property right vs. copyright

[liseci]

hi everybody i want to ask one question: i have read a lot of topics at mises website about property rights and copyright. so ma question is: i make a song (so the song i made is my property) somebody does a remix of it, does he violated my property doing remix of my song, or copying selling my property? thank you very much.

[twistedbydsign99]

@liseci

hi everybody i want to ask one question: i have read a lot of topics at mises website about property rights and copyright. so ma question is: i make a song (so the song i made is my property) somebody does a remix of it, does he violated my property doing remix of my song, or copying selling my property? thank you very much.

Its far from settled, and this will probably devolve into a flame war. Personally I think you own the physical media you produce. The main draw for income as an artist should be you. So doing live shows for example, no one else can actually BE you, so this should be your biggest money maker.

[z1235]

@liseci

i have read a lot of topics at mises website about property rights and copyright.

Welcome. I suggest that you and everyone willing to respond should first read the following threads on the subject and only proceed here if they thought that a point hasn’t previously been addressed:

Where IP law is actually a good thing

Suppose the following was true: There exists no IP law. A talented director, called James Cameron shoots a film called Avatar which cost more than $ 200 million to produce and $ 150 million to market. The production company sells a copy to a cinema owner. Now other cinema owners approach him and ask him to make copies of the film and sell it to them for a lower price than the production company charges. (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the …

The "Avatar" of Capitalism

Yes, many reviewers linger on the corporation vs natives story, and how the evil humans want to destroy everything that the nature-bound Na’vi hold dear. But apart from the message of the story, what message does the film itself send out? That five hundred million dollars in capital were invested based on one single man’s vision that it could be turned into a vehicle for tenfold profits, that this vision could bring wonder and joy to people of all nations, and that he could bring it to market w…

If intellectual property was done away with completely...

What would happen to the software industry? Since it would make it legitimate to copy and resell any piece of software, it will seriously cut into profits of larger software giants. The entire line of thinking that you are a licensee of the software handed to you, and not the owner of it through the physical property that contains this intangible property, would no longer be valid. It is often said by men like Sowell and Friedman that losses are more important than profits. Losses are crucial …

Z.

[liseci]

what if he is doing a hit from my property he will make more money than me.

lets take example the song of Puff Dady - ill be missing you , he remixed the song from The Police’s Every Breath You Take , Who made more money the original artist or puff daddy.? so somebody else stole the property and makes more money than the owner.

[Spideynw]

@liseci

i make a song (so the song i made is my property)

How does that make it your song?

@liseci

somebody does a remix of it, does he violated my property doing remix of my song, or copying selling my property?

You assume it is your property. It is not. So no, your property rights are not violated if someone copies and sells the song.

Copying Is Not Theft -- remixed (jazz)

[JoeTerp]

How exactly did Puffy “steal” the song? Is Every Breath You Take no longer on Police albums? He didn’t even copy it, he changed almost all the words.

Thank goodness Ford “stole” the idea of the automobile from whoever invented it. Or that airline companies “stole” the idea of an airplane from the Wright Bros. I know that isn’t copyright, but its still IP.

[Wibee]

I read one of the links, or at least tried to. I found very little coherent. I guess to expand on the original question.

1. Why are intellectual property rights any different from property rights in general as a libertarian would define it?

2. People spend time and resources developing an idea. They take this idea and develop a product, like a movie. What gives people the right to use ti at the expense of the actors, directors, producers, writers, distributers?

I guess what I am looking for is a source that explains why IP rights differ. Like a chapter from a Rothbard or Mises book, a website article.

Though, from the getgo, I see it as instituting individual monopoly rights. Which is a nono.

Edit:

What I have trouble rectifying, is that lack of IP rights feels like slavery. People are using my sweat for their gain without proper compensation.

@z1235

@liseci

i have read a lot of topics at mises website about property rights and copyright.

Welcome. I suggest that you and everyone willing to respond should first read the following threads on the subject and only proceed here if they thought that a point hasn’t previously been addressed:

Where IP law is actually a good thing

The "Avatar" of Capitalism

If intellectual property was done away with completely...

Z.

[Spideynw]

@Wibee

1. Why are intellectual property rights any different from property rights in general as a libertarian would define it?

Can you define “intellectual property”? Do you just mean ideas as property?

@Wibee

2. People spend time and resources developing an idea.

Don’t people spend time and money building stuff too? Does that mean they should have a monopoly on whatever it is they build, just because they spent time and money building it? For example, just because I am the first one to build a grocery store in an area, does that mean I should get a monopoly on selling groceries in that area?

[Truth_and_Liberty]

@Wibee

1. Why are intellectual property rights any different from property rights in general as a libertarian would define it?

It is the nature of property to be scarce (otherwise no conflicts can arise). Ideas are not scarce and this is what IP amounts to: claiming ownership of an idea, or pattern.

@Wibee

2. People spend time and resources developing an idea. They take this idea and develop a product, like a movie. What gives people the right to use ti at the expense of the actors, directors, producers, writers, distributers?

You’re asking the wrong question. What gives the actors, directors, etc the right to stop someone using their property (their computer, blank DVDs, etc) as they see fit? The answer is that they don’t.

[Angurse]

@Wibee

1. Why are intellectual property rights any different from property rights in general as a libertarian would define it?

2. People spend time and resources developing an idea. They take this idea and develop a product, like a movie. What gives people the right to use ti at the expense of the actors, directors, producers, writers, distributers?

I guess what I am looking for is a source that explains why IP rights differ. Like a chapter from a Rothbard or Mises book, a website article.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

Against Intellectual Property | Mises Institute

[Stranger]

@trulib

It is the nature of property to be scarce (otherwise no conflicts can arise). Ideas are not scarce and this is what IP amounts to: claiming ownership of an idea, or pattern.

The fallacy of the rejection of IP, on the other hand, is deliberately obfuscating ideas, which are not scarce, and information, which is scarce and is what is protected by copyright. (You do not copy ideas, hence copyright does not apply to them.)

[Truth_and_Liberty]

@Stranger

@trulib

It is the nature of property to be scarce (otherwise no conflicts can arise). Ideas are not scarce and this is what IP amounts to: claiming ownership of an idea, or pattern.

The fallacy of the rejection of IP, on the other hand, is deliberately obfuscating ideas, which are not scarce, and information, which is scarce and is what is protected by copyright. (You do not copy ideas, hence copyright does not apply to them.)

I’m not interested in debating with you Stranger. I’ve read all about your views on IP in the thread in your sig. I think you’re incorrect on this issue.

[Stranger]

@trulib

I’m not interested in debating with you Stranger. I’ve read all about your views on IP in the thread in your sig. I think you’re incorrect on this issue.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Wibee]

I think stranger makes very good points, especially with Fallacy #4 he writes about in his link. That’s what I was trying to get at with one of my questions. Though it can be reversed and said that IP rights inflate the cost of the idea. Though I am more concerned with medicine, where it takes billions in investment.

However, perhaps with relation to the movie industry. If every DVD they sell included a contest ticket that gave the person a chance to win a day with the movie star of their choice in the movie, that itself would guarantee a huge revenue stream that copiers could not duplicate. But good old government has rules against this. “no purchase necessary for contests” If it were purchasable, it would be filed under gambling.

@trulib

@Stranger

@trulib

It is the nature of property to be scarce (otherwise no conflicts can arise). Ideas are not scarce and this is what IP amounts to: claiming ownership of an idea, or pattern.

The fallacy of the rejection of IP, on the other hand, is deliberately obfuscating ideas, which are not scarce, and information, which is scarce and is what is protected by copyright. (You do not copy ideas, hence copyright does not apply to them.)

I’m not interested in debating with you Stranger. I’ve read all about your views on IP in the thread in your sig. I think you’re incorrect on this issue.

[Wibee]

Did a little reading and thinking.

Some ideas are not scarce. Like the academic work of Euler and Bernoulli. Though the public disclosure of ideas make it not scarce. If we are assuming no IP rights, then for example, the people who make the movies have to charge much more for the roll of tape for the movie they shot to each cinema.

I think the lack of intellectual property rights would just inflate the cost of the initial product, or keep it secret (trade secret) like certain fast food recipes. Like my example in the previous paragraph. Can be extended to Euler selling his bending theory to a university or academic publishing place or wherever he wants..

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Wibee

If we are assuming no IP rights, then for example, the people who make the movies have to charge much more for the roll of tape for the movie they shot to each cinema.

Why do they have to charge more?

I think the lack of intellectual property rights would just inflate the cost of the initial product, or keep it secret (trade secret) like certain fast food recipes.

So?

[z1235]

@Wibee

Did a little reading and thinking.

I recently proposed the concept of Information as Property by using an analogy between physical property in the physical universe and information property in an information universe. I’d prefer to avoid another multi-page debate on the subject (lack of time and mood for it) – just thought it could add another angle to your thinking.

Z.

[Wibee]

Easy, they have to charge more because they can only sell the idea once and not have a continuous revenue stream to draw upon protect by Ip rights.

IP rights guarantee they can sell the product forever, therefore they can afford to lower the price due to competing ideas because no one would be able to reproduce their idea.

What do you mean by So?

Edit:

Read some of the thread, z. It’s a very interesting idea. I can see how both IP and anti-IP rights would function.

[Spideynw]

@Wibee

Though I am more concerned with medicine, where it takes billions in investment.

I only glanced at this article, but maybe you can check into it to see if it is valid. http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-myth-of-high-drug-research/

It makes the claim that it really does not cost that much for drug research.