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

[Sayitloudernow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying no one will produce or distribute music. There will be people willing to pay, but no product.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do people seriously not get this? It's not that hard to understand that companies develop IP because they expect to make money off it. If it's not their property and people can just take the fruits of their labor and redistribute it for free they're going to stop doing it.

Please lay out for me how it will work, from start to finish if music is 'free' and no one is forced to buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to get into a huge argument about this, but there would definitely still be tons of musicians making music if no one paid for CD's. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand your point, have a degree in econ and have taken classes specifically about IP law, music is just a whole different ballgame.(I also understand, and agree, that many musicians would no longer make music if they weren't paid to do so.)

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying no one will produce or distribute music. There will be people willing to pay, but no product.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

He thinks that if it were legal to download music than everyone would stop recording music. I mean sure, that is a basic argument for why people produce goods for economic reasons, but I would argue that the vast majority of musicians are making their music for other reasons. This is why arguing this topic is so difficult. Music is just so different than most other products in terms of economic value/ rewards for producing music.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is sort of why I brought up other IP laws. Because people like to put music/other art in a different category from other things protected by IP law.

They (and Im not necessarily saying this is what you're saying) like to say that people will/should create music for free because of a love of music, yet they dont say that inventors will/should invent for the love of inventing.


This is unfair to musicians. For starters, if the amount of money a musician can make from music decreases, it might force people who otherwise would make good music to not make it, not directly because they arent getting paid, but because they need to spend time at a paying job.

Beyond that, "but I would argue that the vast majority of musicians are making their music for other reasons"... Im pretty sure there is nothing stopping bands from just putting their music on the internet for free and completely ignore record companies, yet many opt not to. Why is that if they dont want to be paid for their music?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. I havn't delved into the issue of drug companies and patents much. One doesn't have to be against all types of IP to be against laws against music sharing.

[/ QUOTE ]



Once you admit that you arent against all IP laws, then you (implicitly) imply that you agree that IP can exist. So, this debate isnt about whether IP exists, but about whether or not music should be considered IP.


So, essentially: then what is the difference between someone who writes a song and someone who invents a process to make a drug (or whatever aspect of IP you agree with)?

[Sayitloudernow]

[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure there is nothing stopping bands from just putting their music on the internet for free and completely ignore record companies, yet many opt not to. Why is that if they dont want to be paid for their music?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they don't want to be paid. I just said they would still do it if they weren't being paid. Which isn't really true for an inventor or some such. It was more an illustration of why I think music is a special case more than anything else.

[Sayitloudernow]

[ QUOTE ]

So, essentially: then what is the difference between someone who writes a song and some invents a process to make a drug (or whatever aspect of IP you agree with)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Music is instantly rewarding for the person playing it. This is not true with many other instances of IP.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, essentially: then what is the difference between someone who writes a song and some invents a process to make a drug (or whatever aspect of IP you agree with)?

[/ QUOTE ]




Music is instantly rewarding for the person playing it. This is not true with many other instances of IP.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the inventor had fun inventing, or if the musician didnt really enjoy writing music they would deserve IP protection?


I bet baseball players like playing baseball.. why give them a dime?

[Sayitloudernow]

Not sure I think the baseball example is at all fair...

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I think the baseball example is at all fair...

[/ QUOTE ]

then try to address the part of the post where I gave serious examples. Specifically: given your logic that the amount of enjoyment I get out of an act is relevant to its product's ability to become IP, IF I dont enjoy making music can it be IP? OR, if an inventor likes inventing, does that make it not IP?


also: it appears you want to say that whether or not something becomes IP has to do with how the supply of that thing would change without it becoming IP. Since inventors would likely invent less without IP, you're OK with it. But, since you seem to think that musicians would continue to play without IP, then that makes it different.


I dont disagree that removing IP laws would have a worse effect on inventing than music, but, since there are undoubtedly *some* inventors who would continue to invent without IP and some musicians who would stop playing without IP, your argument relies on some level of damage that makes IP OK, that you seem to have arbitrarily chosen.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't allow artists to profit from the fruits of their labor, many if not most of them will stop producing new music. You can take it to the bank.

Anyone who truly loves music and creativity--and who wants more of it in the future--should understand that protecting artists' intellectual property is the best thing we can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't artificially allow artists to profit from the fruits of their labor, many if not most of the ones who are doing it just for profit will stop producing new music.

Anyone who truly loves music and creativity should understand that intellectual property laws hamper rather than help creativity and the evolution of art. A musician should be able to hear a song and say "hey - I could use that riff and do something different and interesting with it." Beethoven did it. A writer should be able to read a sentence and say "that's an awesome description, I can use that to help make a great and creative story." Shakespeare did it.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying no one will produce or distribute music. There will be people willing to pay, but no product.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

He thinks that if it were legal to download music than everyone would stop recording music. I mean sure, that is a basic argument for why people produce goods for economic reasons, but I would argue that the vast majority of musicians are making their music for other reasons. This is why arguing this topic is so difficult. Music is just so different than most other products in terms of economic value/ rewards for producing music.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is sort of why I brought up other IP laws. Because people like to put music/other art in a different category from other things protected by IP law.

They (and Im not necessarily saying this is what you're saying) like to say that people will/should create music for free because of a love of music, yet they dont say that inventors will/should invent for the love of inventing.


This is unfair to musicians. For starters, if the amount of money a musician can make from music decreases, it might force people who otherwise would make good music to not make it, not directly because they arent getting paid, but because they need to spend time at a paying job.

Beyond that, "but I would argue that the vast majority of musicians are making their music for other reasons"... Im pretty sure there is nothing stopping bands from just putting their music on the internet for free and completely ignore record companies, yet many opt not to. Why is that if they dont want to be paid for their music?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point of quality has also not been addressed. If you know anything about recording music, you know that it's EXPENSIVE. Good equpiment (not just instruments) is incredibly costly, and it's also very expensive to own/rent a studio and find a capable engineer. Throw in mastering and you've got a pretty damn compelling reason to not make music for free.

If they did make music for free, it would certainly not be as good as it is now. I've heard music that was inexpensively produced and it makes a BIG difference to have inadequate equipment and a bigger difference to have a cheap engineer.

I guess if the idea of free music is bunch of garage bands trying to record music on their macbooks then the idea will totally work.

If it's professional music, then there is basically no chance of the idea working for any artist that hasn't already been established by the record labels.

Also, none of this is targetted at you, CMI, but at the guys who think IP doesn't apply to music.