Internet Radio

If you've seen this website, or have received a certain e-mail from Pandora, of late, then you know that webcasting is in trouble. The CRB (Copyright Royalties Board) recently announced the results of certain hearings and plans to raise royalty fees on internet radio 3 to 15 fold of the next few years. If this goes through, then services such as Pandora, Shoutcast, Last.fm as well as thousands of smaller stations, will have greater difficulty in running their already weak businesses.

As an avid listener to Last.fm (you can even see my charts on this blog), I find this distressing. Recently, over 200,000 people petitioned congress, and were able to delay the bill. In addition new legislation, the Internet Radio Equality Act, has been proposed so that congress will set the price and prevent the CRB from raising so high. This is being hailed as the way to save internet radio.

Any blow to the CRB's and SoundExchange's (the entity that collects the royalties, gives a portion to copyright holders, and keeps the difference) control on pricing is a good thing in my book. Allowing government entities to control pricing in any one industry is form of corporatism and is a very very bad thing. However, this particular legislation, Internet Radio Equality, misses the point in my opinion and is merely replacing one tyrant with another.

The problem is government control. The purpose of copyright laws is to use government to artificially create a market for creative works. Anyone with a smattering of understanding of economics knows, however, that markets will form of their own accord to fulfill a demand and don't need government price mandates. The government believes that it needs to garauntee monopoly privilages to creators of intellectual works to ensure that said works are created. This, however, has led to an ever escelated debate as to the extent of this monopoly and more and more government has stepped in to form a compromise.

This gives us entities such as the CRB and SoundExchange which are centralized intermediaries with government backing, who perform all business in the range of royalties collection without regard either the copyright holders or users of copyrighted works. That is, in an artificial market, a giant corportist entity as been built which is allowed control of nearly the whole industry, which is a problem.

With the new bill, congress threatens to step in and take matters into it's own hands. Or, in other words, congress plans to replace the corporatist entity with itself, so we'll have socialism instead of corporatism, which is about the same thing.

What we need to do is abolish copyright laws and do away with the need for this kind of legislation altogether. Then webcasters can purchase the music directly from the artists, publishing companies can purchase books directly from authors, etc, etc, and we can do away with SoundExchange, syndicates, the RIAA, and all other middlemen who tax the production of creative works far more than it need be.

FAIR USE Act of 2007

Those who read my blog are aware that I maintain copyleftist views. So it should come as no surprise that I am higly critical of DRMs and laws persecute technology just because it can be used in a way currently contradictory to the law. I specifically speaking of the DMCA. All sorts of otherwise fine and legitamate activities have been shut down because of this act. This is why I support the FAIR USE Act of 2007. Almost a decade later, we now have a bill that will lighten many of the gravest abuses that the DMCA was prone to. Technologies like TiVO and iPod will no longer be under threat of lawsuit and we will be more free to use the machines and media that we purchase as we see fit and not as one of the big five media companies see fit. I encourage anyone reading this to write to their representative in support of this bill. You can easily do this by visiting this website.

Thank you and God Bless.

Ownership

I posted an 'essay' a month or two ago where I expressed some copyleft ideas and proposed a thesis against the notion of copyright. I made sure to mention that, although I liked the idea, I saw some obvious difficulties that would need some more explaination. I'm going to try to modify and further develope my ideas by exploring the notion of ownership in general.

Before I continue, here is the previous article: Music.

I am, in general, a follower of Lockean ideas. As such, I am a firm beleiver in the labor theory of ownership (not the labor theory of value.)I will explain: At the start, no human is entiteled to anything except himself. No rock, tree, or animal is his. The material world is not owned by human beings but be God. (Or, by nobody if you're an Atheist; functionally they are the same.) Labor, in my opinion, is a part of own's self. By infusing something with my labor, I infuse it with a part of me. The labor came from me so it is mine and an extension of myself. So I come to own by working.

So, take a rock. This rock is unowned. Now suppose I owere to break that rock until it had a sharp edge. I have now put labor into that rock; I have infused it with a piece of myself. The labor in the rock now belongs to me and, insomuch as the rock is inseperable from that labor, it belongs to me as well. My labor is owned by me because it comes from me; it is an extension of myself. What does not come from me is not owned by me. The rock, per se, is not owned by me, the labor in is owned by me and for some to do something with the rock imply a vandalism or trespassing on my labor, essencially an attack on myself. This, I believe, is the nature of ownership.

Let's apply this to intellectual property. Let us suppose someone creates a song. For now it is in that persons head. This song is the property of that person. It is the property of that person because of the labor that went into it. More particularly, the labor that the person has put into the song is his. Now suppose this person sings this song and I hear it. Now suppose I repeat the song. Have I trespassed against this persons property? No, because I have not touched his labor. The song still exists in his head exactly so I have neither vandalized nor trespassed against that labor. His singing of the song is also the same, I didn't affect his singing. So my storing the song in my head and singing it outloud does not constitute stealing.

Here's the reason. Our friend's labor went into a two instances of that song, the one in his head, and the one he sang. Those two instances are his; I'm not permitted to affect them. But, I couldn't if I wanted to anyway. His labor didn't go into the instance in my head or the instance I sang. MY labor went into those. I listened and formed the song in my head and I sang, so those instances are MINE. Our friend has no claim to them. Now, the common presupisition, is that our friend owns the form of the song or the idea of the song, hence the phrase, "intellectual property," but this is ridiculous. Our friend's labor did not go into this form because the form pre-existed his labor. Any student of Plato knows that the forms are eternal and trancend there material counterparts. Our friend did not create the form for that song. He created the song using it's form. So did I. The potential already existed. Our friend merely discovered the potential for the song and actualized it. I did the same thing in another instance.

Now one may bring up the objection of dependence. Our friend 'discovered' the song, all by himself, but I only listened to him and sang what I heard, thus I profited from his labor. By this logic, I would 'owe' our friend something because I benefited from him; because I recieved something from him, the help from his singing, He deserves something from me, say money. This is wrong however. He cannot demand payment for something he did without my consent. Neither can a man on the street and wash my window without my permission and expect a payment, nor can this man sing and expect me to pay him, even if I go so far as to repeat his song. Just because one person benefits from anothers labor doesn't mean that the first owes the latter anything. I could clean up my front lawn it might make the neighborhood nicer than if I did not, but I would not then be able to demand from the neighbors payment for the rise in property value.

So, our friend is in no position to complain if I copy him and sing 'his' song, or if you copy me and sing the 'same' song, or, if one person at a time, the song is spread all over the world. He is not, by right, owed royalties.

One cannot own a form. On cannot own a form because it is intangable. As I said before, one only owns that which comes from his own person but one cannot inject his labor into an intagible form. One can merely affect the things that possess said form and change them. For this reason, the notion, of 'intellectual property' is an oxymoron.