Ranting to /dev/null

Rye-Dawg,

We actually had a fairly long conversation about this at small-group today, and even though I agree with you, and think that the downfall of the big record companies aren't a bad thing...

It's really hard to get past the breaking of the law thing, really hard.

And regardless of breaking the law, there's that whole "breach of contract" thing. When you buy a CD, you're implicitly signing your name to whatever "Copyright" means. Feel free to only buy CDs that don't make you sign your name to that. But once you sign it....

Furthermore, and this is borderline upsetting me, "price-fixing" is ONLY a problem if coercion is involved. If no guns are involved, then you can try to fix prices all you want and still be perfectly free market. "Capitalism" is not worth defending. The free market, however, is.

Dude, if the record companies made you sign your name to "I will only listen to this while wearing purple shoelaces," and you signed it, everything is fair-and-square and perfectly consistent with the free market. Nobody has a RIGHT to ANY CDs. No band HAS to sign with a record company. Nobody is FORCING anybody to do anything. You'd BETTER wear those purple shoelaces if you signed your name saying you would. Otherwise, JUST DON'T SIGN YOUR FREAKING NAME.

Anti-trust laws are some of the most anti-free-market laws in existence. How can you invoke them in DEFENSE of the free market without feeling self-referentially incoherent?

Hee hee. This is fun.

NOW I'M REALLY EXCITED. Friedman's book argues AGAINST you. The rise of file-sharing is precisely why it's okay for record companies to TRY to fix prices. It will never work, precisely BECAUSE bands can now get their music out WITHOUT signing with record companies.

But the success of this whole system depends on vigilant enforcement of contract. Breach of contract is bad. Pure and simple. Having a product that people want so bad that they'll sign their names to stupid stuff is NOT theft or breach of contract. Signing your name and then breaking that contract IS.

Ryan, I'm disappointed in you. :)

Of course, the contracts only say that you can't SHARE, not that you can't BE SHARED WITH.

Nick,

You still like systems too much. Consistency and coherence is relative. We by into contradictory propositions all the time, read Chesterton. It's what makes life so grand, you know, the Incarnation. But ya ya ya, you'll say the Incarnation isn't logically contradictory, fine, but it sure is epistemologically impossible to wrap your mind around...

Crap, I'll have more on this later, but I desperately need a shower...

Actually, Nick, I think the whole concept of "by using this you agree to do/not do x" is an entirely fatuous way of establishing contracts. I'm really not liking the idea of non-personal implicit contracts. Print whatever the hell you want on a CD or movie, asserting that purchasing it is agreeing not to copy it is legal fiction of the highest sort. I haven't signed my name to jack.

You also don't give enough credence to the idea of non-violent coercion. No one is *forced* to use Windows either, but Microsoft has engineered things such that there are penalties if you don't. There's a difference between competing on the merits and loading the dice.

In some sense, price fixing is perfectly fine, as long as the market is willing to bear the price. You can charge me a lot for broadband, because I'm willing to pay for it. But music? No, I'm not. Free is free. Now they are trying to pull out their guns by saying, "No, you can't have it for free, you have to pay us for it, and we'll take your life's savings if you don't." The market is not willing to bear the prices record labels are charging, yet they continue to raise prices and attack anyone who tries to get around them, the Communist pigdogs.

Josiah's right, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Okay Ryan, the "denial of implicit contact" thing is a worthwhile argument. I'd love to see it fleshed out more. You may very well be right.

However, I whole-heartedly disagree with your last two paragraphs. You can only call them Communists if they threaten violence.

"Non-violent coercion" is a myth created by an egalitarian society obsessed with its alleged "rights."

Insofar as the record companies are trying to get the government involved where breach of contract is not relevant, then I agree with you. But I say the same to the flip side. Insofar as the file-sharing fans want the government to do something on their behalf where violence has not been threatened and where contracts have not been broken, they're wrong.

And technically, MS has engineered nothing. The individual choices of millions of consumers have engineered the situation we're in. I agree the situation with MS is rotten, but I disagree that the people with the guns should get involved. I think we should try to persuade people to build their own systems (or have friends build them) and learn to use as much open source stuff as possible.

But don't get the people with the guns involved! They should stand at our borders, kick terrorist butt, execute murderers, and otherwise leave us alone.

Three cheers for the Magnificent Seven!

Josiah, I really do agree with you. I was trying to argue within what Ryan had earlier said. Surely I can argue for consistency relative to a given set of shared assumptions, right?

But the Apostle James says good works are necessary for salvation, so I don't care what your systematic theology says. So yeah, I'm with you on the "consistency isn't everything" thing. It tempts us to make ourselves--our own ideas of consistency--into gods.

Nick, you seem to be missing something when you say that you don't want the "guys with the guns" to get involved: without said "guys," you can kiss copyright goodbye. I don't want them involved period. You want them to enforce copyrights. Because, let's face it, unless the government had declared copying illegal, there wouldn't be a single argument against it. It's purely a matter of guys with guns saying that because big corporations have decided they don't want me to have their stuff, that they're going to get me if I do.

I'll try and come up with something about implicit contracts for my next post.

It just seems to me that the entire discussion, especially on the political-economic level, will just run in circles. You can angle it from one direction or another, but it seems all a bit useless. Heck, my gut feeling is f the RIAA and the big record companies, but that doesn't get me around the little fact about breaking the law.

And it doesn't matter whether or not it's gankin' mp3's. I know some folks who have their panties in a bunch about having to get a drivers license, or having to get a fire permit. It's just all a bit absurd. The law's the law, and while I dont' by into the "divine right of king's" any authority God put there. We are Calvanists, right?

It's one to say the government shouldn't require a particular thing. It's another thing to say we should disobey the government. I'm saying the former, not the latter.

Ryan, you may very well be right about the Copyright-not-being-a-contract thing. That's what I'm interested in seeing discussed. But I just want you to agree with me that if I truly did sign my name to something, then the government should enforce that contract that I signed, and that the company wanting the gov't to enforce it wouldn't be communist.

Whether or not I signed my name to something is a separate argument, and it's where I think you're likely correct. I just want to see it argued more. Until then, my conscience tells me I signed my name to something when I bought a CD that says "Copyright."

My point is that you can't systematize, with the Bible as your foundation, some kinda coherent political and economic system. Heck, I'm not even sure we should try! The best we can do is talk about how we, personally, ought to deal with the government.

Wait, can't I have a favorite economic and political system without claiming it's a full system mandated by the Bible? When did I say anything was mandated by the Bible? You criticism assumes itself, big time.

And if you agree that Christians are allowed to participate in government, then it can't possibly be the case that "The best we can do is talk about how we, personally, ought to deal with the government."

Sure, you can have a favorite system, but it's no different than having a favorite band or color. Given that, it might help to not talk about it in such die-hard black and white language.

And, if someone happens to be in the government, he and she should be talking about how she should deal with her job in government, but I'm not gonna try to throw some system at her. It's a different perspective on the whole issue, one that looks at it down at the lowest level, namely the interpersonal one. Trying to dervive behavioral principles towards government policies in government from a system I think is ultimately pointless.

Now you can personally, have a favorite system of government, and advise your friends and family from that assumed system (and I'd like to think it'd be wise to cite that you're assuming a system), but to argue for some kinda objective formal way to be in government seems quite problematic.

It's why I think the kicker in this whole discussion (back to the beginning) is ultimately the most helpful thing to recognize is that we shouldn't be breaking the law.

i look at file sharing as a solution to a couple of problems. one, as a person with very little money, there are plenty of times that i can afford only one thing i.e. concert tickets or the cd. what this comes down to is who makes the money. if you buy the concert ticket the band gets the majority of the cash, while if you buy the cd, the label gets the loot. however, the label generally gets a cut of the tour profits because of promotion, fronts for stagesets, etc. i am sure the bands would rather you download the album and buy the ticket (which in my opinion is why the labels are bitching the most) except for large out of date bands like metallica (i paid for all the metallica cd's i own, by the way,) who no one really cares about anymore (and whose albums aren't worth buying.

another thought about copying copyrighted material. people do it all the time, even government agencies do it. examples: say you are on a website and it is an extensive article, you print it out to read later in the privacy of your home, and not to share with anyone. is this illegal too, you are only using it for private use in the home.

as far as government: when I was in school, there were plenty of times that i was given magazine articles, encyclopedia entries, etc. that had been copied by the teachers from their original sources and given to the students. did the school get permission from the sources each time they did this and pay royalties? I doubt it.

when i do copy something, it is for myself, and not handed out to hundreds of people like the schools are doing.

But if you're using file-sharing programs, you're just letting somebody else steal for you. Just do what you already know is right—don't steal. For shame.

After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.