It's more than just her output, it's her property. Didn't you already concede that, or do you disagree?

Next, the proximate cause of the negative market effect is someone doing something with that property she didn't want.

But what if you copy it without authorization and it is also true that you wouldn't have bought it otherwise at market prices?

The short answer: because we give Britney that right. Same as Wal-Mart.

The longer answer:

(To simplify, let's say Britney completely wrote and produced the album.)

Britney worked years honing her craft, writing her songs, taking lessons, and spending money recording the song hiring the musicians, etc. When the copy is made, none of that effort and capital is reflected in how easy it is to copy the results. As a society, we value the effort and capital involved in the creative process. Copying Britney's CD essentially steals everything that led to the CDs production.

Notice that costs of development and capital are easily recouped if you want something physical. Why should creators of content that is not material not also be compensated for the work and effort they put into their work? Just because the object of their labor is easily duplicated? That's an incredibly weak rationale.

I didn't concede that a recording of her output is her property.

They created a competing product unless they made an exact replica and sold it off as the horse carriage manufacturers product. A songwriter creating a song much like Britney's (4/4 time, key, etc.) may follow her same exact formula but they are still not selling/giving it as a Britney Spears song.

So you're assuming the conclusion?

So this is some labor theory of value thing?

Whether they are compensated or not depends on a lot of things. Brittney can hone that one song for 20 years, spending millions on it.. but what if no one likes it? No compensation for all that work. Or suppose people love it, and a lot of them pirate it, with quite a few buying it. Some compensation. Or suppose people love it and most of them buy it. More compensation.

Granting IP doesn't guarantee compensation, nor does not granting IP rule out compensation. It merely changes the potential.

So it's NOT about the market value of the product? It's about how similar the product is?

I'm getting confused now.

eh i could be misunderstanding the argument too. I haven't paid too much attention to this thread until today. I will reread later.

Notice also that free copying perverts market value. How could the CDs of Britney and my band, Dormroom Bull****, be the same when Britney can get $100 dollars a head for a concert and I have to offer free beer to get my friends to show up? That performance value just disappears because something is easily duplicated?

terroristic posts imo. the us gov't is going to detain you for this.

This thread is about Megaupload being taken down. Their whole business model is based on charging customers for distributing copyrighted content that they do not own.

In before Obama/Lirva guitar/rap mashup...

So Britney Spears goes to Sony or whoever, who arranges a studio session with contracted employees, who agree to record Britney sing a song but that the the recording belongs to Sony/Britney.

That's the empirical reality of what happens, yes?

Your position is:

[ ] that is her property
[ ] that is not her property

?

I once used megaupload to share holiday photos. True story.

Why do some people act like if there are no IP laws, musicians, artists, etc. would disappear from the market? Are you saying the demand for music and art would disappear if musicians and artists quit because they couldn't make anymore money?

As long as there is demand, they will continue to make money off of their talents. Yes, people love free things, but if that free thing disappears entirely because it's broke, what do you think is going to happen? Are people going to stop wanting it and go about their lives or are they going to be willing to pay money for something they enjoy?

Again, as long as there is demand, there will be profits.

There is no need for IP law.

If someone decides not to make an album because they won't turn a good enough profit, that just means there isn't enough demand. It doesn't mean that there is too much piracy.

ITT: People that argue tax is a hindrance to growth because people won't be motivated to work anymore tell musicians and artists to man up and suck it.

A big lol at you! Do you even understand what this means for freedom and free speech on the internet? Listen and learn below in the video:



And really just LISTEN and LEARN from the video instead of ignoring facts and being the typical dummy sheep who thinks he's fighting for a good cause when he's(along with all his fellow sheep) really ####ing up the world we live in.

Not to speak for Phil, but I don't think he or anyone ITT was defending SOPA/PIPA. The Megaupload takedown was done under existing legislation, right? They are a company making loads of money distributing other peoples intellectual property illegally. I don't understand why people are going to bat for these guys.

Also, can't we have a discussion without calling people sheep and WRITING IN ANGRY CAPITALS?

I have no problem with what happened to MegaUpload assuming the facts presented are true. They were pretty blatant in violation. However, it seems like a huge game of sticking your finger in the dike and expecting to be able to stop the flood. It's too late, the dam has started to break.

That's not what I'm saying (facepalm)

Usually, when musicians write a song, they don't think "oh man it's gonna be REALLY +EV if I go from B minor to G here and add in some 16th notes, that'll REALLY be the money maker!" Or "oh man, you know what the kids will identify with? Broken hearts! Yeah, that's the ticket! I'll come up with some sob story about some girl that never existed and the kids will LOVE IT and I'll make MILLIONS!!!"




That's not what I'm saying either. What I'm saying is record companies are obsolete, and they are the ones pushing this ****, not the musicians. As I've said before, if record companies had it their way, the only way to record and release music would be through them. Are you OK with record companies being the only ones having control over music they didn't even write?

So you are in favour of some protection of intellectual property?

Also, no-one is forcing anyone to sell stuff to record companies or anyone else. Plenty of indepedent labels out there or you can release your own stuff online or whatever.

She doesn't, the record company does. And they get the vast majority of money from album sales. Britney probably gets like 1 or 2 dollars out of a 20 dollar CD, the rest goes to the record company.

how large is the plate before your head? this isn't about megaupload or "defending" anybody. you clearly do not understand anything about the subject and what it can do to our free internet. this is not about freedom for a handful of sites who may have illegal content on them, this is about freedom for you and me. I already said this in my last post but:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watch the video <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (you clearly haven't)

if you watch the video you'll understand what this is all about a little better.

and yeah, most people are sheep. not because they choose or want to, it's because they don't inform themselves of what governments do to take control over individual freedom without there being a clear reason for it. you just proved this point; you basically have no idea what SOPA and PIPA can do to ALL of us.......

Not if the musician knows how to negotiate. Some musicians retain ownership of all their work.

I don't give a **** if people download my music for free. In fact, when I finally release something, I'll give it away for free and accept donations. The Radiohead pay whatever you want model is pretty good imo. I think pretty much any musician who doesn't have much of a fan base would be absolutely thrilled if their music was downloaded thousands of times a day for free, and that wouldn't be the end of the world. They could still sell physical copies, shirts and other merchandise, and make money from playing gigs.

I am not a no IPer. I see both sides of the issue. I do however absolutely loathe record companies, and I realize that they want to have a complete monopoly on music, and that is very bad. I would not be in favor of Barack Obama using my music for a campaign ad. I do not want people to sample my music and turn it into something it wasn't originally meant to be. But I don't give a **** if people download my music to listen to.