This seems like a straw man; I don't think I even implied that you should have to like the same music I like.
Ah, but if we make only the music you like at all viable, then I won't have a choice, will I? That's why I support copyright. It brings richer culture and more choice.
I'm confused. Why would we make only the music I like viable? I simply pointed out two examples of bands, I never said these were the only examples.
You keep saying that copyright brings richer culture. I keep disagreeing with that, I think the evidence points to the contrary.
I merely pointed out that good music is made by people who don't do it for a living. This applies to pretty much all genres of music; you don't have to like the particular bands I like.
I'm extremely hesitant to provide any sort of validation to that claim. For one, it implies an objectivity in music tastes that simply isn't there.
Well, in that case, what I said is even more valid. If you can't distinguish between good and bad music, what point is there in wanting music to be made by people who do it for a living?:-)
You say I don't have to like the same music as you, but that's just so long as I agree that the best music is created casually.
I did not say that. I said "good music is made by people who don't do it for a living." This isn't exclusive, obviously.
I suspect that people could copy 100% of all music and never actually pay for a single song, and we would still have as many professional bands as we have now.
I'm still having trouble grasping why. You have said that music will survive, but you've made no mention of numbers. You haven't pointed out why the same people creating music now will continue to create when the bills stop being paid, or when they have to work another job. Logically, you would think that some of them, especially the ones doing it tough now, would drop out of the race. What would stop them, or what would fill the gap?
I think I already pointed out that almost no bands make music selling CDs. Even today, bands make music on tours, selling merchandise, and by appearing in ads.
No, actually, this is the current state already.
Which is why we need a change. You know why some artists are failing to make money of recordings? It's because the fees for the services the RIAA provides comes out of the profits the recording sales. All too often, the lacklustre sales fail to leave the artist any profit. Thanks to piracy (and other factors) the barrier of entry has been raised. One thing I can assure you is that it won't get any better if we scrap copyright. Sales will be even more lacklustre, money to record will be even more scarce, and recording will die a quiet death.
Okay, this is interesting. Your reasoning goes as follows:
Label produces record
People pirate record
Label gets no money
Band gets no money
This is obviously false for several reasons. First of all, bands weren't making any money with CDs even before Napster appeared. Seconds, Labels do make money. CD sales are decreasing each year, but there's still a lot of profit in music sales.
Fact: Bands don't get money because labels don't pay them. Labels don't pay them because they don't have to pay them. They don't have to pay them because most bands want to produce records even if it means taking a loss.
Giving the labels more money will change nothing at all, because it won't change the fundamental fact that bands are in a position of weakness versus the labels.
I am not rewarding anything. I'm not even claiming that performing is the only way for artists to make
I haven't looked down this end of my user page for a while. Are you still there?
Why not? Most of the music I actually listen to is from "part-time" bands.
That's
you.
Of course. You told me to trust you, and that we didn't want music to be made by people who don't do it for the money, and I disagreed.
Interestingly, the way it is now, very few artists actually make money from selling records. It turns out that even today, releasing a record costs most artists money. Bands see records as a publicity instrument. They make money using other means.
Music tastes aren't some homogeneous collective concept that can be moulded to fit the music scene. The most efficient solution is to allow tastes to mould the music scene to fit. I don't want to be told that I should be liking the same music as you. Perhaps as a libertarian, you can appreciate that.
Well, I'm certainly not a libertarian (I'm quite glad to live in a country with public health care, for example), but even ignoring that part, I must admit that I'm a bit confused. This seems like a straw man; I don't think I even implied that you should have to like the same music I like. I merely pointed out that good music is made by people who don't do it for a living. This applies to pretty much all genres of music; you don't have to like the particular bands I like. Furthermore, since even most professional bands don't make their money selling actual music, I doubt the discussion is relevant. I suspect that people could copy 100% of all music and never actually pay for a single song, and we would still have as many professional bands as we have now.
The money we pay for music does not go to the bands. It goes to the record companies, which use it to finance production and distribution of CDs (as well as drugs and prostitutes for their CEOs, presumably).
Yeah, I've bought their CDs, but you know what? They would continue making music even if nobody bought their CDs, as long as somebody came to their concerts because they make absolutely no money on CDs. I don't think they make any money from their music at all, actually. And perhaps that is better, because it allows them to make the music they want to, instead of the music which makes the most money.
No, money is and always has been an option. You don't have to take it. It's completely up to the artist whether or not they want money for their efforts. What you're doing is telling them what their choice is.
I'm telling you that there is a choice:-)
Some may be fine under servitude under their fans (Who am I kidding? Servants get more money than donations! Optional slavery would be better fitting) but many others will justifiably want out. If artists are making no money of recordings (which is the natural consequence of piracy)
No, actually, this is the current state already.
then they will stop producing them.
This is obviously not true, since we seem to have records right now, even though they don't make their bands any money. Records are publicity. You don't get people to come to your concerts if radios aren't playing your songs, and radios aren't playing your songs if you don't produce and record and release them.
I don't believe that there is some innate desire in human beings to distribute recordings
I disagree. Humans have an innate need for notoriety. We want to see our names on books, we want to be mentioned in papers, we want people to know and recognize us and leave some legacy for future generations.
You are rewarding performance and performance only.
I am not rewarding anything. I'm not even claiming that performing is the only way for artists to m
Okay, now that you've explained the english language for the rest of us dorks, maybe you could add another lesson and tell us what a geek is. Inquiring minds (a.k.a. geeks) want to know.
"I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity."
For all they do wrong, at least Christians believe in something that was always meant to be a religion, while Scientology believes in a science fiction novel.
And of course, it's quite obvious that nowadays, Scientology is more detrimental to their members and to society in general than modern Christianity is.
Yeah, thanks to Wii Fit, I've actually lost weight in the last month:-)
All of my colleagues from work are also pretty fit, they swim, go biking and play football (not the american kind).
I realize that forking and fragmentation have advantages (more competition and all that), but man... sometimes I wonder just how far ahead of everything else Linux would be if everyone worked towards the same goals on the same projects.
Fortunately, even if it does not qualify, I can counter-sue since you also quoted my posts:-)
Ah, but did you include the copyright statement? The all rights reserved? No, I guess I didn't either for any of the posts you quoted from. Fine, no suing.:(
There's no need to include a copyright statement; you own the copyright to your work automatically, and in some countries, you can't actually give it up (which is why you can't create public domain works in Germany, for exmple).
With copyright infringement, it planes out to the amount of money you would have spent. I suggest they are comparable, but one is far more severe crime than than the other. Also, the above doesn't apply IMHO if you distribute over P2P networks. You are helping ruin many other people's potential to buy music, and the severity of the offence should IMHO match its exponential growth. I should also point out that most of the cases I've heard of against copyright infringers were against people such as these, but maybe I'm just ill-informed.
The problem is that distribution and downloading can't be distinguished on most modern P2P systems. As soon as you start downloading, you also start uploading the data you've already downloaded. In a typical case, you eventually end up uploading about the same amount as you have downloaded, so the point could be made that the damage is around twice the worth of the song or movie.
Depends on the definition of "charity", I guess. But even so: would that necessarily be bad?
Yes! It's a lovely dream that artists will work with love of music and charity driving them, but in the end, they've at least got to eat. Trust me, we don't want a music industry riding on the back of snatches of free time between day-jobs.
Why not? Most of the music I actually listen to is from "part-time" bands. I love onan (an instrumental hip hop band). I love Must Have Been Tokyo, a swiss brit-pop band (if that is at all possible). Yeah, I've bought their CDs, but you know what? They would continue making music even if nobody bought their CDs, as long as somebody came to their concerts because they make absolutely no money on CDs. I don't think they make any money from their music at all, actually. And perhaps that is better, because it allows them to make the music they want to, instead of the music which makes the most money.
Besides, it's not just a lovely dream; it's how music and media has worked for most of human history. People made music before copyright was invented, and they will make music long after its demise.
Personally, I would not be surprised if the quality of music played on radio station actually went up if people stopped paying for music.
Yes, and this seems like a more severe outcome than somebody simply not buying music anymore.
Ah, but you must be careful! How much of this perception is due to the victim becoming you (and everyone else), rather than the RIAA?
That certainly plays a big role, but then, isn't - objectively - hurting the RIAA much better than hurting everyone else?:-)
I mean copyright doesn't mean you own the thing you created in the same way that you own a pair of shoes you bought in a shop. For one, you copyright only exists for a limited time. Granted, in the U.S, it's a long time, but still, it's limited. Also, there's fair use, as you've pointed out in another post. I don't have fair use rights to your shoes, but I can quote the post you made.
Thank you, but I still don't really know what your point was to begin with. It should also be noted that copyright isn't a "weaker" form of property, just a different form.
I disagree. I think copyright is a weaker form of property. My point is basically libertarian. Let's start at the very beginning of ownership. The first thing you own is your body. I think nowadays, most people in modern societiees would not dispute that humans have an inherent, absolute ownership of their body. Derived from that ownership of your body comes an ownership of your actions. You can decide what you do, because you own your body.
The question, then, becomes: Do you also own the things you create? This isn't clear at all, which is why I claim that copyright is a we
Exactly. But most copyright violators are not distributing the MP3s (depending on the application they used to get the songs, they may have uploaded data while downloading the songs, but no meaningful amount), they are simply keeping them and listening to them.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. The restriction of distribution allows for the innate value of the work to be tapped. Without it, the demand for the work is instantly filled without the person responsible for such satisfaction receiving a cent. Once the file is distributed, a copy is nestled in someone's file-system, and it is used, then that person no longer has any desire to pay for the original.
That is somewhat debatable, but I agree that this is different from hanging printed money on your wall. Still, the loss incured to the copyright holder is small, at least for each individual case. One person can only "cost" a recording company the potential music that person would have bought; if the person were counterfeiting money, however, the cost could potentially be much higher. So perhaps copying music can't be compared to counterfeiting money.
If there was no restrictions on distribution, no-one would have any desire to pay for the original, except possibly a few who would pay out of charity.
Depends on the definition of "charity", I guess. But even so: would that necessarily be bad?
To tie it back to the comparative analogy, if someone can counterfeit their money, they no longer feel the need to work and contribute back to society and the economy (which is generally what is required in order to procure money legally).
Yes, and this seems like a more severe outcome than somebody simply not buying music anymore.
I agree, though, that the counterfeiting comparison is a better fit than I originally thought.
And then there's another argument here: Copyright is a privilege granted by the government. It's not absolute.
What do you mean "absolute"?
I mean copyright doesn't mean you own the thing you created in the same way that you own a pair of shoes you bought in a shop. For one, you copyright only exists for a limited time. Granted, in the U.S, it's a long time, but still, it's limited. Also, there's fair use, as you've pointed out in another post. I don't have fair use rights to your shoes, but I can quote the post you made.
Where I live, downloading MP3s is perfectly legal.
I, personally, would lobby to have that changed.
Why? It doesn't seem to hurt the music industry over here, quote the contrary, and it means we don't have stuff like the RIAA suing old grannies and homeless people.
Money is - or at least used to be - different. Initially, each bill and coin represented a defined amount of gold. So money used to have more than just imaginary worth.
Money doesn't have imaginary worth. It represents your economy and perceptions of where your economy will be in the future. If you think about gold (and currency based on it) for a second, its value is no less abstract.
I disagree. While gold has no inherent worth, at least there isn't an infinite amount of it. There is, however, an infinite amount of money. The amount of money on your bank account is essentially a number in a computer. It doesn't actually exist at all; if everyone were to go to their bank and ask for their money, the banks would run out of money pretty quickly; 99% of all money only exists as debt (somebody goes to a bank and asks for money; the bank then changes the money on their account, and voilÃ, the money now exists, but it only exists in the form of the debt the person has to the bank; however, the person can then spend that money somewhere else).
"Fair use" only exists in the U.S. (though many countries have similar laws); the web is global. And even in the U.S, it's unclear when fair use applies (although quoting a/. post probably qualifies:-).
Fortunately, even if it does not qualify, I can counter-sue since you also quoted my posts:-)
No, that's not true. You seem to be confusing the analogy with the subject. You're using the fake money. By using that fake money, you are devaluing everyone else's real money. By owning and using your mp3s, you are devaluing the copyright holder's copyright.
Correct on the first part, arguably incorrect on the second part. As you say yourself:
The copyright's value comes from its ability to control distribution.
Exactly. But most copyright violators are not distributing the MP3s (depending on the application they used to get the songs, they may have uploaded data while downloading the songs, but no meaningful amount), they are simply keeping them and listening to them.
And then there's another argument here: Copyright is a privilege granted by the government. It's not absolute. Where I live, downloading MP3s is perfectly legal. Money is - or at least used to be - different. Initially, each bill and coin represented a defined amount of gold. So money used to have more than just imaginary worth. Nowadays, it's a bit more compliated, but I still think that the worth of money and the worth of copyright are entirely different concepts which can't really be compared.
In fact, I would argue that selling mp3s would even be preferable to anonymous online distribution
Of course.
(from the copyright holder's perspective). Which do you think would distribute more copies?
Music is cheap. I think most people don't pirate music because they want to save money; they pirate music because it's convenient. Which explains why iTunes is such a huge success; it's often more convenient than searching for music using a P2P network.
If the music companies want to fight piracy, they need to make paying for music even more convenient. Get rid of DRM, give all companies access to the whole cataolg of music, add proper meta data so this stuff can be searched, and so on.
Ever used Google Book search? Quite possibly a violation of the publisher's copyright. Visited flickr and saved a picture to your disk? Copyright infringement. Received an e-Mail and forwarded it? You could be sued.
Statistically, you are guilty of dozens of copyright violations every week. If you get caught three times, you are not an idiot, you're just a normal person with a huge load of bad luck. Personally, I don't think bad luck is a crime.
Of course Ron Paul would be different than McCain, but then, Ron Paul is hardly a Republican at all. People usually choose their party based on their beliefs, so candidates of a given party are - up to some point - alike. Furthermore, they are in debt to their own party if they are elected, which influences their decisions.
Some people, of course, joined a given party because there are only two viable parties in the USA and they had to go with what they perceived as the lesser of two evils. But even then, they obviously made a conscious decision to go with one and not the other party.
Downloading a bunch of MP3s (and even if the downloader bought these files, that would equal to at most a few thousand bucks of money for Sony and friends) == You can't ever work again in any kind of job other than as Bob the Builder; you can't use any cell phone with Internet connection ever again; you can only contact your friends by calling them or writing a letter; and so on.
On average, honest people violate copyright over 12 times each day (ever forwarded an e-Mail, for example?). So why don't you just go to jail if you can't be honest, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but if we make only the music you like at all viable, then I won't have a choice, will I? That's why I support copyright. It brings richer culture and more choice.
I'm confused. Why would we make only the music I like viable? I simply pointed out two examples of bands, I never said these were the only examples.
You keep saying that copyright brings richer culture. I keep disagreeing with that, I think the evidence points to the contrary.
I'm extremely hesitant to provide any sort of validation to that claim. For one, it implies an objectivity in music tastes that simply isn't there.
Well, in that case, what I said is even more valid. If you can't distinguish between good and bad music, what point is there in wanting music to be made by people who do it for a living? :-)
You say I don't have to like the same music as you, but that's just so long as I agree that the best music is created casually.
I did not say that. I said "good music is made by people who don't do it for a living." This isn't exclusive, obviously.
I'm still having trouble grasping why. You have said that music will survive, but you've made no mention of numbers. You haven't pointed out why the same people creating music now will continue to create when the bills stop being paid, or when they have to work another job. Logically, you would think that some of them, especially the ones doing it tough now, would drop out of the race. What would stop them, or what would fill the gap?
I think I already pointed out that almost no bands make music selling CDs. Even today, bands make music on tours, selling merchandise, and by appearing in ads.
Which is why we need a change. You know why some artists are failing to make money of recordings? It's because the fees for the services the RIAA provides comes out of the profits the recording sales. All too often, the lacklustre sales fail to leave the artist any profit. Thanks to piracy (and other factors) the barrier of entry has been raised. One thing I can assure you is that it won't get any better if we scrap copyright. Sales will be even more lacklustre, money to record will be even more scarce, and recording will die a quiet death.
Okay, this is interesting. Your reasoning goes as follows:
This is obviously false for several reasons. First of all, bands weren't making any money with CDs even before Napster appeared. Seconds, Labels do make money. CD sales are decreasing each year, but there's still a lot of profit in music sales.
Fact: Bands don't get money because labels don't pay them. Labels don't pay them because they don't have to pay them. They don't have to pay them because most bands want to produce records even if it means taking a loss.
Giving the labels more money will change nothing at all, because it won't change the fundamental fact that bands are in a position of weakness versus the labels.
Of course, the price difference on said other systems may be even more outrageous (*cough* PS3 *cough*).
I haven't looked down this end of my user page for a while. Are you still there?
That's you.
Of course. You told me to trust you, and that we didn't want music to be made by people who don't do it for the money, and I disagreed.
Interestingly, the way it is now, very few artists actually make money from selling records. It turns out that even today, releasing a record costs most artists money. Bands see records as a publicity instrument. They make money using other means.
Music tastes aren't some homogeneous collective concept that can be moulded to fit the music scene. The most efficient solution is to allow tastes to mould the music scene to fit. I don't want to be told that I should be liking the same music as you. Perhaps as a libertarian, you can appreciate that.
Well, I'm certainly not a libertarian (I'm quite glad to live in a country with public health care, for example), but even ignoring that part, I must admit that I'm a bit confused. This seems like a straw man; I don't think I even implied that you should have to like the same music I like. I merely pointed out that good music is made by people who don't do it for a living. This applies to pretty much all genres of music; you don't have to like the particular bands I like. Furthermore, since even most professional bands don't make their money selling actual music, I doubt the discussion is relevant. I suspect that people could copy 100% of all music and never actually pay for a single song, and we would still have as many professional bands as we have now.
The money we pay for music does not go to the bands. It goes to the record companies, which use it to finance production and distribution of CDs (as well as drugs and prostitutes for their CEOs, presumably).
No, money is and always has been an option. You don't have to take it. It's completely up to the artist whether or not they want money for their efforts. What you're doing is telling them what their choice is.
I'm telling you that there is a choice :-)
Some may be fine under servitude under their fans (Who am I kidding? Servants get more money than donations! Optional slavery would be better fitting) but many others will justifiably want out. If artists are making no money of recordings (which is the natural consequence of piracy)
No, actually, this is the current state already.
then they will stop producing them.
This is obviously not true, since we seem to have records right now, even though they don't make their bands any money. Records are publicity. You don't get people to come to your concerts if radios aren't playing your songs, and radios aren't playing your songs if you don't produce and record and release them.
I don't believe that there is some innate desire in human beings to distribute recordings
I disagree. Humans have an innate need for notoriety. We want to see our names on books, we want to be mentioned in papers, we want people to know and recognize us and leave some legacy for future generations.
You are rewarding performance and performance only.
I am not rewarding anything. I'm not even claiming that performing is the only way for artists to m
Well, the artist does get to say how his work is distributed, he just doesn't get to transfer some fundamental rights to anyone else.
...which has influenced popular culture like few (perhaps no) other movies.
Today, I learned something about Americans. Thank you, sir. I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your blog.
Okay, now that you've explained the english language for the rest of us dorks, maybe you could add another lesson and tell us what a geek is. Inquiring minds (a.k.a. geeks) want to know.
For all they do wrong, at least Christians believe in something that was always meant to be a religion, while Scientology believes in a science fiction novel.
And of course, it's quite obvious that nowadays, Scientology is more detrimental to their members and to society in general than modern Christianity is.
Yeah, thanks to Wii Fit, I've actually lost weight in the last month :-)
All of my colleagues from work are also pretty fit, they swim, go biking and play football (not the american kind).
I realize that forking and fragmentation have advantages (more competition and all that), but man... sometimes I wonder just how far ahead of everything else Linux would be if everyone worked towards the same goals on the same projects.
There's no need to include a copyright statement; you own the copyright to your work automatically, and in some countries, you can't actually give it up (which is why you can't create public domain works in Germany, for exmple).
With copyright infringement, it planes out to the amount of money you would have spent. I suggest they are comparable, but one is far more severe crime than than the other. Also, the above doesn't apply IMHO if you distribute over P2P networks. You are helping ruin many other people's potential to buy music, and the severity of the offence should IMHO match its exponential growth. I should also point out that most of the cases I've heard of against copyright infringers were against people such as these, but maybe I'm just ill-informed.
The problem is that distribution and downloading can't be distinguished on most modern P2P systems. As soon as you start downloading, you also start uploading the data you've already downloaded. In a typical case, you eventually end up uploading about the same amount as you have downloaded, so the point could be made that the damage is around twice the worth of the song or movie.
Yes! It's a lovely dream that artists will work with love of music and charity driving them, but in the end, they've at least got to eat. Trust me, we don't want a music industry riding on the back of snatches of free time between day-jobs.
Why not? Most of the music I actually listen to is from "part-time" bands. I love onan (an instrumental hip hop band). I love Must Have Been Tokyo, a swiss brit-pop band (if that is at all possible). Yeah, I've bought their CDs, but you know what? They would continue making music even if nobody bought their CDs, as long as somebody came to their concerts because they make absolutely no money on CDs. I don't think they make any money from their music at all, actually. And perhaps that is better, because it allows them to make the music they want to, instead of the music which makes the most money.
Besides, it's not just a lovely dream; it's how music and media has worked for most of human history. People made music before copyright was invented, and they will make music long after its demise.
Personally, I would not be surprised if the quality of music played on radio station actually went up if people stopped paying for music.
Ah, but you must be careful! How much of this perception is due to the victim becoming you (and everyone else), rather than the RIAA?
That certainly plays a big role, but then, isn't - objectively - hurting the RIAA much better than hurting everyone else? :-)
Thank you, but I still don't really know what your point was to begin with. It should also be noted that copyright isn't a "weaker" form of property, just a different form.
I disagree. I think copyright is a weaker form of property. My point is basically libertarian. Let's start at the very beginning of ownership. The first thing you own is your body. I think nowadays, most people in modern societiees would not dispute that humans have an inherent, absolute ownership of their body. Derived from that ownership of your body comes an ownership of your actions. You can decide what you do, because you own your body.
The question, then, becomes: Do you also own the things you create? This isn't clear at all, which is why I claim that copyright is a we
Perhaps I should have been clearer. The restriction of distribution allows for the innate value of the work to be tapped. Without it, the demand for the work is instantly filled without the person responsible for such satisfaction receiving a cent. Once the file is distributed, a copy is nestled in someone's file-system, and it is used, then that person no longer has any desire to pay for the original.
That is somewhat debatable, but I agree that this is different from hanging printed money on your wall. Still, the loss incured to the copyright holder is small, at least for each individual case. One person can only "cost" a recording company the potential music that person would have bought; if the person were counterfeiting money, however, the cost could potentially be much higher. So perhaps copying music can't be compared to counterfeiting money.
If there was no restrictions on distribution, no-one would have any desire to pay for the original, except possibly a few who would pay out of charity.
Depends on the definition of "charity", I guess. But even so: would that necessarily be bad?
To tie it back to the comparative analogy, if someone can counterfeit their money, they no longer feel the need to work and contribute back to society and the economy (which is generally what is required in order to procure money legally).
Yes, and this seems like a more severe outcome than somebody simply not buying music anymore.
I agree, though, that the counterfeiting comparison is a better fit than I originally thought.
What do you mean "absolute"?
I mean copyright doesn't mean you own the thing you created in the same way that you own a pair of shoes you bought in a shop. For one, you copyright only exists for a limited time. Granted, in the U.S, it's a long time, but still, it's limited. Also, there's fair use, as you've pointed out in another post. I don't have fair use rights to your shoes, but I can quote the post you made.
I, personally, would lobby to have that changed.
Why? It doesn't seem to hurt the music industry over here, quote the contrary, and it means we don't have stuff like the RIAA suing old grannies and homeless people.
Money doesn't have imaginary worth. It represents your economy and perceptions of where your economy will be in the future. If you think about gold (and currency based on it) for a second, its value is no less abstract.
I disagree. While gold has no inherent worth, at least there isn't an infinite amount of it. There is, however, an infinite amount of money. The amount of money on your bank account is essentially a number in a computer. It doesn't actually exist at all; if everyone were to go to their bank and ask for their money, the banks would run out of money pretty quickly; 99% of all money only exists as debt (somebody goes to a bank and asks for money; the bank then changes the money on their account, and voilÃ, the money now exists, but it only exists in the form of the debt the person has to the bank; however, the person can then spend that money somewhere else).
Money has
"Fair use" only exists in the U.S. (though many countries have similar laws); the web is global. And even in the U.S, it's unclear when fair use applies (although quoting a /. post probably qualifies :-).
Fortunately, even if it does not qualify, I can counter-sue since you also quoted my posts :-)
That's my point. You can't possibly stop violating copyright. In fact, just by quoting your post, I probably violated your copyright on your post.
Correct on the first part, arguably incorrect on the second part. As you say yourself:
The copyright's value comes from its ability to control distribution.Exactly. But most copyright violators are not distributing the MP3s (depending on the application they used to get the songs, they may have uploaded data while downloading the songs, but no meaningful amount), they are simply keeping them and listening to them.
And then there's another argument here: Copyright is a privilege granted by the government. It's not absolute. Where I live, downloading MP3s is perfectly legal. Money is - or at least used to be - different. Initially, each bill and coin represented a defined amount of gold. So money used to have more than just imaginary worth. Nowadays, it's a bit more compliated, but I still think that the worth of money and the worth of copyright are entirely different concepts which can't really be compared.
In fact, I would argue that selling mp3s would even be preferable to anonymous online distributionOf course.
(from the copyright holder's perspective). Which do you think would distribute more copies?Music is cheap. I think most people don't pirate music because they want to save money; they pirate music because it's convenient. Which explains why iTunes is such a huge success; it's often more convenient than searching for music using a P2P network.
If the music companies want to fight piracy, they need to make paying for music even more convenient. Get rid of DRM, give all companies access to the whole cataolg of music, add proper meta data so this stuff can be searched, and so on.
Ever used Google Book search? Quite possibly a violation of the publisher's copyright. Visited flickr and saved a picture to your disk? Copyright infringement. Received an e-Mail and forwarded it? You could be sued.
Statistically, you are guilty of dozens of copyright violations every week. If you get caught three times, you are not an idiot, you're just a normal person with a huge load of bad luck. Personally, I don't think bad luck is a crime.
The equivalent to spending counterfeit money is selling pirated MP3s, which most people don't do.
Of course Ron Paul would be different than McCain, but then, Ron Paul is hardly a Republican at all. People usually choose their party based on their beliefs, so candidates of a given party are - up to some point - alike. Furthermore, they are in debt to their own party if they are elected, which influences their decisions. Some people, of course, joined a given party because there are only two viable parties in the USA and they had to go with what they perceived as the lesser of two evils. But even then, they obviously made a conscious decision to go with one and not the other party.
Why? I think nuking the patent office literally would be a grand solution.
Downloading a bunch of MP3s (and even if the downloader bought these files, that would equal to at most a few thousand bucks of money for Sony and friends) == You can't ever work again in any kind of job other than as Bob the Builder; you can't use any cell phone with Internet connection ever again; you can only contact your friends by calling them or writing a letter; and so on.
On average, honest people violate copyright over 12 times each day (ever forwarded an e-Mail, for example?). So why don't you just go to jail if you can't be honest, huh?
But is counterfeiting still morally wrong if all you do is hang the copied bills on your walls as decoration?
Banning somebody from using the Internet is not the same as blocking his access to thepiratebay.com.