Well, the inconsistancy I can see in your scenerio, njufoic, is that hubcaps are out there- your business is to make your hubcaps so convenient and inexpensive that the buyers forego any other source of hubcaps. The properties protected under copywrite law would not exist had the artists not created them.
So, jweb, you don’t have a problem with somebody coming into your house, watching all your DVD’s, sitting on your furniture, looking through your book collection, and then leaving, just so long as they don’t break or take anything?
Albert, if there were laws explicitly saying that hubcaps lost on the highway become the property of the people on whose land they come to rest, and that if anyone removes them from that property is committing trespass and theft (and very limited exceptions for hubcaps that land on pavement or road medians, to allow for public domain), then would you be doing something illegal and immoral in running your business? Note that it’s a hypothetical situation; I’m not making an accusation – just drawing a parallel.
Also, it’s not merely the holders of intellectual property rights protected by copyright who are protected – I cannot open a hamburger stand here in Pilot, call it “MacDonalds,” and use architecture that incorporates pale orange arches as a part of my site design – another company with a similar name in the same business has spent much advertising money to establish trademarks over the name as applied to the sale of fast food and the architecture incorporating yellow arches, and the courts would find that I infringed on their trademark. Likewise, you could not register the name of “Official Chevrolet Hubcap Replacement Agency” and use the Chevy logo as a part of your promotion, even if you made clear in fine print that you’re not part of General Motors – they own the trademark on the logo, and your name and use of the logo would lead the “reasonable man” to suppose that you’re a division of GM.
Bottom line is that around here, we have access to a free board that has been of great benefit to many of us, and we respect the wishes of the company that makes this board available as a public service. It’s part of the rules for making use of this board that we agree to when we join as members of it – just like, if I happen to disagree vehemently with your opinions in a Great Debate thread, I’ve agreed not to call you a moronic asshole outside this forum – the Pit – in print, despite the fact that I might consider your views expressed in GD to be those of a moronic asshole. We try to respect each other and the rules, which are relatively few and simple, as means of getting along with each other and keeping this the community that it is. That’s never seemed a particularly difficult concept for me to grasp.
sugaree-
Okay. Agreed that my “business is to make your hubcaps so convenient and inexpensive that the buyers forego any other source of hubcaps.” But suppose the potential buyers steal them off other cars instead. Or suppose they just broke into my basement and stole directly from me. If theft weren’t illegal, a lot of them probably would, and I would go out of business. So what is the reason that the law prevents them from doing this? Is it to protect me from lost sales? Of course not. It is to protect people at large, maybe me, maybe other car owners, from being deprived of their property. In the music case, no one is being deprived of their property. The only argument that remains for making piracy illegal is to protect the music industry from lost sales. So the contradiction, it seems, still stands.
As for the “would not exist had the artists not created them” argument, I think that in one sense that is the best argument in favor of copyright law, and in another it is a total red herring. The way in which it makes sense is as a pro-innovation argument. That is: “The reason why piracy is illegal is that if it were not, the music industry would go out of business and not having a music industry would be objectively bad for society.” If in fact piracy did cause the music industry to vanish, this is a very good argument. I question whether that will actually happen, but fair enough.
The way in which the “the artists created them” argument does not make sense to me is in the idea that they have a moral desert of money in exchange for the fact that I enjoyed something they created. The reason a restaurant deserves money when I enjoy their food is that the fruit of their labor and investment is GONE – I ate it. This is a physical property rights argument, and therefore does not apply to the music situation. Why is it that, when we listen to or watch something enjoyable, we have a moral obligation to pay those responsible?
The thing is, I am pretty much a utilitarian in philosophy. So I can accept the innovation argument because it’s grounded in social good. It might be based on wrong assumptions about what will happen, but I get the point. Similarly, I could play with the idea that EVERYONE should be entitled to compensation for lost sales. I think there are serious problems with it, and it could be shown to be a pretty poor idea, but it is still a utilitarianistically analyzable (I think I just made both of those words up!) one; that is, there are considerations to be weighed. But to argue that some people deserve compensation for lost sales and others do not, you either need to use the innovation principle, or some concept of moral desert which, as far as I’m concerned, cannot be supported by any rational argument and therefore useless for this purpose.
So I say, let’s see what happens. Let’s dump the concept of intellectual property and see if innovation stops. I suspect it won’t. If it does, bring the copyright laws back with a vengeance. But whining about abstract moral deserts is just evading the meat of the problem.
-Andrew L
The problem with your argument is that used CD shops exist and are legal. What people are doing is illegally reproducing CDs, and is a difficult thing to cover using your analogy.
Polycarp-
My understanding – and I could be wrong – was that if I actually do sell genuine Chevrolet hubcaps, I can advertise them as such. I could not claim to be authorized by GM if I am not, but that’s more an problem of misleading the customer than infringing upon GM’s rights.
And, by the way, I am NOT saying that I think the SDMB should not have the right to close discussions of certain topics. That is not my argument at all. I think it is reasonable for us, as posters, to try to convince the board administrators to change their views (as many have done without success), but I am certainly not arguing that the board is violating our rights.
Ethilrist-
As one of my philosophy profs once said, “That argument is so bad you could sell it to the English department.” 
-Andrew L
My household gets a goodly portion of its income from software royalties.
I pay the moderators $1 each (biannually) to make sure pirating-supportive threads are frowned upon.
I am sure that accounts for much of their attitude. A whole dollar! Each!
At no point did I say anything about re-selling copyrighted works. When you begin selling someone else’s copyright works in an attempt to make money, then I would agree that you are stealing.
However, copyright infringment, in and of itself, is not stealing. I don’t make any claims about the legal/ethical/moral implications of copyright infringment, I just want to make sure the distinction is clear.
Artists have every right to lose a sale in the sense that if you don’t like my product, don’t buy it. There are plenty of artists that might have products that you prefer over mine. It is up to me to create something that you wish to own. However, if you don’t wish to own it, why on earth would you think that you should have the right to enjoy it, free of charge?
I spend many hours working on my craft. I also spend a good portion of money to record my music, package it, etc. I do this in the hopes that someone will want to purchase my product. If they choose not to, then I make no money and they do not get the product. To borrow from your analogy, yes, they can get other hubcaps but they won’t be my unique hubcaps. And that is all fine with me. But why should they have the right to have my product for their enjoyment, when I have not been paid for my efforts? If they get what they wanted but I don’t, how the hell is that fair?
And when they use my product without me getting compensated for it, they pretty much ensure that there won’t be any future products because I won’t be able to afford to make them.
Or do you think all artists should be non-profit entities, that we should all give away our products from the goodness of our hearts and get another job to pay for the creation of them?
I’m not sure I understand how this is similar to copyright infringment. Can you elaborate?
And just downloading MP3s is not necessarily depriving anyone of income. Yes, I know the majority of people download songs instead of buying them, but I have personall purchased at least 5 albums (Apocaylptica - Inquisition Symphony, Apocalyptica - Cult, The Crystal Method - Tweekend, Aphex Twin - Selected Ambient Works, and Nine Inch Nails - Things Falling Apart) after downloading tracks and listening to them on my computer. Were my actions at the time (prior to purchasing the album) copyright infringment? Probably. But I have not deprived these artists of income; rather, I have provided these artists with income that they would not have had previously.
So, if I steal your mother’s broach, not to pawn but to wear to church every Sunday then I am not guilty of thievery? Every copy of S. King’s book that I sell or give away for that matter is money out of S. King’s pocket.
Further, what if I take my legal copy of Windows, burn a few thousand copies to hand out to friends and family. How long do you think Microsoft would stay in business if a good majority did this as well?
Can you not understand that my work as a musician and/or author is worthy of protection from thievery in the same manner that your mother’s broach? I simply cannot comprehend how someone can defend stealing another’s intellectual property.
Do you not see the blatant contradiction in the above statement?
Well shit, musicguy - everyone knows that music and art is easy to make - anyone can do it; in fact, it’s as easy to do as pick up hubcaps off the side of the road!!
And recording and all that? well I saw that RadioShack sells mics for $8, so what’s the maximum overhead on these bands making their recordings?
Oh, and nevermind that art and music is essentially silly wank-off stuff for people who can’t get a real job.
Let me turn this around:
Suppose you went to your job and spent your 80 hour week utilizing your skills to further your company’s goals - be it building a house, coding a new program, running financial figures, plotting a takeover, whatever - and at the end of the day your job said “Thanks for your time, effort, and expertise. Go Home now - we’re not going to pay you.” Feel good?
An artist’s work, both creative and technical, is directly analagous to any other work that any other person does. If you’re willing to work for free, then artists should definately produce for free.
It is /not/ analagous to selling a manufactured product: the product is a CD, which is produced by a publishing company. The closer analogy is any consultant who works for themselves and gets paid for their experience and expertise. Unless you’re a commie! 
siberia,
If you steal my mother’s broach, she can no longer wear it to church on Sunday. This is stealing.
If you somehow make an exact copy of my mother’s broach, and wear it to church on Sunday, you have not stolen my mother’s broach, as she still has a broach to wear to church on Sunday. This is not stealing.
As far as my ‘blatant contradiction’, did you even bother to read the rest of my post? You know, the part where I explained how downloading can INCREASE my music purchases? Please explain to me how, by downloading, deciding I like it, and then purchasing, I have deprived anyone of income?
You know jweb I do believe we are at an impasse here and I’m getting dizzy from all this going around in circles. I know it is stealing, many others know it is stealing and it looks like those that make the laws are starting to address this matter. There are those like you that choose to justify their theft with a rational that seems so deliberately obtuse. Others justify by saying “everyone else is doing it”. This issue really really bothers me but right now my head is tired of that brick wall.
musicguy-
“But why should they have the right to have my product for their enjoyment, when I have not been paid for my efforts?”
I think the tough question is, why shouldn’t they?
Suppose I have one 1993 Toyota Corolla hubcap. Someone comes in and asks for it for free. Why shouldn’t I give it to them? Because I only have the one, and I suspect that the next guy who comes in will be willing to pay $20 for it.
Suppose I have an infinite number of 1993 Corolla hubcaps. This is, of course, ridiculous as far as hubcaps go, but it is analogous to the music situation. An arbitrarily large number of digital copies can be made of a song at no cost to you. It’s as if I have one magic Corolla hubcap, and Corolla owners can come up and touch it, and another will instantly appear on their car. So I have this magical infinite hubcap, and someone wants one for free. Why shouldn’t I give it to them? It’s not because I’ll lose anything. I’ll still have one to sell the next guy for $20. It’s either because I’ll lose the sale (if I instead prevent them from taking a free one, they might break down and pay) or because everyone will demand a free one and I will make no money, and therefore have no incentive to remain in business. Once again, this comes down to the lost sale argument and the innovation argument. If the innovation argument is valid - and it may very well be - then you are right: there is good reason to have copyright laws. But you have to understand, then, that the reason for the copyright laws is as an incentive to get you, the musician, to perform a social good. It’s not an issue of moral desert.
-Andrew L
P.S. jweb
You’re telling me that every song you have downloaded illegally resulted in your purchase of that particular album? If so, you are either:
-
totally psychic in that you have a 100% download/enjoy/purchase rate so why bother with the trouble of downloading…just go to the store and purchase the CD.
-
lying.
Now I’m done…
:::tossing the last word to jweb:::
If you don’t think that music or art is worth paying for, then don’t pay for it. But don’t listen or watch it, either. Though I agree it’d sure be nice to be able to weasle out of paying, say, my accountant because I have no use for the IRS. If you listen to music, you demonstrate that you find some value to music - that it serves some purpose whether you’re willing to admit it or not. So pay for the shit like an honest person.
And in case you missed it: Hubcaps may be analagous to CD’s, but they’re not analagous to the content of the CDs.
There’s a very simple reason that the moderators are so careful about making sure that no one violates the copyright laws. If they show good-faith effort by always closing threads and removing links which seem to violate copyright laws, no one can bring the Chicago Reader to court and sue them for encouraging copyright violations. If they’re not so thorough, there’s a chance that someone will sue. The Chicago Reader has already made it clear that if they are taken to court over something on the SDMB that will cost them a significant amount of money to defend themselves, they will simply close the board down without bothering to find out if they can win the case. The Chicago Reader already spends something like $25,000 per year on the board without getting any compensation for it. They’re not going to waste any more money on it.
I have a few questions…
If my friend brings over a CD and I make a copy of it for my personal use is that illegal? What if they leave the CD and I don’t copy it, but listen to it? What if I got to their house or to a library for that matter and borrow it? What if I have say a Nomad Jukebox or an iPod and I sell the item to someone with all of the music that I have copied onto it intact, is that illegal?