Two points against Intellectual property laws

[ShakeZula06]

Most pro-IP arguments come from a consequential stand point that without IP, artists don't have an incentive to create whatever type of art they are in the business of creating. We have seen that in the case of music, this is complete BS.

In the last decade or so we have seen the proliferation of peer2peer sharing programs for music. Anybody with a computer and an internet connection can get pretty much any song from any artist he wants from many different sources.

Yet some how, the music industry hasn't collapsed. Artists are still making music, fans are still buying music, and artists and labels are still making amazing amounts of money (albeit smaller then before, which isn't inherently a problem). The music industry hasn't been destroyed by free music for a few reasons, including-

1) Artists enjoy what they do despite the fact that some may end up enjoying their music for free.
2) Fans have been loyal to their artists and buy copies even when faced with the chance to get a free copy from a friend or the internet.
3) Artists know #2
4) Relative to the average salary, artists (and labels) are still making boatloads of money.

The same could be said about movies and television shows, although I know less about that subject. There's many Torrent sites you can find to watch movies and TV online, yet movies are still being made and new shows keep making it to TV.

The second point deals mostly with hip hop, and I'm not sure how many fans of hip hop we have in this forum. It concerns mixtapes. Basically, a (usually young artist that isn't known well) rapper will collaborate with a DJ who provides the instrumentals to different rap songs. The rapper then does new lyrics over the beats. The DJ will play the songs at the places he DJ, and he'll usually sell the album to the local record stores. This is crucial for young artists in gaining name recognition towards putting out a major album. There are many now famous rappers out there who owe their success to mixtapes. If it were possible to flip a switch and end this illegal process, it would actually hurt the music business. Less people would be able to get their name out as new artists. People would sell less albums when they do put out their albums because they have less name recognition.

With regards to mixtapes the labels attempt to have their cake and eat it too. Many will pay a DJ to assemble a mixtape for a young rapper, and say that they are under the assumption that the mixtape is for promotional use only (wink wink) then through government funding and the RIAA they end up raiding businesses that stock the mixtapes.

Both peer2peer sharing and most mixtape practices are illegal, yet even when externalized on taxpayers it can't be stopped. We also see that while this hasn't been stopped, the music industry is still alive and doing quite well for itself, despite the claims of pro-IPers.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Artists enjoy what they do despite the fact that some may end up enjoying their music for free.


[/ QUOTE ]

As an artist I would probaly enjoy my art alot less while working in some hellhole cubicle job in a world without good Advertizing, TV, Movies, Internet, Computers, Art, Etc.


[ QUOTE ]
2) Fans have been loyal to their artists and buy copies even when faced with the chance to get a free copy from a friend or the internet.


[/ QUOTE ]

SOME fans .... the actual amount of monetary loss is hard to define but it is HUGE.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Relative to the average salary, artists (and labels) are still making boatloads of money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Relativity only counts if your a pysicist. Who cares how much mobnies ppl make?

[sam h]

I don't necessarily disagree with this summary. But I think looking at the entertainment industry is not necessarily the best way to assess what is at stake with IP in general. Much more important is how IP affects innovation and R&D for companies heavily reliant on things like computer, chemical, and electrical engineering.

These are not simple questions.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think looking at the entertainment industry is not necessarily the best way to assess what is at stake with IP

[/ QUOTE ]

good point

entertainment as it relates to IP is mercurial. IP as it relates to say Microsoft is pretty cut and dry a good thing IMO.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
As an artist I would probaly enjoy my art alot less while working in some hellhole cubicle job in a world without good Advertizing, TV, Movies, Internet, Computers, Art, Etc.


[/ QUOTE ]
And I would probably enjoy the internet a lot less if their was no oxygen. I'm sorry what was your point?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Fans have been loyal to their artists and buy copies even when faced with the chance to get a free copy from a friend or the internet.

[/ QUOTE ] SOME fans .... the actual amount of monetary loss is hard to define but it is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huge and some are subjective valuations. And while, sure, it has led to less money for artists, you've yet to show why there is something wrong with that, especially considering the fact that new music is still being made.
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how much mobnies ppl make?

[/ QUOTE ]
based on the rest of your post, umm, you.

[NeBlis]

I will withhold my lashing out at your one liners and jabs. Its your OP derail it all you want.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]

I will withhold my lashing out at your one liners and jabs. Its your OP derail it all you want.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pot calling the kettle black? You responded with three sentences to my relatively long OP. Two of them I would consider a jab. Have a nice night then.

[bobman0330]

I think a substantial portion of the "loyalty" to artists that you refer to is not loyalty to artists, but rather deference to the law. I personally get almost all of my music legally through iTunes, not because I want to support artists, but because I don't feel like breaking the law over 99 cents.

Also, law enforcement actions against p2p providers have certainly made it more difficult for people to get stolen music.

[NT!]

Whatever happened to the absolute right of individuals to the integrity of their property?

Does this mean it's ok to violate patents or drug formulas, because people will continue to invent things? Does it mean it's ok to tax people a little bit, so long as it doesn't cause them to abandon the marketplace? I am struggling to see the moral difference in the eyes of an ACist.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever happened to the absolute right of individuals to the integrity of their property?

Does this mean it's ok to violate patents or drug formulas, because people will continue to invent things? Does it mean it's ok to tax people a little bit, so long as it doesn't cause them to abandon the marketplace? I am struggling to see the moral difference in the eyes of an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is ideas aren't scarce, you're not deprived of anything if I copy your idea (you still have it). Unlike your second example. Regarding your first sentence, their non-scarcity makes classifying ideas as property quite dodgy imo.