Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. This is not strictly done in service of big media---if organized crime rings come in to town and do a ton of rogue hookups with impunity, then the cable company leaves and you have a cycle of degradation in the quality of life. Preventing organized crime is why it is a federal offense. Of course, the judicial system ought to utilize its authority with discretion so as not to severely punish simple petty thefts. Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems.
> Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges.
Property theft and intellectual rights theft are two very different things. If I steal your car, you are now out a car and the use of a car. If I steal a copy of your artwork, you still have that artwork and can still sell copies of that artwork. I only start impacting your bottom line if I start selling copies.
To the extent you are impacted by a copyright violation, you can be made whole with a market rate payment for the copies created and a penalty. That's what civil law is for.
Wage theft has a much bigger negative impact on people's lives yet it's basically never criminally prosecuted. So why should copyright theft ever be criminally prosecuted?
> Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems.
Fair point, though I can't see why we'd punish that more harshly than we'd punish unauthorized digging (which is typically just civil to replace damaged lines.)
No, it isn't. The hint is right there in the name. Copying does not deprive people of their property. That's why they came up with the word Infringement to use instead of Theft, because they are fundamentally different things.
It worries me that there are people now who think that information is like property and that it can be owned.
Yes, thanks, as to copyright you are correct. I believe unless chattel is involved, it is called unauthorized reproduction and duplication rather than theft.
As to the telecom aspect, it can go either way. In Canada, it is considered theft to use a telecommunications service without the rights to do so. Under USA federal criminal law, I believe it is just referred to as unauthorized reception.
As Stuart Leslie Goddard and Marco Francesco Andrea Pirroni once quipped: "What's the point of robbery when nothing is worth taking?" I'm sure I would be interested in illicit bittorrenting, but it all seems like crap these days and hardly worth the effort.
Huh? The term "Intellectual Property" is a metaphor, not literal. There is zero intrinsic moral imperative against copying; copyright is a policy decision to encourage creation under a capitalist system. Other systems for encouraging creation have existed in the past (and exist concurrently with copyright).
If copyright were a property right, then "fair use" would be legalized theft.
Basically, copyright is not too different from other paper assets like publicly traded stocks. There is little intrinsic moral imperative for profit-seeking entities to make filings based on government mandated accounting principles and to not engage in insider trading schemes. Other systems, such as partnerships and private ownership, exist concurrently.
Copyrights are transferable intangible assets created by the legal instruments of the capitalist system. If you were to buy the copyright to the Metallica catalog, you can license that catalog for a return on your investment. It would be an asset of your estate like any other paper investment.
