M
Marybeloved
Guest
What do you mean a performance? Because performance could be looked at as a service like any other- An entertainment service. Musicians make most of their money on tour precisely out of charging for this service. In this sense it is not an idea. The idea would be the manner of performance, singing, style of dancing, formation etc, which other people can do. Should this performance be captured somewhere like a tape/CD etc- Then it becomes information.
You and your Son deserve to make money off your legitimate human labour- off your work which is noble. That’s why the IP Laws are just- If they did not exist, you may find it impossible to make money off of such work. But that does not necessarily translate into ownership over the ideas that you come up with in your work or the information that you engender.
No one does. If they did, then No Government would have a right to take it from them after a certain number of years. The only reason that you could come up with your book or your sons their music is that society has allowed ideas to be built on ideas free of charge for centuries to create the different cultures, genres, ways of thinking that now lead to the book you set down to write or the song you record. Ideas and information are not like things- they are meant to be shared so that they benefit the common good. No-one should be allowed to own it- Temporary laws built to protect the labour and efforts that go to bringing them forward have to be balanced against the common good.
It’s theft only because the Law says it is. There is something wrong with this action you describe but it is very different from what you say. The Law saying it’s theft does not mean that it is theft in reality. You have your physical book, that’s your property. Theft from all the human societies would have only meant someone taking your physical book without your permission.
What is wrong with that action is that:
One- That person is trying to sell something he has not put any real effort in. If were merely trying to distribute it at no cost, or only recovering the cost of reproducing it but not make any profit at all, that would be different. To me, he would just be sharing/spreading information, not stealing ideas.
Two: Depending on the situation in that scenario, the original creator may end up not making money off his work that he put into writing the book. (Hence why the Govt creates a law that outlaws what you described)
Easy! It’s impractical and the Government says you can’t! It’s got nothing to do with ownership of ideas.Speaking of counterfeit, why can’t I “file-share” $20 bills? I mean, no one owns the idea of money, right??
One: Money or any medium of exchange requires uniformity or it can’t work- Who would trade with you if you had money only you recognized?
Two: Currency only works if it has value- which it will not have if it’s easily produced by everyone.
Three: Because of it’s delicacy and it’s foundation in the whole economic structure of the Country- The Government just says No way, no how! There’s still no basis in natural law that the Government owns the idea of money! (The person who first came up with it must be at least 5,000 years old, and I’m sure he did not claim any compensation for it either!- Back then no one convinced himself that he owned ideas simply because he thought of it first- They understood that ideas are for the whole of society)- The considerations that go in to the whole protection of currency are wholly different.
Peace.
This is a good thing in and of itself to do. Not every conversation on CAF has to be geared towards a practical problem that somebody is dealing with.
.