The author’s sales of sheet music to everyone who buys it include an explicit contract (called the laws of whatever country the sale is done in). The girl seems to have gotten a copy from some party to that contract, explicitly against its terms, and is now re-trading the item in question (the sheet music file), on her own. Except the law, as written, quite clearly applies just as much to her as it does to the person who violated his contract with the author in providing her the sheet music.
The nature of the stuff being traded makes it somewhat different than physical goods, but in principle this is no different any other illegal redistribution of goods, for example reprinting cheap copies of some copyrighted book and selling them on the street at barely above cost.
When you talk about your “ethical perspective as a libertarian”, what you apparently mean is that you don’t believe in the concept of copyright (or other “intellectual property”, or perhaps even that society’s laws should be binding on citizens). This is not the usual libertarian “ethical perspective”, and you should be careful about implying that libertarians necessarily feel the same way you do.
> successfully earn in the market
There is only a market for sheet music insofar as that sheet music can’t be trivially gotten for free from a third party. Basically, your comment says something like “we should eliminate the market for sheet music, and the author should do something else.” Well okay, that might be what happens anyway, but that’s not “the market” deciding. For markets to exist requires a set of social structures which regulate its form and function. When those structures break down, as in this case, the market is destroyed.
(These social constraints need not be written down or enforced by an official police force, etc. They just need to be commonly agreed upon and have some social weight. I need to know you won’t take my money and run without giving me the promised chicken, or spend all your time copying the book I sold you and selling it behind my back while I’m trying to write the next one.)
Copyright law applies to her. Contract law binds only to the person the contract was actually made with; he could be sued for violating the contract by giving the music to someone else - the recipients cannot.
Rational libertarians do not believe in copyright law - all of the defenses of variations on copyright that I have seen from "libertarians" are from people who make a living from writing, and are too lazy or stupid to find some other way to make money. That is one reason I quit buying or reading Reason, the magazine for market-worshiping libertinist sub-competents.
>and are too lazy or stupid to find some other way to make money.
Nice to know that you have the insight of what's a legitimate way to make money and what isn't.
BTW, bicycles are often pretty easy to steal. Are bike makers "too lazy or stupid" to find another way of making money? Or should we just find a better way of protecting our bikes?
I would like to add that copyright contracts are possible in a libertarian world. DRM would be alright and violate nothings in libertarian ethics.
However, most libertarians, with their understanding of economics, would laugh at such schemes. We wouldn't think that these kind of business models would be successful.
When you talk about your “ethical perspective as a libertarian”, what you apparently mean is that you don’t believe in the concept of copyright (or other “intellectual property”, or perhaps even that society’s laws should be binding on citizens). This is not the usual libertarian “ethical perspective”, and you should be careful about implying that libertarians necessarily feel the same way you do.
You are living under a rock. My ethical perspective is not uncommon amongst libertarians. However, it was new and it took for a while for libertarians to accept the arguments.(At least a decade) Right now, some of the major organizations in libertarianism are already using creative common attribution license.
The author’s sales of sheet music to everyone who buys it include an explicit contract (called the laws of whatever country the sale is done in). The girl seems to have gotten a copy from some party to that contract, explicitly against its terms, and is now re-trading the item in question (the sheet music file), on her own. Except the law, as written, quite clearly applies just as much to her as it does to the person who violated his contract with the author in providing her the sheet music.
The nature of the stuff being traded makes it somewhat different than physical goods, but in principle this is no different any other illegal redistribution of goods, for example reprinting cheap copies of some copyrighted book and selling them on the street at barely above cost.
When you talk about your “ethical perspective as a libertarian”, what you apparently mean is that you don’t believe in the concept of copyright (or other “intellectual property”, or perhaps even that society’s laws should be binding on citizens). This is not the usual libertarian “ethical perspective”, and you should be careful about implying that libertarians necessarily feel the same way you do.
> successfully earn in the market
There is only a market for sheet music insofar as that sheet music can’t be trivially gotten for free from a third party. Basically, your comment says something like “we should eliminate the market for sheet music, and the author should do something else.” Well okay, that might be what happens anyway, but that’s not “the market” deciding. For markets to exist requires a set of social structures which regulate its form and function. When those structures break down, as in this case, the market is destroyed.
(These social constraints need not be written down or enforced by an official police force, etc. They just need to be commonly agreed upon and have some social weight. I need to know you won’t take my money and run without giving me the promised chicken, or spend all your time copying the book I sold you and selling it behind my back while I’m trying to write the next one.)