Argh! Is this stealing? Piracy, Ethics, etc.

[Ali Quadir]

Human culture is free. It is a human birth right, it should not be owned by someone who just wants to extract money from it without adding any other benefit.

Unfortunately the nature of marketing and selling most anything involves paying the lion's share of the gross sale to those who appear to add no value. I really don't see that music is any different here. The world is also full of examples of people who created a novel invention (and even patented or otherwise protected their intellectual property) and then sold the rights to it for a pittance. How is the music industry any more or less culpable in this process than any other business? The only difference I see is that music can be easily and anonymously copied (taken without the permission of the rightful owners). As for the poor musician that is being taken advantage of, well he/she certainly could avoid the music industry entirely (as more and more are), but it is much harder to get mass exposure without their marketing channels. If he/she signed on with them, then he/she did so of their own free will, and they did so to make money, not to contribute to human culture. If their desire was to add to human culture, then they would simply make it available for free and hope for free publicity. Their goal is to make money from it (a goal that I certainly understand), so they make it available the best way that they can to accomplish that end. Today this is the music industry, tomorrow.... who knows.

This is true today.. However for most of human evolution it wasn't... If someone had a brilliant idea then he'd either have to keep it a secret. Or accept that others are going to reproduce it.. Similarly. If he has a problem he can solve it by looking at others. Right now we're with the situation where some people hold all the cards and they can literally tell others to die rather than give up profits. Which is painfully clear in some medication.

This is exactly how it is. And the law is half heartedly behind it. But that does not make it right.

I said that those who do not add value to it receive a disproportionate amount of income from it. Let me clarify I'm not saying that those who SEEM not to add value to it cannot profit from it assuming they do actually add real value.. I'm okay with this. However when distribution and promotion of a handful of bands is the added value service delivered when I buy my favorite band's records I don't feel that this is a fair added value. I really don't care about Britney Spears. Don't get me wrong I wish her well but really she is where she is because she was picked and pimped.

This is not how the law was originally formed. This is adverse to how human nature works. We share music.

We're not at that point yet but the last 10 years we've moved rapidly towards the point where singing a song you have no rights to can get you arrested... Even if it's just humming in an elevator full of colleagues.

For years in the US, most restaurant chains have prohibited their employees from singing the traditional "Happy Birthday to you" song to customers. Urban legend has it that Paul McCartney effectively created this ban by suing several large chains for copyright infringement after he bought rights to the song back in the 70's (the legend goes on to say that he later sold those rights to Michael Jackson who continued to enforce it). Regardless of whether or not this legend is true, I can attest to the fact that almost no US restaurants will have their employees sing "Happy Birthday" to you, and that restaurant managers will tell you that this is why. So maybe your future is already here.

It would seem so.. I don't live stateside. Here people at mac donalds don't sing for us.... Ever.... Not even if we ask them real nicely. They don't sing. It's not in the contract and they're not nearly paid enough to do this, even if it is legal here for them to do so, now please stop making crazy suggestions and eat your burger.

Different world eh?

But the happy birthday song is a good example. I think most people consider it a folk song and would not be able to connect it to any specific artist. (I didn't until you told me) Why is it that a song that is known and sang by all... Can be owned by one?

I know it is exactly that way... But this is because corporate lobbying over centuries made the laws so now it is this way. This is not how the copyright laws were envisioned by the highly educated and thoughtful men that first drafted them. This was exactly one of the points they wanted to avoid.

Lets say you and me are standing in line at Mac Donalds. With people loudly *not* singing behind us.... I've read a book. I'm telling you about it. This means I'm reproducing the book. Therefore I am breaking copyright. Blam a few thousand dollars in fines. This is total nonsense. But exactly how it's going to be unless enough people figure that that's just not right.

How about teachers? They used to copy paste everything for class. Now they really can't do that. A Lovers typical gift.. A mix tape, will set you back a few hundred thousand if the wrong people hear it.