

Is Copyright Infringement Theft? - grellas
http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-copyright-infringement-theft/

======
sophacles
This argument is somewhat disingenuous. It completely glosses over a huge
portion of the issue, that has nothing to do with legal definitions. Namely,
stealing _deprives the victim of something they otherwise would have_ , or
even more coloquially "did he take away your stuff?". Now the crux of the
debate rests on this very simple concept.

If I take your car, without permission, it is stealing it. Very obviously you
have been deprived of your car.

If I stay in your hotel, and then decide not to pay my bill, I have deprived
you of the 1. the overhead associated with a person's visit and 2. revenue
that room otherwise could have generated.

Now here is the question: when I copy your song, am I depriving you of
anything? All the electronic devices are using resources paid for by third
parties. You can still sell your song just fine, my act of copying has in no
way prevented you from selling the song to other people. I may or may not have
bought the song, so it is questionable if I am even depriving you of money you
otherwise would have made (assuming no-fee copying, e.g. torrenting).

So, all that explaining to get to a "maybe" answer to "did he take away your
stuff?" when applied to copyrighted data (a song). Now, there is some more
nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am obviously depriving you of
money people are willing to pay for it. If I give away your song tho, there is
no money I am depriving you of -- the people who gave me $0 are not guaranteed
to give you the asking price without my giveaway. Further, how much of my
giveaway is made up for in increased popularity? Could I charge back with a
"stolen services" suit, declaring that my giveaway of your song helped push it
to number 1, therefore you owe me marketing fees?

Basically, yes, some people get caught up in the legal definition aspect, but
that is because the legal definition argument closely mirrors my question of
"did he take your stuff". I do agree though, that maybe we nerds should come
up with a good way of discussing it w/out invoking lawyers anyway.

~~~
jcl
_Now, there is some more nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am
obviously depriving you of money people are willing to pay for it. If I give
away your song tho, there is no money I am depriving you of -- the people who
gave me $0 are not guaranteed to give you the asking price without my
giveaway._

This is a new one on me... Bootlegging is bad because it deprives the creator
of measurable money. But giving copies away is fine because the recipients
might or might not have bought it anyway.

Or, to use a similar argument: Russian roulette is perfectly safe, since it's
questionable if there's a bullet in the chamber.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a bootlegger sells millions of copies of
a song at one penny apiece, and he mails all the money to the song's creator.
Does the creator have any cause to be upset?

~~~
sophacles
This whole response is a strawman. I never claimed the author should not be
upset at copyright infringement. I never claimed that giving away copies is
fine. I merely claimed that they _may be different than theft_. The ethics of
the situation was never in the realm of discussion.

The russian roulette analogy you make is doubly vile, and reeks of the worst
type of intellectual dishonesty. First is based on the assumption I shot down
above. Second, it has an emotional load and severe connotations which are not
appropriate. (seriously, suicide games are in no way emotionally close in
content to a song download, no matter how you spin it). Finally: a declaration
of safe vs (presumably) not safe is a declaration of degree (of risk in this
case), my declaration of theft vs not theft is not of degree, it is a
declaration of category. Your analogy does not hold.

------
alan-crowe
Picture yourself as a philosopher-king trying to write wise laws so that your
people prosper. You are going to have to face the distinction between rival
goods (usually made of atoms) and non-rival goods (often made of bits). The
difference is important in economics and hence to the prosperity of you
people. You will end up with different laws, calling the misappropriation of
rival goods theft and the misappropriation of certain non-rival goods copy-
right infringement.

Perhaps one adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should
both be criminal matters and attract the same penalties _despite_ the
differences.

Perhaps another adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement
should be criminal and civil matters respectively _because_ of the
differences.

Perhaps a third will try to elide the differences between rival and non-rival
goods by calling both misappropriations theft.

You should kick the third adviser out of you council because the difference
between rival goods and non-rival goods is central to the discussion. Burying
the point by stretching the meaning of the word theft is an obstacle to a
sensible discussion not a contribution.

------
parfe
Copyright has put such a serious restraint on the public that we have become
prohibited from ever owning our own culture. I'll die long before the public
owns any work created in my lifetime.

Was bootlegging immoral? It certainly could be, but prohibition created such
an oppressive environment that it was necessary. The same goes with Micky
Mouse copyright law. Decades old TV shows lost to time, no name bands
disappearing from the shelves at Walmart, and Wedding Photos aging beyond the
point of restoration require we infringe out of cultural preservation.

Describing it as theft, or a crime is not relevant. The infringement is
necessary.

------
CodeMage
Hart's argument is basically the same as Sheffner's argument, at least the
part he quoted:

 _I just have a hard time getting too worked up about what label we attach to
copyright. And I suspect most non-philosophers agree. Consider this thought
experiment: Go to a studio head and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give
you your copyright wish list: repeal first sale, make Justice Ginsburg's
concurrence in Grokster the controlling opinion, delete Cablevision, Perfect
10 v. Amazon (and a few other Perfect 10 cases while we're at it) from the law
books, and codify a "making available" right. But here's the catch: From now
on, you are forever forbidden from referring to copyright as 'property,' and
must instead call it a 'set of social relationships.'" Or go to a copyright
skeptic, and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give you your copyright wish
list: reduce the term of copyright back to 14 years, expand fair use,
eliminate the derivative works right, and repeal the anti-circumvention
provisions of the DMCA. But there's the catch: From now on, you must refer to
copyright as property; no more of this 'set of social relationships' mumbo-
jumbo." I'm confident both the studio head and the copyright skeptic would
take those deals in a heartbeat. Ultimately, it's the substance, not the
label, that matters._

My question is: why the hell do you think the "studio head" and the "copyright
skeptic" are arguing about terminology in the first place?

The way I see it, Hart is basically saying "If you were offered to have things
your way, but had to give up terminology, you would do it in a heartbeat, so
why do you argue about terminology in the first place?" Which, to me, sounds
naive.

The reason people are arguing about legal definitions of terminology in the
first place is because legal terms have certain definitions which govern how
decisions are made in court.

------
chopsueyar
For those of you interested in the history of intellectual property,
copyright, and its "evolving principles", may I suggest the book _Common as
Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership_.

[http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art-
Ownership/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art-
Ownership/dp/0374223130)

Also, since we love hypothetical situations, how about this:

I create a replication device that can create an identical copy of any
physical object.

Walking down the street, I stop in front of your brand new Lexus and make a
copy of the car for myself. I then drive away in the replica.

Now, did I steal your car? Is that larceny? Or did I violate some other law?
What if it was a Model T manufactured in 1908?

Of course, if new laws need to be created/revised/abrogated to treat IP
violations as acts of larceny, clearly the original laws were never intended
to equate the two. Otherwise, additional legislation would not be necessary
(DMCA, ACTA, etc...)

------
yason
Semantics aside, the situation is very different between physical goods and
duplicable goods. I don't know anything else but this very thing ought to be
reflected in the interpretation of law _somehow_.

For example, the scale of thievery/infringement goes roughly from:

\- Stealing physical media (= traditionally illegal, one is left without)

\- Copying to self or a friend (= should be legal: it's none of anyone else's
business what I and my friends share among ourselves. And I have a limited
number of friends anyway)

\- Copying to a "friend" or internet peer (= question mark; I think it should
be legal but many don't)

\- Selling copies to a friend (= should be illegal as I would be pocketing
actual money and the original author wouldn't)

\- Selling copies to a "friend" or internet peer (= definitely illegal, I'm
making money out of others' work)

Thus, the culprit gray area is copying to others without a fee. It's also the
point where the most arguments (to both directions!) are about.

I don't have the answer. I do, however, have one point: no law should be based
on speculation.

If you could clearly show that someone would have bought a copyrighted piece
but got it for free instead, only then there _might_ be some case for the
original copyright holder to be entitled to _some_ money, capped at most to
the regular list price of the copyrighted work in particular.

However, if you can't show that then I think it's pretty clear that nothing
substantial has happened and, also, nobody could ever be convicted in that
situation.

------
tptacek
What do you think, 'grellas? I think I speak for a lot of us when I say we'd
be interested in your take.

------
chopsueyar
Here is an actual example.

Last week, I visited the Cincinnati Museum Center
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Uni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Union_Terminal))
and saw the traveling exhibit, "America I Am", presented by Tavis Smiley.

As I entered the exhibition, a museum attendant informed me I was not allowed
to take any videos or pictures of anything within the exhibit (with or without
flash).

As I walked through the exhibit, I noticed a copy of the Declaration of
Independence. For those of you unaware, this document was created in
approximately 1776. The copy on exhibit is one of 25 remaining copies of
approx. 200.

If I were to take a picture of the Declaration of Independece, would that be
theft? Would it be copyright infringement?

Ironically, at the end of the exhibit, visitors have an opportunity to record
a video of themselves, which is then uploaded and distributed to the "America
I Am" website (<http://www.americaiam.org>).

------
auxbuss
Copyright infringement is not theft.

Copyright needs global reform.

Patent law requires global reform.

And ACTA is about as far from the appropriate reform as one could possibly be.
But that's what you get when you leave these things to politicians who have
zero experience of them. And have zero buy-in and ultimately zero
responsibility for them. They have no idea of which they speak. But they
aren't going to admit it, are they?

Caveat: I own both copyrighted and patented works. I say: reform, reform,
reform.

~~~
rue
I think it is necessary to recognise an author's moral right to the work or,
if you wish, mandatory attribution. No-one ought be allowed to take someone
else's work as theirs.

Beyond that the issue gets a bit hazy.

~~~
chopsueyar
No-one ought to be allowed to murder, rape, molest, torture, etc...

~~~
rue
One component of the discussion is getting rid of copyrights altogether, so I
fail to understand your point.

~~~
chopsueyar
Are you serious?

You said "No-one ought be allowed to...".

Well, to do those kinds of things, we need laws, and ways of enforcing those
laws.

So, to enforce "mandatory attribution" to an author of a work, would require
some sort of legal mechanism to do so.

Protecting the author's "moral right" involves him or her having some sort of
protection by the law, in the same vein the law protects citizens from rape,
murder, and other violent acts.

My point being, simply because there is a law or a "moral right" to prevent
certain acts, does not and cannot stop those acts from occurring, although it
may reduce the frequency of those acts.

Lastly, I was unaware this thread mentioned anything about "getting rid of
copyrights", particularly when you "think it is necessary to recognize an
author's moral right to the work or, if you wish, mandatory attribution."

~~~
rue
I do not understand what you are arguing about.

------
ahi
Mangling Proudhon, "Intellectual property is theft."

------
steveklabnik
Let me preface this with my bias: I personally advocate the abolishment of
copyright and patents.

I think that crowds like this find the "lolz it's not theft, it's
infringement" argument to be a particularly apt one. I've been guilty of such
things myself, after all, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of
correct.

However, I think this makes an interesting distinction: it doesn't really
matter, from a 'hearts and minds' perspective. Neither side really 'wins' from
this kind of argument, because the argument fundamentally isn't about the
definition of theft. It's unfortunate that 'pro idea freedom' (two can play
this game) advocates are effectively slandered by suggesting that they're
'thieves' or 'pirates,' but I'm not sure that an overtly semantic argument is
the best way to get around this.

I think it's better to make it a 'stealthily semantic' one, that is, don't
talk about definitions, just move the dialogue to the core point: creators do
not have a _right_ to profit, and therefore, they're not deprived of anything
through infringement. It's not about theft, because they had nothing in the
first place, ideas are not property.

Even if you disagree with this line of reasoning, I think everyone can agree
that a real, actual dialogue is better than what appears on the surface like
quibbling. Yes, one can still be 'anti-theft' and 'anti-copyright', and theft
and infringement are semantically distinct. But it's just not a deep enough
level of discourse to truly explore the issue: we're seeing a natural
progression of technology and culture, with many powerful, entrenched
interests. It's a really, really important topic, and deserves more than
soundbite arguments.

~~~
kiba
It's a business model problem but the IP defender _fear_ that it isn't
possible to make money or there will be less money to be made after IP are
abolished. They want to hold the IP abolitionist to the highest standard of
evidence and at the same time, not give up every inches of ground without a
really strong fight.

Meanwhile, the abolitionists have the hard task of finding examples. Then, the
defenders alway have an objections to all the examples that the abolitionists
did find, which are diverse range of examples. For example, popular band
business model wouldn't work for small, in between-size, and vice-versa or
mock business models that sell ancillary goods such as T-shirt.

All the objections by IP defenders is nice and all, except it's _irrational._
There is no attempt on behalf of IP defenders to gather experimental data, any
kind. There is no attempt to think but refute every single abolitionist's
suggestions. They make any excuses for staying still, good or bad.

For the reason of criticizing without offering much in return, few IP
opponents have the ability to force a model update in me or at least an ample
amount of models to investigate. One recent model update was making me take
into account that monopoly profit can be use to maintain marketshare against
copyfree and copyleft opponents. Another model was that weak DRM technologies
sometime does increase sales though I didn't do much reading into it.

