Piracy

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Of course, that old songs still produce revenue supports the relevance of longer copyright terms.

No, because copyright was never about long-term revenue production.

[Kuciwalker]

How much investment in music is made because the labels know a certain proportion of their music will continue providing revenue for a few decades (and thus a higher total revenue)? Extended terms also reward those investors in successful bands with additional capital, even if they didn't factor that long term into their decisions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
No, because copyright was never about long-term revenue production.

That makes no sense.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Regardless, if your only argument against the current system is the length of the terms, you haven't provided a very convincing justification for your piracy.

That's not my only argument, son. Pay attention.

Price discrimination based on wait time is an improvement, but not a full improvement. Ideally the music company would be able to charge me only what I was willing to pay for their album. They aren't able to do that, however, so I don't buy many albums (even before p2p was available I didn't). If it was up to music companies, it would be decades before almost any albums reached a level where I'd be willing to pay for them.

My not listening to that music is lost utility.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That makes no sense.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. I quoted it in full. The purpose of copyright was to encourage creativity by remunerating the artist over a limited period of time. The fact that some white guys in suits are still making money off of Hendrix recordings is not what the Founders had in mind.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How much investment in music is made because the labels know a certain proportion of their music will continue providing revenue for a few decades (and thus a higher total revenue)?

I'm afraid you overstate the importance of capital investment, especially in the music industry. You can make a much better case for the film industry and pharma companies.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Price discrimination based on wait time is an improvement, but not a full improvement. Ideally the music company would be able to charge me only what I was willing to pay for their album. They aren't able to do that, however, so I don't buy many albums (even before p2p was available I didn't). If it was up to music companies, it would be decades before almost any albums reached a level where I'd be willing to pay for them.

My not listening to that music is lost utility.

Providing that music for free to everyone, though, causes even more losses in utility.

[Kuciwalker]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. I quoted it in full. The purpose of copyright was to encourage creativity by remunerating the artist over a limited period of time. The fact that some white guys in suits are still making money off of Hendrix recordings is not what the Founders had in mind.

The artist usually is. What the artist is paid up-front (in addition or instead of royalties) is determined by the expected value of the work over its lifetime.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, whoever came up with the label of "piracy" was either a genius (if anti-IP) or an idiot (if pro-IP).

Pirates are cool. Duh.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Providing that music for free to everyone, though, causes even more losses in utility.

I agree with you. But just because the current IP law is better than no IP law at all does not mean that it's even close to "ideal"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
By the way, whoever came up with the label of "piracy" was either a genius (if anti-IP) or an idiot (if pro-IP).

Pirates are cool. Duh.

It dates back several centuries IIRC.

[KrazyHorse]

As a matter of fact, I think that the copyright and patent systems are overly simplistic. They're crying out for reform.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I agree with you. But just because the current IP law is better than no IP law at all does not mean that it's even close to "ideal"

I think it's pretty close to optimal, within a quantitative adjustment (to the length of copyright).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
As a matter of fact, I think that the copyright and patent systems are overly simplistic. They're crying out for reform.

Patents are... different. But few here even know what the important problems are, and none of us are actually violating patents.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It dates back several centuries IIRC.

The references I've seen state that it's a relatively recent adaptation of the word, but they could easily be mistaken.