Sign Up for the Good Stuff

Some interesting history behind the song: It was originally a minstrel-show song, written by a northerner, Daniel Decatur Emmett. Whether he wrote the tune, as he claimed, is disputed. It makes light of the personal miseries of slaves. Singing it with the flag of slavery in the background is very appropriate to the song. Putting it on a…[Read more]

I saw Kinsella’s “Against IP” a few years ago. I really appreciated his clear presentation and although it felt revolutionary, it also rang true and inarguable to me. I remember agreeing with every point.

Later I saw a report that Paul McCartney sold some of his rights so if he wanted to sing some of his own songs, he had to pay somebody else…[Read more]

I had a minor run-in with Kinsella a while back. He’s best avoided. He wanted to have me on his podcast and said he’d generously waive the fee he normally charged people for the privilege. I dropped the conversation with him when I realized what he was after, and later learned that he talked publicly about our private business conversation in…[Read more]

For an exposition of how intellectual property can be morally and rationally treated for the benefit of all, with no state intervention and no coercion, please see my book “For Intellectual Property” available as a free PDF (or you can buy it at Amazon.) The book falsifies and refutes Mr. Kinsella. I’d like to see it carried on this website, but…[Read more]

If I built you a house and sold it to you its your property. If someone builds/makes a song isn’t it their property to sell or to hold?

Now when tools exist to instantly give these things away the equation changes, its still property but the value is different. If tools build food cheaper then it takes to grow it to the point of it being free,…[Read more]

As someone who used to create and play music for a living, I can tell you that it should be up to the composer of the music as to whether or not it should be free. Not some pissed off millennial who thinks he shouldn’t have to pay for anything if he wants it. 😉

@libertariantreehugger I totally agree, I would take it that you are also saying that music is considered property just like other forms of property.

@libertariantreehugger If I sing your song, will you sue me?

No it shouldn’t be considered property. Me singing the song doesn’t stop you from singing it, i’m taking nothing away, it’s non rival. No need for property rights in the absence of scarcity. You owning that composition does stop me from emulating and innovating as it is illegal for me to build upon your work.

@sopocko If you sing it better then me then sell more of it. Its still your property to sell. It’s your version that counts as yours. This could be said for most every piece of property other then living life forms. I think that’s were this concept of ownership and property rights falls down.

What about a songwriter who doesn’t perform his/her songs? I think it’s still the market that determines the outcome — if your song is good enough to be performed by a mega-star and you can negotiate a payment or royalties, good for you. I remember reading that Willie Nelson sold the rights to “Crazy” for something like $50. Patsy Cline made…[Read more]

I would join a community requiring its members to pay for music in some way. I would not support a central authority imposing a particular rule of this sort on everyone everywhere. A copyright for ten years or until revenue exceeds some value or for the life of an artist or for all time? I can’t tell you which of these rules should be imposed on…[Read more]

My mind is my own and products of my mind are my own.

Suppose I write a song and keep it hidden in my house, don’t sing it, don’t publish it, nobody knows it’s there ~~~ and then somebody breaks in and steals the song and paper it’s written on. That’s wrong. Everybody can see that’s theft.

Now suppose the same scenario except no break-in, but a…[Read more]

@christyann
Good thinking!

However, you described in your 2nd paragraph exactly how “ideas can be possessed and sequestered.” Just don’t give them to anyone (at least, not without previously negotiating the terms of the conveyance). Ideas are the easiest and clearest form of property to securely possess.

Nevertheless, if you do give an idea…[Read more]

@ccspencer
I agree that keeping one’s idea to oneself means it isn’t given away by oneself. The snarly contradiction happens when one accuses another of stealing one’s idea, for example. If it’s the same idea, how can it be determined that the idea wasn’t hacked, spied, overheard through an open window while talking to oneself. There are so many…[Read more]

@christyann
I think that it only becomes “snarly” when you accept the (obviously false) notion that independent discovery/ownership is impossible and/or you must assign ownership to only one person. Otherwise there is no need to prove “that the idea wasn’t hacked …” The burden of proof is on the person claiming there was a crime; innocence need…[Read more]

@ccspencer
I guess we are talking about different notions of what “possession” and “sequestration” mean. Because I agree with you that independent discovery/ownership is totally possible. I also agree that the same idea can be owned by more than one person, can be owned by an unlimited number of people. I think the difference in the meaning of…[Read more]

@christyann
p.s. . . . instead of “playing in public” I should have said “playing for anyone”

@christyann
I don’t think we have any substantial disagreement. However, instead of

“To me, it indicates that ideas should not be treated as property. That was my original thesis.”

I would rather say all property should be treated as ideas. As you originally said

“My mind is my own and products of my mind are my own.”

which I think is the…[Read more]