Below is the section “Music Without Intellectual Property” from Stephan Kinsella’s “Do Business Without Intellectual Property”.
Kinsella would have done well to learn just a little about the subject
before writing about it. Had he done so, he might have discovered that
music must be written (by a writer) before it is performed (by an
artist).
Here are Kinsella’s talking points (quoted) with my comments (interspersed)
When a second artist covers a song, and fails to pay the writer royalties, of course it doesn’t harm the first artist. It harms the writer.
Of course it is a “great compliment” when someone steals your stuff. Like, when I steal the shirt off your back and wear it, I’m complimenting you on your sophisticated taste in clothing.
----------
Here are Kinsella’s talking points (quoted) with my comments (interspersed)
Music without Intellectual PropertyThere’s no free lunch, and no free distribution. YouTube enforces copyright. And, uh, writers don’t have concerts.
• Free distribution. Musicians make their money from other sources. Let people copy your hits. Let YouTube flourish. People will want to buy tickets to hear your concerts.
• Artists have learned that covers are actually great. It’s a great compliment. It never harms the original artist.Of course artists think covers are great. That’s what recording artists do – they cover material written by writers. Writers have always wanted artists to cover their songs – the more, the better. Of course, as valid property owners, writers may seek rent. In music, that rent takes a couple of forms – “mechanical royalties” which pay per unit sold, and “performance royalties”, which pay for a performance on TV or radio.
When a second artist covers a song, and fails to pay the writer royalties, of course it doesn’t harm the first artist. It harms the writer.
Of course it is a “great compliment” when someone steals your stuff. Like, when I steal the shirt off your back and wear it, I’m complimenting you on your sophisticated taste in clothing.
• If someone steals your stuff, try cheering for a change. Welcome emulation and competition!Competition means everybody is free to write their own songs, like everybody is free to homestead and farm their own land. Competition does not mean that everybody gets to use my song for free, any more than everybody gets to use your farmland for free.
----------
Writers can adapt their business model to the reality of the world around them, instead of trying to ensure their income stream through government-backed violence. The smart writers (such as Cory Doctorow) have already adapted successfully to a post-scarcity digital environment.
All business owners ensure their income stream through government-backed violence, right? All property owners may use violence to protect their property, right Roger Browne?
Roger Browne, you personally, today, in the real world, rely on threat of violence to defend your property, correct?
So trying to pretend that copyright enforcement relies on violence, while other property does not, that’s just dishonest scare-mongering, right?
And your dishonesty is intentional, right?
And your dishonesty is intended to deprive others of their rightful property, correct?
1. A singer would indeed be unlikely to buy a song she has never heard, from a songwriter she has never heard of. That’s not the situation I was intending to describe. I’m thinking of an established songwriter who is writing a new work. Perhaps a singer commissioned the work to be written, on the basis of the writer’s reputation and previous work. Or perhaps the songwriter is producing the work “on spec” and will market it to people who wish to record it, at a price sufficient to cover the time and effort required to create the work. (Incidentally, many of us here were founding members of liberty.me, and did pay money in advance for a website we’d never seen. So it can sometimes work that way.)
2. No, not all business owners ensure their income stream through government-backed violence. For example, I don’t. I work hard to ensure that my customers are satisfied. If they use my service and won’t pay, I do not invoke the violence of the court system. Instead, I put my energy into making the other 99.5% of my customers even more satisfied, and refuse to do further business with the occasional dickead. If my ISP provides crappy service, I don’t invoke the violence of the court system; I just find a better ISP. (I presume the liberty.me business model doesn’t enforce its income stream through government-backed violence either.)
3. No, I do not personally, today, in the real world, rely on threat of violence to defend my property. I will use force, yes, but not violence. I will use non-violent force to prevent a burglar entering my property, and I will use non-violent force to retrieve my property from a burglar, but I will never initiate violent force over mere property. Nor will I use any type of force to stop a burglar from making a copy of my property.
4. It’s a fact that preventing people from making copies can only be achieved by violence or the threat of violence. It’s a fact that preventing people from taking originals can be achieved in many ways, both violent and non-violent. There’s no pretence, dishonesty or scare-mongering involved, so your supposition is false.
5. I have never, in my adult life, been intentionally dishonest.
6. I have no intention to deprive others of their rightful property.
I heard a song the other day. I learned some information. Am I legally allowed to whistle it now? Sit at home and play it on my guitar? Play it at the bar down the street? Perform it during my concert on Saturday?
“I heard a song the other day. I learned some information. Am I legally allowed to whistle it now?
Yes, all you want.
Sit at home and play it on my guitar?
Yes, all you want.
Play it at the bar down the street? Perform it during my concert on Saturday?
Not unless the venue is paying performance royalties (rent on property).
The moment you start using my property to make money, I deserve a cut. It’s only fair.”
I presume you deleted it because you realized that it undermines your position. Something isn’t a property rights violation unless money is being made? But I think this is precisely what you are getting at. You think that you have some sort of right to profit, some sort of property right in other people’s money.
Why not just leave the comment up and then clarify your position?