties your bank account digitally hasn't stolen from you.

Nope. That is tangible. It exists as data on a storage device, which is actually tangible. If you change the data to something else without permission, then at the very least, you have affected someone's property in a tangible way. You can also steal the storage device itself.

The difference with copying data is that you do not take (i.e. remove it from their possession so that they no longer have it) anything from anyone, trespass on anyone's physical property, or even cause someone's property to change (like changing some bits on a hard drive) without their permission. You're not necessarily committing fraud merely by making unauthorized copies, either. I am assuming that we are talking about voluntary filesharing here.

When I say that you can't steal things that are not tangible, I am referring to things like "potential profits", where fools assert that copying data is stealing merely because they could have had more money if that hadn't occurred. It's nonsense, because that's like saying you own someone's money before they ever give it to you.

[R C Dean]

Nope. That is tangible. It exists as data on a storage device, which is actually tangible.

So does music.

When I say that you can't steal things that are not tangible, I am referring to things like "potential profits",

So, if I burn your store down, you can sue me for the fire damage, but not for lost profits as a result of the fire?

So-called "consequential damages", which can include lost profits, have long been recognized as real damages.

[Jickerson]

So does music.

Yes.

So, if I burn your store down, you can sue me for the fire damage, but not for lost profits as a result of the fire?

As you said yourself, you currently have the ability to sue for "lost profits", but I don't necessarily think that is a good thing. Especially not in a discussion like this. In this context, it's more like claiming that if your competitor didn't exist, you would have earned more money, and you are therefore being harmed by their very existence, even if they have not touched you or your property.

[Jickerson]

That property line is intangible, for example. It doesn't exist in physical form.

The property itself, however, is perfectly tangible. We can all agree that the property within the property line actually exists.

However, copyright is a bit different. Not only do you assert that you own a particular arrangement of bits on your own storage devices, but you assert that you own that particular arrangement of bits no matter where it exists, even if it exists on the storage devices owned by other people. Your reach is nearly unlimited, whereas with physical property, there are clear boundaries.

One more: if digitally copying a song is "not stealing", then why wouldn't digitally copying/counterfeiting a share of stock also "not stealing"?

It's not stealing. At most, it is something like fraud.

I oppose copyrights and patents because I support private property rights, support free speech, support a truly free market, and I absolutely oppose victimless crimes.

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

Fraud is theft.

[R C Dean]

Fraud is theft, indeed.

But in my example of a perfect copy of stock, who is being defrauded, and how? The person who holds it still gets dividends (its a perfect copy), and if they resell it, the person they sell it to can also resell it (its a perfect copy).

Who is the victim who has been defrauded?

[tarran]

The person who holds it still gets dividends (its a perfect copy), and if they resell it, the person they sell it to can also resell it (its a perfect copy).

I ask again:

Why is the company sending you dividend checks?

Does the counterfeit stock share magically compel dividend checks to come in the mail, as in a Harry Potter novel?

[R C Dean]

tarran: from above:

Its a hypothetical perfect copy.

Back in the day, you got interest payments on bonds by presenting a coupon you actually clipped from the bond itself. If you successfully counterfeited the bond, you got the interest. Same thing - it assumes that your perfect copy is accepted by the company.

[tarran]

Back in the day, you got interest payments on bonds by presenting a coupon you actually clipped from the bond itself.

So, theft by means of fraud.

[R C Dean]

The property itself, however, is perfectly tangible. We can all agree that the property within the property line actually exists.

Indeed it does. But property rights and dirt are two different things. Your property rights in real property are, in actual fact, intangible.

[DesigNate]

So if I copy the music from the CD I bought onto my computer, I've stolen from the musician?

What if I resell that CD in a garage sale? Do I owe the musician a cut of my earnings?

[kbolino]

Can you try to think about your "analogies" first before you post them?

[Old Man With Candy]

516-22-1947

But I have LifeLok, so you can't do anything with it.

[lap83]

"Creativity is the art of concealing your sources"

[lap83]

- me *shifty eyes*

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

Saying that "intellectual property" is being "stolen" is nothing short of incomprehensible for this reason, and because nothing that exists is actually being stolen from one person and being gained by another person. You can't steal something that is not tangible.

That's not strictly true. For instance, publishers pay the most for "first rights", and typically much less for reprints (if at all). So if you plagiarize someone and sell first rights to the material, those can never be resold. You've therefore stolen the profit that the author would have made as a result of his or her labor and creativity.

Tangibility isn't a good test unless you don't believe that you can steal real property from someone. Land ownership is conceptual; when you own "land", you own a generally agreed upon area, not a specific amount of particular bits of dirt, whatever plants happen to be there at the time, and the molecules of air within the space when you sign the deed. Nevertheless, we talk about homesteading as a principle of ownership because someone has "mixed their labor with the earth" and thereby own the results.

[R C Dean]

Tangibility isn't a good test

Most people have a hard time with this, although I think its absolutely the case. Most arguments against IP are also arguments against intangible property, rather than arguments against the subset of intangible property that is IP.

Once you say intangible property doesn't count, I think you've started down a path that ends in places you won't like.

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

So, I'm a web developer and I write horror fiction. Code I write is IP. I am paid for intellectual work, not for typing until a web page happens. I write stories and (hopefully) sell them; people don't pay to watch me type, or for me to email/FedEx them sheets of paper or pages of random text. The work that I sell is the intellectual part, not the physical part. To say that I don't own the intellectual part simply because I can't carry it around or paint it red or throw it at someone implies that ownership is based not on rights but on abilities; that you can't own ideas because you can't prevent someone from using them. If that's the standard, then you can only truly own those things which you can take and defend by the use of force, which is to say there is no such thing as ownership at all since a bigger, stronger, faster, sneakier person can always take something from someone else, and will himself be at risk of having his property taken in the same way.

[Jickerson]

To say that I don't own the intellectual part simply because I can't carry it around or paint it red or throw it at someone implies that ownership is based not on rights but on abilities

Rather, you don't own "the intellectual part" because that involves claiming the right to restrict others' speech to stop them from making copies of particular data. You are, essentially, claiming ownership of other people's property in some ways, even if they have signed no contract with you to allow you to do such a thing. That is censorship, and government censorship at that.

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

Rather, you don't own "the intellectual part" because that involves claiming the right to restrict others' speech to stop them from making copies of particular data. You are, essentially, claiming ownership of other people's property in some ways, even if they have signed no contract with you to allow you to do such a thing.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. In essence, you're saying something equivalent in physical property terms to my locking the doors of my house being a violation of other people's rights to freedom of movement. And let's be very clear about scope. I'm not saying that Isaac Newton's estate should receive royalties any time something falls to the Earth. I'm saying that if I write a piece of music that is, to the best of my knowledge, an original composition, it comes into being as a result of my efforts. Your selling the song without my permission as your own creation is no less theft than it would be if you were to steal fruit off of a tree in my orchard and sell it.

As far as governments and censorship go, again, you're skipping well ahead. I'm not making an argument about government's role in IP one way or the other. As far as whether or not it's censorship, I'd reiterate my point above about the hierarchy of rights.

[Jickerson]

Your selling the song without my permission as your own creation is no less theft than it would be if you were to steal fruit off of a tree in my orchard and sell it.

Theft of what, though? Other people's money, which you never owned? If someone decides to buy the music you made from me rather than you, that is their own choice.

At least if I take fruit off of your tree, we can say you lost something. When it comes to owning ideas, everything is more vague and there are fewer limits to your reach.

As far as whether or not it's censorship, I'd reiterate my point above about the hierarchy of rights.

I don't see how you can enforce copyright without limiting free speech.

[R C Dean]

You are, essentially, claiming ownership of other people's property in some ways, even if they have signed no contract with you to allow you to do such a thing.

You are assuming the conclusion here, namely, that the IP on their stuff is their property, not yours.

If someone steals my hammer and keeps it in their garage, would you say that I am claiming ownership of their garage in some ways because I won't allow them to store my hammer there?

[Jickerson]

You are assuming the conclusion here, namely, that the IP on their stuff is their property, not yours.

I reject the notion of being able to own ideas outright. The actual equipment is theirs, without a doubt.

So, you might be right. I was stating a conclusion I reached about the effects that copyright has on society. To me, claiming that you somehow "own" the data stored on my equipment even if I've never made any sort of contract with you is highly unjust.

This presumes that you have the right to use other people's property even if they have signed no contract with you, etc.

I am not in favor of the existence of victimless crimes. The fact that you're not trespassing on other people's property, necessarily altering someone's property, or stealing from someone in the process of making or receiving a copy of some data, says to me that it's a victimless crime. I don't see any anything I would consider to be harm there, so to me, there is no justification for the existence of things like copyrights or patents in their current forms.

IOW, you seem to be claiming a positive natural right to use other people's property. Not sure I'm down for that.

That's what copyrights and patents do, from my perspective. That's why I am opposed to them.

[R C Dean]

You are, essentially, claiming ownership of other people's property in some ways, even if they have signed no contract with you to allow you to do such a thing.

This presumes that you have the right to use other people's property even if they have signed no contract with you, etc.

IOW, you seem to be claiming a positive natural right to use other people's property. Not sure I'm down for that.

Which is why I think this debate needs a foundation it doesn't have, namely, a commonly accepted rationale for why anybody has any property rights in anything.

[Carston]

But once you read your story to someone else, or let them read it, it is in their head, and you have lost complete control of your work (in the real world). Once you release your art into the world, you have ceased all control of it. You cannot own thoughts in my head.

[DesigNate]

That is exactly why Architect's have a limited scope of copyright. Namely, the actual drawings themselves.

Once the building is built, you can't control who sees it and decides they like a certain aspect of it and go about reproducing that in their buildings.

[Jickerson]

You've therefore stolen the profit that the author would have made as a result of his or her labor and creativity.

You can't steal something that doesn't actually exist. You don't own potential profits.

It might be possible to violate some sort of contract by taking such actions, but unless you are bound by such a contract, then there is nothing that should be done in the legal world.

Tangibility isn't a good test unless you don't believe that you can steal real property from someone.

The concept of theft applies very nicely to physical property. If I steal your wallet, then your wallet is no longer in your possession. If I "steal" your "intellectual property", then at best, you can put forth some nonsensical argument about potential profits, but you can't argue that anything you actually had is now gone.

Physical property is also limited in scope, whereas with copyright, you claim to have the right to stop people from using their own property to share particular arrangements of bits.

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

But ideas clearly exist. That's not up for debate. If they didn't, you wouldn't be arguing that they shouldn't be considered property. And if they had no value, you wouldn't be arguing that everyone has a right to their unfettered and complete access. So what we're really talking about isn't whether ideas are real things that exist and offer benefit, we're talking about the value of their exclusivity. And since we're granting that ideas are things that are limited in some fashion (because if they weren't, we'd all have the same ones all the time) then we have to stipulate that some aspect of an idea is a limited resource with some value. Therefore it can in fact be stolen, and we're simply disagreeing on the value.

The concept of theft applies very nicely to physical property. If I steal your wallet, then your wallet is no longer in your possession. If I "steal" your "intellectual property", then at best, you can put forth some nonsensical argument about potential profits, but you can't argue that anything you actually had is now gone.

Are you posting from your car? If not, do you think you no longer own it? After all, it's no longer in your possession. And, really, if I bring it back before you notice you wouldn't have used it anyway, so no harm, no foul, right? Which means that if you lock the doors, you're infringing on my rights.

[Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper]

In saying that there's no such thing as IP you're effectively saying that time and effort have no value. But then you're saying that IP can't be owned because I can't prove what profit I would have made from them, implying that there's an amount which would turn them into property while at the same time keeping that amount a secret. Whatever profit I might have made will forever be unknown, your having stolen my ability to make them. Besides, are you saying that IP only exists if I can provided a contract of some kind? That seems inconsistent.

Finally, you're arguing against IP from the position of positive "rights". You're saying that everyone has a right to the intellectual labor of everyone else unlimited by time or space. First publishing rights should go to the first person through the door of the office, not the person who actually wrote the novel, and if those rights are acquired by force or dishonesty, so be it. It's not really property, you're just selling sheets with letters that anyone could arrange in any ol' pattern. You're saying that my right to be identified as the creator or originator of an idea is trumped by your (and everyone else's) right to lie and claim it as your own, or to do with it as you see fit. If you can use my land to grow produce without my noticing then it was never really my land to begin with and I certainly don't have the right to prevent you from using it since there's no telling whether I would've been able to turn a profit anyway.

[Jickerson]

Finally, you're arguing against IP from the position of positive "rights". You're saying that everyone has a right to the intellectual labor of everyone else unlimited by time or space.

No, I'm saying that I own my own property, and you can't use government thugs to tell me I can't make copies of particular data using my own equipment.

There is no right to "intellectual labor". If someone arranges bits in a particular way and someone obtains a copy, they have a right to make copies of that and send those copies to others. This is called freedom of speech, which is a fundamental human right, unlike your precious government-enforced monopolies. If someone doesn't arrange bits in a particular way to produce some product, then that is also their choice. They can choose to do so or not. Therefore, there is no right to "intellectual labor" in that sense.

[Jickerson]

If you can use my land to grow produce without my noticing then it was never really my land to begin with and I certainly don't have the right to prevent you from using it since there's no telling whether I would've been able to turn a profit anyway.

Who are you arguing with? Not me, apparently. That would be altering your property without your permission, so I don't support that. Whether you notice or not is entirely irrelevant. Whether you would have been able to make a profit or not is entirely irrelevant. In fact, I have actually said that you can't own potential profits, so whether or not you would have profited more if someone hadn't made unauthorized copies of some data is irrelevant as well.

In other words, you're not even arguing with me. Who the hell are you responding to?

[Jickerson]

But ideas clearly exist.

So what? Data exists on storage devices. I've said as much.

And if they had no value

I don't recall saying that.

we're talking about the value of their exclusivity.

No, we're talking about whether or not government thugs should be able to infringe upon people's fundamental rights to (fail to) keep some arrangements of bits scarce.

Therefore it can in fact be stolen, and we're simply disagreeing on the value.

Non sequitur. The fact that something is scarce in some sense does not necessarily indicate it can be stolen. This isn't an argument about value, but about human rights.

If someone voluntarily makes a copy of some data and sends it to me, that is not stealing. I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

Are you posting from your car? If not, do you think you no longer own it? After all, it's no longer in your possession.

Way to miss the point entirely. Are you seriously going to pretend I was using "possession" to mean something that is on your immediate person?

[R C Dean]

If someone voluntarily makes a copy of some data and sends it to me, that is not stealing.

If somebody gives you a copy of their own data, its not. If they give you a copy of somebody else's data without permission, well, maybe it is.

[Michigan Dave]

It absolutely is

[R C Dean]

Are you seriously going to pretend I was using "possession" to mean something that is on your immediate person?

If you were using it to mean "something I have title to", well, guess what title is?

That's right - intangible property rights.

[Jickerson]

If they give you a copy of somebody else's data without permission, well, maybe it is.

No, it's not. Even if you think it's wrong, it's still not stealing.

That's right - intangible property rights.

So you think that all property rights are intangible? If so, fine. I don't care. The point is, I can point to a specific physical object or piece of land that I own, and it is limited to that land or object.

Trying to claim that only you have the right to distribute some data necessarily requires censorship to enforce, which is a violation of someone's fundamental right to freedom of speech. It's also a violation of their private property rights, in the sense that you're telling them what they can and can't do with their own equipment, even though they are only making/receiving copies of data and not harming anyone in any tangible way. I cannot support that, no matter what.

[Jickerson]

And, really, if I bring it back before you notice you wouldn't have used it anyway, so no harm, no foul, right?

Nope, that's still theft, even if it's temporary. That necessarily makes it separate from copying data. If someone sends me a copy of some data, I don't have to trespass on anyone's property (even temporarily), steal anything from anyone, alter anyone's property without permission, or do any other such thing, in order to receive that copy. It is truly victimless.

Which means that if you lock the doors, you're infringing on my rights.

Another non sequitur. You have no right to make use of my property without my permission. I do, however, have the right to make use of my own property to send and receive copies of data. You don't own particular arrangements of bits.

In saying that there's no such thing as IP

Who said anything about "IP"? Not me. I don't use such propaganda terms. As for whether copyrights and patents exist, they exist as concepts.

you're effectively saying that time and effort have no value.

Straw man. The rest of your post is basically a series of straw men, where you assert I've said things that I've never actually said.

But then you're saying that IP can't be owned because I can't prove what profit I would have made from them

I don't recall using that reasoning, or terms like "IP".

[Carston]

Yes, ideas exist, and are infinitely reproducible at no cost, or at costs bore by those receiving the reproduction. The original idea remains intact.

[R C Dean]

You don't own potential profits.

No, but you also aren't allowed to wrongfully deny other people their potential profits, either, and can be held liable for them in some circumstances.

[R C Dean]

If I "steal" your "intellectual property", then at best, you can put forth some nonsensical argument about potential profits, but you can't argue that anything you actually had is now gone.

Before you copied my IP, I had the ability to contract for exclusive access to it. Now I don't have that anymore.

[Jickerson]

You might have a point. If we bring abilities into the discussion rather than just physical property, your ability to contract for exclusive access to your copyrighted/patented work is now gone.

So fine, but it's still not stealing. In order to be stealing, they would have to take your ability to contract for exclusive access to the work for themselves, and then they would have that ability.

But even just forgetting about the stealing argument, I don't believe you have the right to contract for exclusive access to some work. Or rather, you don't have the right to have government thugs ensure that you have exclusive access to some data or series of steps so that you then have the ability to contract for exclusive access to these things.

You can try to use technological measures to prevent unauthorized copies from being made, but that is about all.

[Carston]

Yes, so IP could continue to exist under contract law, but criminal law would have nothing to do with IP.

[Michigan Dave]

Musicians make a living partially by selling recordings of their music. If you have a copy of that recording that the musician wasn't paid for, then you stole it. Seems simple to me.

[andythomas1233]

my friend's sister-in-law makes $85 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21785 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this web-site....
Clik this link in Your Browser

??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

[GILMORE?]

I still have flashbacks from all the Napster I did in '02

[ashleymorgan]

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
Clik This Link inYour Browser....

? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

[lisasmith1258]

just before I looked at the bank draft 4 $4970 , I accept ...that...my father in law was like they say actualie making money in there spare time from their laptop. . there great aunt had bean doing this for less than thirteen months and at present paid the mortgage on there condo and purchased a brand new Volkswagen Golf GTI . check out here....

Clik this link in Your Browser
????? http://www.Wage90.com

[JeremyR]

I think any decline in music sales is due to the crappy quality of today's music. And because today's music is essentially competing with 50 years of previous music.

While music in say the 70s or 80s was really only competing with music from the 60s.

Also, in the 1970s and 1980s there were these things called cassette tapes which led you record music, including from the radio. My local station used to specifically play 5-6 albums in their entirety on Sundays so people could record them. They would stop in the middle of each album and tell people to flip the tape.

[Hank Phillips]

Nah. We copied our own vinyl specifically so nobody could drag the stereo needle across the record, use it to park a lit cigarette or drop it on the floor then step on it while trying to find where it fell by the glow of a lavalight. Anthony clearly needs to score some better oregano...

[gphx]

Those who expect everything to be free are typically those who produce nothing and have nothing to lose.

[Michigan Dave]

Agreed

[ammythomos]

I've made $76,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student.I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money.It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.

Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

??????? http://www.workpost30.com

[ammythomos]

I've made $76,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student.I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money.It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.

Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

??????? http://www.workpost30.com

[FrankHerbert]

oh, the cassette tapes and cd's i purchased in the 80's and 90's! just over a thousand including a spattering of vinyl.

when the internet brought about file sharing, i did download a lot of music. ironically, 95% of it was music i had at one point purchased, often in several formats and multiple copies (to replace the ones that 'walked out' with friends).

[lorianderson003]

....$....Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site....

Clik this link in Your Browser..

???????? http://www.Wage90.com

[Satoku]

The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100's (if not 1000's) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80.....kbank.net/

[Rhywun]

what about the resurgence of vinyl?

I would guess the impact of that is minuscule at best.

As for albums, I have long bought whole albums only, as I usually find one or two non-single tracks to be better than any singles. Agreed that it's great to listen to the whole thing first on say bandcamp.

[Crusty Juggler]

This is not solely a hipster thing, as many of my music-loving friends (all old people) have re-embraced the turntable and the album format.

They are old hipsters, which means you are an old hipster. There are so many hipster commenters!

[MiniDisc]

Interesting, but ignores the cassette completely. Copying music was cheap, easy and portable, well before MP3.

What am I, chopped liver?

[Citizen X]

Libertarians are just conservative hipsters anyway, Crusty. I saw it in a meme once, so you know it has to be true.

[Rhywun]

I put vinyl in the same category as any other old technology that normal people threw out at the first opportunity. Like the abacus, or hand-cranked engines.

[lap83]

My parents haven't stopped listening to records since the 70s, they would probably be surprised to know they're hipsters...especially since they don't even know what it means

[Crusty Juggler]

That is just what a hipster would say, hipster.

[Crusty Juggler]

especially since they don't even know what it means

They are uber-hipsters!

[Crusty Juggler]

Douchebags.

[lap83]

Annoying

[Loki]

Retards.

[egould310]

Daily website visits to find good new music:
Any Decent Music, Under the Radar, Tiny Mix Tapes, Drowned In Sound, The Big Takeover

Add them to your bookmarks. Also, Spotify has the "associated acts" function which is a really great tool for discovering new music.

I'm a Spotify junkie.

[DEATFBIRSECIA]

Thanks! Really like the Nap album Thought Rock Fish Scale, really solid sound.

[R C Dean]

I've bought some other stuff

Why throw your money away when you can get a free copy from somebody?

[egould310]

Ha! No run this morning. I'm doing laundry.

[Loki]

Look at this fucking hipster.

[Ted S.]

Pop perfection.

[DAT]

Get over it.

[Chumby]

Do they ride fixies while wearing skinny jeans listening to a Walkman?