

Copyright Infringement != Theft - jfarmer
http://20bits.com/2008/06/02/copyright-infringement-is-not-theft/

======
tptacek
I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not
theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within
the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.

~~~
andreyf
_It's still wrong_

Really? For the majority of human history, it hasn't been.

 _it's still harmful_

It is? To whom? Surely not to people enjoying music - infringing copyright has
made more people listen to more music.

 _it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate
or outlaw_

In a government based on the US Constitution, only if such regulation and law
"promotes the progress of useful arts".

~~~
tjr
_Really? For the majority of human history, it hasn't been._

For the majority of human history, there has been but a tiny fraction of
copyrightable material compared to what has existed over the past, say, 200
years.

 _It is? To whom? Surely not to people enjoying music - infringing copyright
has made more people listen to more music._

It's harmful to the producers. It's not cheap or easy to put together a
professional music recording. Producers wish to both recover the costs of
production, and have funds available to live on and produce more.

 _In a government based on the US Constitution, only if such regulation and
law "promotes the progress of useful arts"._

Yes. If you allow the producers to profit from their works, then they will
have both the funds and more motiviation to continue producing more.

U.S. copyright law began with discussions between educator Noah Webster and
lawyer Daniel Webster. Noah had completed new textbooks for use in the public
school system, which _he had based_ on existing works. Nevertheless, his books
were new productions, and he wanted to have control over how they were copied;
he wanted to be able to profit from the production of his works. (Noah was
never a very rich man, by the way; don't get the idea he was insanely wealthy
and scavaging for more.)

Daniel Webster agreed wholeheartedly, that authors should have the right to
how their works are copied and should get royalty payments _for a limited
time_. He claimed this was so obvious it was like "natural law"... as obvious
as laws against murdering and theft.

Some people in recent history (e.g., the RIAA and other big corporations) have
taken copyright law to absurd and abusive levels, and that is wrong. But the
basic principles of it -- to allow the author of a work rights over who copies
it and rights to limited royalty payments -- are _not_ absurd and _do_
contribute to the furthering of more and better works.

------
alex_c
I'm having flashbacks to Slashdot... circa 2000. At least back then we had
Napster to talk about.

Durn kids, get offa my lawn!

------
SirWart
I think the last example is a little off. It compares taking a friend's book
to simply copying it, but the friend presumably does not own the copyright to
the book.

The idea of copyright extends beyond money. By being able to freely copy an
artist's work the artist loses control of his creation. Bill Watterson, the
creator of Calvin and Hobbes, did not license out his characters for
lunchboxes or plush toys because he felt it would hurt the artistic value of
the comic, even though he could have made much more money licensing it. He was
able to prevent licensing because he owned the right to copy his creations.

~~~
jfarmer
As is his right to do. But violating that right is not theft, which involves
depriving someone of their property.

~~~
tptacek
And your point is exactly _what_?

~~~
jfarmer
In two sentences:

Copyright and theft occupy different legal, historical, and philosophical
spheres. Therefore arguing against copyright infringement because it is a kind
of theft is fallacious.

~~~
tptacek
You're right. Copyright infringement is trivial to argue against as a form of
free riding. Does your blog post make it in any way easier to reconcile
Watterson's rights with the RIAA's demands and the Free Culture people?

~~~
jfarmer
Right, ok, now we're on the same page.

Copyright was created because the old system of guild-based monopolies
collapsed and authors demanded that the Parliament deal with the influx of
cheaply copied books devaluing their works.

That is, the basis for copyright law is in economics and politics, not
morality. Passing off copyright as theft creates an emotionally charged
environment where rational discussion is difficult.

I intentionally avoided the larger argument because it's about copyright-as-
such and how it applies in the digital age. There are people talking about it
who are far smarter than I am.

I'm also intentionally _not_ discussing my opinions about the status quo.

~~~
tptacek
You're off the rails again. "Theft" isn't what makes it charged. "Crime" is.
Plenty of free riding problems are crimes. There's no "economics" versus
"morality" issue at play here. Free riding is immoral.

~~~
jfarmer
Thanks for the insult!

My point was intentionally narrow and I don't really think it's necessary for
me to repeat it.

Whether copyright infringement is "free riding" and whether or not "free
riding" is immoral will have to wait for another day.

Cheers, Jesse

~~~
tptacek
Sorry that I managed to insult you. Wasn't my goal.

------
jfarmer
I created this in response to Matt Maroon's essay on IP:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=207125>

