Re: Music: Rent v Own

Travelinman wrote: 
In article <T8ydndBbstIiaoneUSdV9g@xxxxxxx>,
 Flint <agent1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


TravelinMan wrote:


What's with this word stealing, you're not taking assets off someone, you're copying their work without permission. It's breaching the copyright law.


So? Ever hear the phrase 'stealing someone's idea'?

Yes, and its a rather poor metaphor, and always has been. Ideas can't be stolen as they can occur simulataneously, or independantly. The concept of 'parallel development' is a well established principle.


Bull***. If someone DOES come up with an idea and you take it, you've stolen the idea - no matter how many times you deny it.

But you have to PROVE someone TOOK a specific idea specifically from *someone else*, and were not working on the idea themselves in a seperate >parallel< developmental track. You conveniently overlook this little fact. You also are straying from copyright law, and are entering into the area of patents again, thus trying to muddy up the waters. You've been spanked before on this, and like a glutton for punishment, keep coming back for more "Mr. Court_certified_expert".




Every definition of 'steal' I've seen involves taking someone's property without payment. Since intellectual property is a type of property, it fits.

Ideas in _general_ aren't "property" by ANY legal definition. Only ideas that are the result of a unique developmental process and are not readily/plainly obvious to just anyone. Even then, such ideas aren't automatically granted a patent, but a 'pending' status which affords certain legal protections, but are NOT absolute because the patent process requires time for processing and determining that no other similar >parallel< patent claims/filings are in progress. This process often takes YEARS to complete because of PARALLEL claims/developmental tracks.




"intellectual property" is a legal construct that more effectively *inhibits* creativeness, and innovative variations on a theme than it does to inspire creativity. The whole purpose of IP laws is to provide >exclusionary< legal mechanisms to prevent others from pursuing avenues of reasearch & development, and essentially, are a form of special protectionism.

IP laws are in dire need of re-examination, period.


Intellectual property is no more an artificial construct than physical property.


You really are stupid, aren't you? Show us >one example< of intellectual property in the natural, empirical realm. Of course they are artificial constructs you fool. And you claim to be a court certified *expert*?


Attempts to avoid calling it what it really is are just more pitiful attempts to imply that it's OK.

Again, this assumes that IP laws are >moral< in the first place, and cannot be perverted. I assure you, they can be and often are.

The fact that you stubbUrnly refuse to admit this clearly indicates the vacuum you live in.


So far, no one has given any self-consistent reason why intellectual property like music is any different conceptually than physical property.

Oh, now it's "self-consistant" reason? More goal post moving justifications?

OK, how about this: legislation providing special protectionism to the products (ideas) of a naturally occuring process (human thinking) to specific individuals/business entities on the basis of "first thought of, first filed for, first granted" is a really dumb (elitist) idea that results in *inhibiting* developmental research tracks because businesses now have to practice "defensive R&D", to the detriment of the public benefit by eliminating competitive efforts because of said elitist special protection.

"IP" as applied to music, is a currently flawed concept. Only tangible real world *implementations* of ideas, processes, etc. should receive protection, and even then, it should be limited so as not to define purely artistic works as "property" unless they are specifically distributed on *physical* mediums (ie: a CD, or a paint canvas). Furthermore, works of art licensing should follow the *licensee*, and not the distribution medium alone, and be limited to a *one* license per *individual end user* basis. If I bought an artist's music on 8-Track, then later bought it again on 12" vinyl, and again on cassette, and yet again on CD, (paying FOUR TIMES for the same damn thing) why should I have to pay AGAIN for the same damn thing when there is no cost to the label? Surely, the amount I paid each of those 4 times didn't go *entirely* to the cost of providing me with the physical medium? Some portion of that money was a license to use the intellectual property, no?

Another thing: Can intellectual property be damaged? Tell us how... Can it be destroyed? Tell us how... Does it have any intrinsic value in and of itself outside of the empirical realm? If so, please quantify this value for us. Show us *one* tangible thing about IP.... You *can't*. Therefore, legal definitions of it are not only *artificial* constructs, but they are *purely* so. They are also elitist because they're decidely lopsided in favor of business models that seek to limit and inhibit the consumer's fair usage rights through restrictive and exclusive means.

Technology marches on, and supplants previous technologies. It also also renders old archaic marketing/distribution models obsolete. It may even render legal constructs as archaic and obsolete.

In a free and open information age, IP rights need a serious re-examination, and perhaps even a total rewrite, rather than a hodge-podge band-aid approach within the legal system. I think we need to do this *now*, because if we don't, even international treaty agreements wrt IP are threatened.

-Rick


-Rick



-Rick
.

Loading