About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 8:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew,

Nicely done article, and one that is certainly consistent with the Objectivist position on Intellectual Property.

However, I personally do not subscribe to that position.

I do not think my answer to that, however, belongs on your thread. Since Robert Bisno has already created a thread, "Reason is an absolute" for, "objectivist critiques of objectivism, " I have posted my long response there.

Regi


Post 1

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 5:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I totally agree with your article. Would you agree that the music companies should be able to obtain an injunction from the courts shutting down file sharing sites like Kazaa and Limewire? It seems to me that no matter what their legitimate applications these sites actively facilitate piracy; ie theft. I can't understand how they are allowed to exist in their present capacity. Is our legal system so rotted? Productive individuals such as Martha Stewart are prosecuted but thieves like the Kazaa network are allowed to exist. Its all topsy turvy.

Post 2

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good article Andrew. See my response to Regi's post under "Reason is an absolute".  I have a feeling there is a lively debate ahead!

Post 3

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello, Reginald. 

I don't seem to be able to post my reply at the SOLO link that you have provided--Reason is Absolute.  Although I am logged in, I receive a
Not logged in
- You must be logged in to access this area
,so I will post it here.

Ideas are psychological (not physical) existents consisting of concepts or combinations of concepts—ideas have no physical qualities. Ideas can be reproduced indefinitely without requiring any physical substances of components (resources). Ideas can be used indefinitely without limiting their availability or existence to other users. Ideas cannot be "used up or destroyed."

 

I am not so sure about using a manufacturing concept (reproduce), which implies physicality, in conjunction with the reproduction of an idea, which, you state: “…have no physical qualities.”  If ideas have no physical qualities (I have no idea as to which sort of physical qualities ideas have, by the way) then just what is being reproduced?  Is reproduction of a non-physical entity possible?  

 

Clearly there is a context problem involved here: A) we have mental events, which, I do take as existing as, of course, mental events, and B) the bringing into existence, in the non-mental event context, the idea which represent the mental event.

 

This entire going from the mental to the non-mental, in my opinion, is too…awkward of a method of showing why an existing product ought to be legally replicated by a person whom does not hold the patent, or did not invent it.  

 

Although I do not agree with your “Ideas are not physical,” I do, however, agree that I should have the right to make my own “Cadillac.”  I mean, it is MY effort that is going into bringing THIS “Cadillac” into existence, not the men and women at the GM plant.

 

On the other hand, I would not feel comfortable calling it a Cadillac, and selling it as such, despite the fact it can be identical in every way, as I would be deceiving the purchaser of his perceived quality assurance that he/she is accustomed, or expects, from GM built Cadillacs. 

 

If it is clear as to who made the product, I see no problem in the replication and the distribution of the replicated, either.

 

Analogy time:

 

If I build a house that looks just like a house built by a housing development company, the only thing I can’t do is sell it as a house built by that housing development company. 

 

A person, who digs into the side of a mountain/hill in order to create for him/herself shelter, used his/her intellect/abilities to do so.  Should I be forbidden from making a similar shelter because I didn’t come up with the idea first?  I know that this analogy is technologically inferior to, say, MP3s or a modern house, but it holds.

 
If one is not willing to build a cave due to not being the inventor, then you must be willing to stand out in the cold.  I, for one, am not willing to do so.   


Post 4

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fountain Head,

I cannot imagine why you could not post to the other thread.

I hope you will not mind, but I reposted your post on that thread, and made my comments there.

Your post is here, and my comments are here.

Regi


Post 5

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry for the aside.

The "cookies" that keep track of your log-in state work based on web address.  Some people are using www.solohq.com, while others are using just solohq.com.  If you go from one to the other, it doesn't remember that you're logged in.  We may try to fix this (force everyone to go one way).


Post 6

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 4:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the principle of copyright laws but disagreeing strongly with some of the actions undertaken to enforce it.

Post 7

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you all for the comments, I've been really busy lately (it's finals week), I'll be sure to try and make some more substantive posts as soon as time permits.
 I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the principle of copyright laws but disagreeing strongly with some of the actions undertaken to enforce it.

Which actions, specifically, have made you uncomfortable Matt?


Post 8

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't for one thing like the idea of file-sharing operations being shut down because they can be used for illegal purposes (that's the same as saying that guns or cars or computer should be illegal because they can be used for illegal purposes). Musicians and music companies would do better to adapt such technology to commercial use. Certain forms of copy protection (supposedly designed to prevent copying of CDs) can actually prevent CDs being listened to on computers (and in some cases are thought to cause the system to crash). I would say that this violates the property rights of the purchaser by preventing him from listening to the CD he has paid for on the device of his choice.

I also have a bit of a problem with music companies continuing to hold copyright over songs when the musician is deceased. Linz and Derek will know who I am referring to :-)


Post 9

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
quote I would say that this violates the property rights of the purchaser by preventing him from listening to the CD he has paid for on the device of his choice.

I think if that restriction was prominently displayed or understood prior to purchasing the CD, the consumer would have the option not to buy the CD.  Therefore, if the trade and conditions are agreed upon, no property rights are violated.


Post 10

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Vern,

To my knowledge, it is not presently the case that all copy protected CDs carry a warning, though it may be different in other countries (I am in the UK). I do agree that if such a warning were displayed then there would be no problem.

Alternatively of course, they could develop better copy protection that doesn't crash people's computers...

Cheers
MH

PS For those who are interested I have just posted my thoughts on some general copyright issues over on Robert Bisno's critiques thread.

Edited for clarification.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 5/13, 3:33am)


Post 11

Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 8:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I used to support copyright laws, I've become convinced that they are incompatible with private property and free markets, and indeed that claiming to own "intellectual property," i.e., ideas, is tantamount to claiming ownership over other people's minds.  For the pro-market case against copyrights and patents, see the articles by myself and others here:

http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm


Post 12

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 12:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course, Andrew Bissell didn't address the "rationale" that is the most common one given for downloading music-files: "try before you buy", and discovering new bands.

Before I started downloading I never bought any music, the "mainstream" just wasn't worth it. Now after I started downloading I discovered many new bands, and have bought music-CD:s and merchandise for hundreds of dollars a year.

This is the way I use downloaded music, and it's the same way that many of my friends use it. Sorry, but I don't feel guilty about trying before I buy, and loading a tune to see if a new band I heard of is any good.

Post 13

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 4:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
“Most CDs have one good song and a dozen tracks of dreck,” they assert, indicating both poor taste in music and a belief that record labels have no right to determine how to package and sell their own property.
 
"Poor taste in music, eh?" You can't force me to like a certain kind of music. I'm sorry, but I don't see how simply thinking that only one or two songs by a certain band's CD are good and the others bad constitutes "poor taste" in music.


Post 14

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well I'm almost 3 weeks late in responding, but I see people are coming out of the woodwork and sniping at my article as their first posts on the SOLO forum. I'll let my responses serve as a "Welcome" to them.

quoteWould you agree that the music companies should be able to obtain an injunction from the courts shutting down file sharing sites like Kazaa and Limewire? It seems to me that no matter what their legitimate applications these sites actively facilitate piracy; ie theft. I can't understand how they are allowed to exist in their present capacity.

I agreed with shutting down Napster because it was a centrally-run operation and there was no way they could have been ignorant of the massive amounts of piracy being committed on their servers.  I don't agree that Kazaa and Limewire should be shutdown, and I think you're on thin ice when you say, "It seems to me that no matter what their legitimate applications these sites actively facilitate piracy; ie theft." After all, broadband Internet connections, regardless of their legitimate applications, facilitate piracy. So do CD and DVD burners.  (Matthew has articulated a very similar position above.)  Kazaa and Limewire are decentralized programs, and will never be quashed no matter how many websites you shut down (which is why the RIAA had to turn to suing individual music pirates).  The websites that offer these programs for download should not be forcibly shut down--unless, of course, they are inciting people to commit theft.

 Of course, Andrew Bissell didn't address the "rationale" that is the most common one given for downloading music-files: "try before you buy", and discovering new bands.

Before I started downloading I never bought any music, the "mainstream" just wasn't worth it. Now after I started downloading I discovered many new bands, and have bought music-CD:s and merchandise for hundreds of dollars a year.

This is the way I use downloaded music, and it's the same way that many of my friends use it. Sorry, but I don't feel guilty about trying before I buy, and loading a tune to see if a new band I heard of is any good.
While this rationale is offered sometimes, it did not even occur to me while I was writing this article. A brief examination of the various pro-piracy sites out there will reveal that most pirates do not feel they are under any obligation whatsoever to pay anyone for music. I'm skeptical of the "try before you buy" line because, in my experience, the people who use it keep their "demos" stored on their hard drives for months or years.  Besides, there are plenty of legitimate ways to try out music before purchasing it: stores will often have a way to let you listen to CD samples, downloadable samples are offered on sites like Amazon, and radio is still alive and well (including Internet radio which is often focused on very specific genres).

I actually started listening to music by downloading thousands of songs off of Napster.  I never actually bought any music until I realized the nature of that act--i.e., that it's an act of theft.  If you have bought all the music you listen to regularly great, but I'm convinced that the overall effect of file-sharing programs has been to erode industry profits.

 "Poor taste in music, eh?" You can't force me to like a certain kind of music. I'm sorry, but I don't see how simply thinking that only one or two songs by a certain band's CD are good and the others bad constitutes "poor taste" in music.
It's funny, I reread my article and I can't find the part where I said, "We should put guns to people's heads to make them like such-and-such music," as if such a thing were even possible. When someone says that most CDs have only one or two good tracks, that tells me that the music they usually listen to is bubblegum pop songs and one-hit wonders.  I enjoy an occasional one-hit 80s song myself, but it is an impoverished esthetic sense that leads one to consistently cleave to that kind of music and commit such an unfortunate fallacy of composition.


Post 15

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew:
 
The serious responses to your article start here in the "Reason is Absolute" thread.
 
Regards,
Bill


Post 16

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, you've clarified your "poor taste" comment, good. I do agree that bubblegum pop is almost all low quality, but the key then is to find music that you mostly like (i.e., most if not all the tracks on the CD are good), which I have done, and which anyone can do if he or she takes the time.

I had merely misinterpreted what you said, Mr. Bissel, and I apologize for that.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.