Intellectual Property

Recently I was involved in a debate, well, it was a bit more of an inebriated argument. Sadly I'm not at my best logically under those conditions. The debate was over the legality (or rather morality) of pirating music and media. I upheld the stance that it was theft (don't get me wrong, it's not that I've never done it, but I am trying to legitimize my music collection) while the other guy was saying that it's okay, because intellectual property isn't property and therefore it's common use. I'll be honest, I think that's retarded and hypocritical (since I was accused of being a hypocrite during the argument I don't feel bad about saying what I feel whether it's insulting or not). Here's why.

1: let's begin at the beginning. People throw the phrase 'intellectual property' around an awful lot. People say that it's okay to pirate, because it's not actually property, it's an obvious idea. (Note, this was how ford stole the patent for the intermittent windshield wiper) What doesn't occur to people is that this is a new phrase. It's been bastardized recently to essentially mean non-physical property, like music. Often people will use the example that professors are trying to make students pay to copy notes, because they're the professors 'intellectual property'. This is dumb, if the professor were to write a treatise, then yeah, maybe it gets published and people have to pay to read it. However, as a teacher it's his duty to pass on knowledge, and the students/government are paying him quite well for it. He's not necessarily teaching new and unique things (unless he's a very top notch researcher) so really he's trying to jump on the royalties bandwagon that has been passing since Aristotle and Pythagoras. Intellectual property is something that one thinks of, that truly isn't commonly available. Opinions are not, this post for example is not intellectual property, it's on opinion expressed in a public forum ( the story I've been writing on here however is not public usage, it's implied copyright). However the mental proof of a mathematical theorem is intellectual property, once it's written down it's a thesis, this is why institutes pay people money to think of them, because it's worth something.

2: Calling music intellectual property is a trade-off in terms is just silly. Music isn't intellectual, have you heard the new Lady Gaga song? Music is art....okay, sometimes music is art. It was said during the debate that while stealing a CD from a store would be wrong, pirating music from the internet would not. Apparently plastic and paper is worth 20 bucks. What makes the CD valuable is what's written on it, therefore that's the thing that holds value, and it remains true when it's ripped to a computer, the music holds the value, so getting it online is obtaining valuable material for free. Usually that's called theft, sometimes donations, bargain hunting, or welfare.
The argument was made that if I'm out in public and I hear a song on the radio I can enjoy it with out paying. Really? this is like bowling. Of course you can, because the radio paid to play it so that they could grab your attention and then play you advertisements that people are paying them to play. Music is the cleavage shot in radio advertising.
But if I have a boombox out in public I'm allowed to play it without headphones, other people can listen in. Yes, yes they can. Now, when you're done back there in the 1980's come join us here in the present and get an Mp3 player, or at least a walkman, you're embarassing us. Now on to logic instead of invective, yeah, you can play your music for them, but they can't take that music home with them, if they do, it's called kidnapping, and that's wrong.
But it's intellectually open material, anyone could think of it, therefore everyone should be allowed to enjoy it. Really? You think it's open? Okay then, you go into a studio and record the damn songs. As someone who has done that, I am personally offended by this argument that was made. I spent a lot of time in the studio to record a few songs with a friend. They were long, brutal hours. I played until my fingers bled, and then I played some more. The product wasn't great either, but it was mine, and I was proud of it. I have no problem sharing that music with people for free, cause I don't want money off of it, but if you tell me that it's common usage because it's replicable, I'll punch you in the damn jaw.
Music is not intellectual property. It's art. You wouldn't steal the Mona Lisa, granted, the mona lisa is not the same if digitized, but it's art as well. There's a reason people get in trouble for painting forgeries of art, not because they dared to imitate the masters, but because they are trying to pass as the original valuable work something that is not valuable. If it's a good forger it would be just as enjoyable to most people. But it's still illegal to paint copies and distribute them for mass private enjoyment (unless you clearly communicate that it's a print) For thousands of years we have regarded music as art, but all of the sudden it's 'Intellectual property' since we can so easily obtain it illegally.

3. Almost done. It's okay to pirate music, because the big bad corporations are the ones who reap the profits from CD's. I support artists by going to concerts, that's how they really make money. Stick it to the man! Pirates! Wolverines! sorry, got a little carried away there. Really guys, I mean, I'd expect this attitude from silly college rebels and anarchists, but from people who are supposed to be respectable pillars of society this is laughable.
Firstly, yeah, the amount of money each band gets from CD royalties is tiny. Like, single digit cents or less tiny, but dude, CD's go platinum and sell over a million copies. Math says that even if they get paid .003 dollars from each CD, that's still 3,000 dollars. I might have dropped a decimal point, but screw it, my eyes are blurry. There's a reason bands collect royalties from sales, it's because it adds up. 1.5% sales commission isn't a whole lot for an estimator, until you sell a 27 million dollar project. It adds up.
Besides, I know they're big bad evil corporations, but they did sign the band for a reason. They signed them because they had potential, and could make money. No, the label is not some altruistic music guru who just wants people to enjoy music, they're a business. They're like an investment banker, they see potential, they put money into it, and then they expect they're payoff. You don't see people walking into AIG and stealing money 20 bucks at a time do you? Too soon? The labels put a lot of money into the artists, they pay for studio time, equipment, tour advertising and a lot of other things. It's quite communist actually to say that it's okay to steal from them because they're big and evil.

I'm done now. I think I've just convinced myself even more to stop pirating. I hope this provokes a thought, or even just a chuckle. If it doesn't, and you get mad at me, well, get the stick out of your ass you pompous hipster, you're a bigger fun killer than the conservative parents in Dirty Dancing. I leave you now, I have to go write a paper on the use of characterization and association to influence the readers thoughts, oddly enough I'm writing on how one of the best people at this was HItler, and now it's a tactic used by Rowling. Somehow I think using your topic in your paper is a beautiful statement of irony.

Korffy, none of these zingers are aimed at you.