ok, well, actually, it is. ;p
the fact that it's possible to pay for a cd, and not listen to (experience) it, proves that cds are not experiences. record companies sell cds, and tapes, not music. sheesh, if you can't tell the difference between "an experience of hearing music", and "a cd", you really need to get your personal ontology in order.
when i play bass, i experience playing bass. so, in an obvious sense, i "create" an experience by doing anything. so, when me and my friends record some noise we make onto a tape, we "create" an experience of sorts... but that experience has little, if anything, to do with the tape. we would have the same experience even if the tape player was off, or broken.
heh. error, unrecognized token combination in line 7: "pirating music". music cannot be owned, therefore music cannot be stolen, much less "pirated" (whatever that is). and, in case you can't tell, an mp3 is not an experience. listening to an mp3 is an experience. remembering listening to an mp3 is also an experience. if i have a good memory, remembering listening to an mp3 is the exact same experience as hearing it played.
so you know, i have written software, literature, and music (as if that somehow makes my position stronger). you're right, those are all sequences of something; encodable patterns. so? i don't pretend to own the python, c, english, or bass lines i make up. that i weave a pattern into existance doesn't mean i own it. far from it. do you own the noise of your breathing? the tunes you find yourself whistling as you walk? is the way the light reflects off of your skin, your property? pfff, of course not. you can own instances of a pattern, but don't be suprised when i own instances of that pattern, too.
and, so you know, the intellectual property question isn't "are bit sequences worth anything?" for example, there are patterns of bits on my hard drive that are very important to me, so they are worth something. pretty much everything i do and have done, that can be preserved in digital form, is encoded in the bit-sequences on my hard drive or on one of my cd backups. while i don't own those sequences, i do own my hard drives, and my cd-roms. see the difference? the pattern is not the instance of the pattern. so, the question actually posed by the intellectual property debate is "are patterns meaningfully described as property?"
and, because you can't seem to tell, it is really quite absurd (movies like "total recall notwithstanding) to charge for an experience. heh. have you not noticed the "admission" signs in the places you mention? movie theaters charge for admission, as do amusement parks, and live musical performences. bookstores charge for books. video game vendors charge for game cartridges and cd-roms. video game machines in video arcades require you to put money (or a close approximation thereof) in them before they function interactively. none of the examples you cited sell anything resembling an experience.
in conclusion, i can only suggest that you get your ontology in order. ask yourself "what exactly is my property, and what makes it mine?" find a nice, dank, dark cave in the middle of nowhere, and sit in there and contemplate those questions. then read some heigel, some marx, some locke, and some von hayek. then, when/if you figure out an answer to that with at least a semblence of internal consistancy, get back to me. it's really not nearly as simple as you seem to think it is.
sayke, v2.3.1 /* i am the middle finger of the invisible hand */
[ Parent ]