tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556891643907669554.post3109965551225320068..comments2024-01-23T11:05:07.492-06:00Comments on MSU PHILOSOPHY CLUB: Is Paying For Music Wrong?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556891643907669554.post-13219568388482656242008-09-08T10:30:00.000-05:002008-09-08T10:30:00.000-05:00I think the argument does a good job showing that ...I think the argument does a good job showing that the proper analogy is not one of theft/stealing. <BR/><BR/><I>the question of ownership would only arise in those circumstances where the materiality of property prevents the equal access by two or more parties.</I><BR/><BR/>This seems straightforwardly false. Or rather, only if you mean ownership of physical property. But "ownership" of ideas, like patents and copyrights, are not about the materiality of property, and hence are not about the impossibility of using the same thing at the same time. We still want patents because they encourage the development of new technology, even though once developed, multiple people can use it at the same time. But we don't want patents to be perpetual monopolies, because the primary function of capitalism is the efficient production of goods (more good, more cheaply), and perpetual monopolies destroy that.<BR/><BR/>Copyright seems more like patent rights than property rights.Hannohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14050924893865965576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556891643907669554.post-71932230543910665182008-09-07T18:39:00.000-05:002008-09-07T18:39:00.000-05:00It is only by instituing a system of violence that...<I>It is only by instituing a system of violence that anyone can effectively convince others of their society to pay for something that is naturally accessible to all.</I><BR/><BR/>We convince others to pay street performers by instilling notions of generosity. You're a "nice person" if you give some pocket change to that guy who performed. It is naturally accessible to all who come across the performer, but some people are still convinced to pay for the performance.<BR/><BR/>Violence is not the only means. Indeed, I'm not convinced it's even the most common means. I still buy music when I have the extra cash. I've even purchased music I already downloaded and got for free.<BR/><BR/>I was thinking on the other topic and came to something like this:<BR/><BR/>If a painter paints a painting, as a painter tends to do, but allows the painting to sit and rot in a warehouse somewhere: whose property was destroyed? It's seems bizarre to say "ours". We never knew of the painting, never saw the painting, were never given digital images of the painting, etc. In what sense or manner could it be "ours"? If it belongs to anyone then it seems it must belong to the painter. And since we are a society of property, we certainly want to say it belongs to someone, so we say it is the painter's painting.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Its being the property of the generative party does seem rather obvious. But this is only when it's kept under wraps. Some material does eventually become readily accessible to us all, and this seems to be an agreement that the artist readily accepts. If it is to be shared, then damn it, it's to be shared. You have opened it up to the public venue, and while we allow it to benefit you (perhaps a way of saying thank you or simply paying for the fact that your rights are eventually subsumed?) once it has been in the communal realm long enough, it becomes "ours" not exclusively "yours".<BR/><BR/>The bucket example is a poor one. You can't learn to paint the same painting as someone else. Aside from the possibility of simply lacking skill, people have tried to duplicate works belonging to other persons, and it turns out that it's damn near impossible.<BR/><BR/>When you perform a song the privilege you pay for is really the raw material, but the performance is done by you. Perhaps that alleviates some of the issue to a degree, but I'd have to think more on that.<BR/><BR/>I don't remember if it was Bill Kreutzmann, but one of them had an article (during all the Napster hype) saying that we do not pay artists for their material. When we pay for music, what we have purchased was already made. What we're really doing is investing in the talent, the ability of the artist and encouraging, indeed, in some cases enabling the production of future works.<BR/><BR/>Maybe that is a better way to look at it. You are not simply buying the work of the starving artist, but in staving off that starvation, you are encouraging productivity. Without that encouragement, future works cannot be made, and the whole system collapses. You are thus investing in the artist, not buying a particular work.<BR/><BR/><I>The question is, am I doing a disservice to those four guys (or at least the three still living) by distributing the recording they made without their permission?</I><BR/><BR/>That's a trick question. We all know Freddie was all about the love. You are doing a disservice to his memory if you don't spread the love. Therefore, you spread the damn love. Freddie demands it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556891643907669554.post-6763641069836618582008-09-07T10:07:00.000-05:002008-09-07T10:07:00.000-05:00I can't disagree with this argument because I beli...I can't disagree with this argument because I believe it serves to form the basis of a creative commons. <BR/><BR/>Morally, unhinging the conversation from our capitalistic society where material value weighs supreme and the legal system serves to protect material value, you don't "deprive" the artist much by copying their music. <BR/><BR/>However, we do live in such a society. Perhaps we should be striving towards an altruisic soceity while using current legislation to approximate the society we wish to create.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14199133448202637697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556891643907669554.post-8374587723143192962008-09-06T10:00:00.000-05:002008-09-06T10:00:00.000-05:00Our copyright laws don't prevent anyone from learn...Our copyright laws don't prevent anyone from learning to play a song, or even from performing it. The copyright holder does not have the right to stop anyone from covering their song, and while they are entitled to compensation, the law also sets how much they are entitled to (so they cannot set the price prohibitively high). That goes for both live performances and recordings, and in the case of live performances it is the venue that generally pays the royalties.<BR/><BR/>The question is about distributing copies of a <I>particular recording</I> of a song. For instance, anyone can, and a lot of people have, recorded "We Are the Champions." But only one version was put down by Freddie, Brian, John, and Roger during the <I>News of the World</I> sessions. The question is, am I doing a disservice to those four guys (or at least the three still living) by distributing the recording they made without their permission?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com