Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I walk down the street and hear you playing a guitar on the sidewalk with a suitcase open to drop some money. Am I "stealing" by not dropping some money in there?

We're nieghbors. You have a nice looking front yard which I enjoy looking at on my way walking to and from my house. Have I "stolen" from you?

I buy a plot of land in the middle of nowhere and built a house there. You and others buy a bunch of land in the same area, invest a ton in the area and make a really awesome area. As a result the worth of my property goes up. Have I "stolen" from you?

If your answers to these are no, what makes music any different?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because making the first three examples illegal would infringe upon my rights to walk down a street, open my eyes and own property, respectively. None of this is true of making downloading illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, but I don't think it makes much of a diffrence. My point is that others creating music and others hearing it is a positive externality and just because others may benefit from others doesn't mean they are entitled to pay for their service and failure to do so means they are "stealing".
[ QUOTE ]
Beyond that, of course, is the fact that when you purcahse a piece of music, the fine print and the law state explicitly what rights you have over that piece of music. You certainly have the right to not buy that music, but not liking the rights they offer doesnt allow you to change them.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are correct.
[ QUOTE ]
also, I asked above, and Im curious as to your thoughts: can intellectual property be contractually created? Ie. if I were forced to sign a contract that said I can be held liable for sharing the music I just bought, would you be OK with that person being forced to pay damages, or is IP something that cant even be created through contract (like slavery)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not opposed to contractual IP, no. That's why I've tried not to talk about uploaders and focus on why downloading isn't stealing.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the actions of the RIAA obviously isn't effective as there is still an abundance of people willing to upload.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats like saying prison isnt an effectiive deterant because people still commit crimes

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that there are studies saying exactly that. There are more arguments for prison and music sharing then just deterrance, I was responding to someone saying that these lawsuits are for deterance.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
What if you were able to hack an itunes account somehow so that you could download as much free music as you wanted to but itunes wasn't charging you? If they knew it was happening they would definitely shut off the account. You're not 'stealing' anything from them since they still have the songs to sell to other people.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the same as the museum anology. You aren't stealing music, you are trespassing (and perhaps stealing some codes or something i don't know). Either way people are not engaging in the same type of behavior when they download music from voluntary uploaders.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the actions of the RIAA obviously isn't effective as there is still an abundance of people willing to upload.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats like saying prison isnt an effectiive deterant because people still commit crimes

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that there are studies saying exactly that. There are more arguments for prison and music sharing then just deterrance, I was responding to someone saying that these lawsuits are for deterance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to nitpick, you've missed my point. Whether or not prison is a deterrent isnt actually relevant (though I do think it is). I was just saying for form of the statement was bad. Observing that a lot of people commit crimes or download doesnt show that efforts to deter those acts are failing. It just shows they arent wholly successful. Perhaps a better analogy: "seatbelts dont help save lives because people still die while wearing them." Sure, some people still die, but that doesnt mean even MORE people would die is no one wore them.

To actually show that lawsuits like those in the OP dont deter, you need to show that the volume of piracy isnt effected by the threat. Thats a lot harder to do because of lack of data.



Anyway, the more important point is

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not opposed to contractual IP, no.

[/ QUOTE ]


Though I wouldnt go as far to say that we now agree on this issue, I think this pushes your position MUCH closer to mine than you realize.


If every p2p client had a button that you had to click before you could use it that said "I agree to not download copyrighted material, and know that, if I do, I may be found liable in a civil suit filed by RIAA/MPAA/etc" you would be OK with the woman in the OP being sued, yes? Since she would have breached a contact? (Or even if just using windows or macOS made you click a button saying you will not use their OS to download things that you dont have copyright to.)

I do believe that some p2p clients do force you to make such an agreement.


Basically, I would agrue that the social contract is enough ground to bring this lawsuit. Im guessing you want a more explicit agreement. Given the ease with which you could prevent people from downloading (ie. get some agreement through the OS/ISP/actual download client/etc before you can use), this doesnt seem that far from the status quo.


edit: actually, since you might not be as much against the woman in the OP being sued (since she was uploading), assume im talking about a pure downloader)

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's illegal to download it currently, so some people pay for music because it is the lawful thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
What percentage of music listeners would you guess pay for music because they're scared of breaking the law as opposed to artist loyalty or because it's easier or because ~$12 isn't a big deal to them or because they want the original, or because they don't have knowledge of torrents?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, my anecdotes or shoot-from-the-hip guesses on the effect is exactly what this thread needs. Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there is a deterrent factor with the way the RIAA agressively prosecuting and getting judgements against music sharers.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is NO enforced deterrent against downloading. The RIAA is not going after the consumers of illegal sharing, only a small minority of those that upload. And the actions of the RIAA obviously isn't effective as there is still an abundance of people willing to upload.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say anything about the RIAA going after downloaders, I said sharers and that implies uploaders. Like someone said, crime still occurs despite the deterrents of jail. Or would you consider jail to not be a deterrent?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you could download any song in the world completely free and without legal repercussions,

[/ QUOTE ]
No if is necessary. You're living in it today.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I see what it is. We can't agree because you're delusional.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more worried myself about what would happen if it became impossible to download music for free. The spread of music would be supressed. Less and less people would be able to hear the art of music. Not to mention the labels would enjoy less competition (illegal downloading is in competiton with album sales, itune sales etc) leading to likely higher prices and worse products.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ever take an introductory econ course? If not, just accept that everyone who has will realize you're spewing out of your ass.

If you have, you should know that a price ceiling of zero, which you advocate by wanting free downloads of all music leads to a huge shortfall in supply and glut of demand. Which one of the basic tenets of microeconomics that lead to this simple conclusion do you disagree with?

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
If every p2p client had a button that you had to click before you could use it that said "I agree to not download copyrighted material, and know that, if I do, I may be found liable in a civil suit filed by RIAA/MPAA/etc" you would be OK with the woman in the OP being sued, yes? Since she would have breached a contact? (Or even if just using windows or macOS made you click a button saying you will not use their OS to download things that you dont have copyright to.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This woman was not found liable and fined a huge sum of money for downloading. She apparently made songs availble for others to download on her computer. I don't think that you need to bring up the "social contract" to sue someone for this, copyright and fair use laws are fine.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If every p2p client had a button that you had to click before you could use it that said "I agree to not download copyrighted material, and know that, if I do, I may be found liable in a civil suit filed by RIAA/MPAA/etc" you would be OK with the woman in the OP being sued, yes? Since she would have breached a contact? (Or even if just using windows or macOS made you click a button saying you will not use their OS to download things that you dont have copyright to.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This woman was not found liable and fined a huge sum of money for downloading. She apparently made songs availble for others to download on her computer. I don't think that you need to bring up the "social contract" to sue someone for this, copyright and fair use laws are fine.

[/ QUOTE ]


given that Nas has stated he wants to confine his argument to download-only users, and that he doesnt think music is IP (at least not without a contractual agreement that it is), your argument doesnt really counter what he is saying

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that others creating music and others hearing it is a positive externality and just because others may benefit from others doesn't mean they are entitled to pay for their service and failure to do so means they are "stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]
Free and widespread downloading certainly helps the second, non-bolded part of your statement; the "other's hearing it."

And I would certainly agree with your characterization that music and other arts are a positive externality for society.

But how do free downloads of all music ever made in the world lead to the promotion of the bolded part? There's a reason we get taxed for military protection, there are regulations against pollution, and TV is ad-supported (three classic examples of public goods, like music here)... there needs to be some way to compensate artists for their work.

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If every p2p client had a button that you had to click before you could use it that said "I agree to not download copyrighted material, and know that, if I do, I may be found liable in a civil suit filed by RIAA/MPAA/etc" you would be OK with the woman in the OP being sued, yes? Since she would have breached a contact? (Or even if just using windows or macOS made you click a button saying you will not use their OS to download things that you dont have copyright to.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This woman was not found liable and fined a huge sum of money for downloading. She apparently made songs availble for others to download on her computer. I don't think that you need to bring up the "social contract" to sue someone for this, copyright and fair use laws are fine.

[/ QUOTE ]


given that Nas has stated he wants to confine his argument to download-only users, and that he doesnt think music is IP (at least not without a contractual agreement that it is), your argument doesnt really counter what he is saying

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm kinda confused where the downloaders are going to get access to these vast libraries of the world's music for free without users illegally offering or uploading them.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If every p2p client had a button that you had to click before you could use it that said "I agree to not download copyrighted material, and know that, if I do, I may be found liable in a civil suit filed by RIAA/MPAA/etc" you would be OK with the woman in the OP being sued, yes? Since she would have breached a contact? (Or even if just using windows or macOS made you click a button saying you will not use their OS to download things that you dont have copyright to.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This woman was not found liable and fined a huge sum of money for downloading. She apparently made songs availble for others to download on her computer. I don't think that you need to bring up the "social contract" to sue someone for this, copyright and fair use laws are fine.

[/ QUOTE ]


given that Nas has stated he wants to confine his argument to download-only users, and that he doesnt think music is IP (at least not without a contractual agreement that it is), your argument doesnt really counter what he is saying

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm kinda confused where the downloaders are going to get access to these vast libraries of the world's music for free without users illegally offering or uploading them.

[/ QUOTE ]

so.

this isnt that hard to figure out: he's saying that it shouldnt be illegal to download, even if its illegal to upload.

kinda like how dealing drugs is legally different than buying them.