Major Copyright Judgement

[quixotecoyote]

Why, oh why, can't we have a single discussion on this issue without it devolving to pages and pages of "It's theft!" "No it isn't!"? Personally, I don't give a flying crap whether it technically is or is not theft. The question is whether it's right or wrong, and whether it should be encouraged or discouraged by law.

It's wrong.
It should be discouraged.
It should not be thought of as theft, because that helps fuel support for the ridiculous statutory damage laws that make a $1.00 song morph into hundreds of thousand dollars worth of damages.

 

[GreyICE]

If you can stand next to a barbershop and have your hair magically disappear with every snip the guy in the chair gets, you will have found the valid analogy to theft of services in regard to barbershops.

No good. What if the barbershop isn't busy, and the barber probably wouldn't have been cutting someone else's hair if you hadn't walked in?

Y'see, there's a certain service involved in intellectual property. Because it's less direct, you seem to think it doesn't exist.

P.S. The 'thousands of dollars per song' is a tad of a myth. And by tad, I mean entirely. The reason the damages are so high is because of black market retailers, who will take a DVD, rip it, and then sell thousands of copies (they're all over NYC, for one). A maximum damage per movie of $500 or something would basically turn it into a business expense for them. The media has constantly evoked the 'maximum penalties' as if there's a hope in hell of anyone ever being charged that. Most settled out of court for a fraction of the maximum (and frequently, less than the minimum). At the moment, afaik there's really only two or three cases winding through court, and at least one of them is because the defendent is a jerk (she has, among other things, committed perjury - always a bright idea). Bring a bit of skepticism to the table.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No good. What if the barbershop isn't busy, and the barber probably wouldn't have been cutting someone else's hair if you hadn't walked in?

Well then the analogy fails completely, because the haircut is the product being copied. If the barber doesn't make a haircut, you can't copy it. If the musician doesn't publish a song, you can't copy it.

Y'see, there's a certain service involved in intellectual property. Because it's less direct, you seem to think it doesn't exist.

Mindreading fail.

 

[GreyICE]

Mindreading fail.

More, viewing than reading, it was a picture book.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It's wrong.
It should be discouraged.

I agree.

It should not be thought of as theft, because that helps fuel support for the ridiculous statutory damage laws that make a $1.00 song morph into hundreds of thousand dollars worth of damages.

That's all in the courtroom (or in the legislature), where, as has been pointed out a bazillion times, it is not considered "theft". Are you positing a direct connection between colloquially referring to it as theft and the actual legislation and/or judgments?

 

[quixotecoyote]

That's all in the courtroom (or in the legislature), where, as has been pointed out a bazillion times, it is not considered "theft". Are you positing a direct connection between colloquially referring to it as theft and the actual legislation and/or judgments?

I don't know how direct it is, but milking more serious offenses for the terminology to give it more emotional kick doesn't help when we're trying to get at a rational and fair way to deal with the issue.

 

[Gate2501]

The "it's theft" bit is there to add emotional *bang* to the debate, as Quixote says. Evoking images of ne'er-do-wells in tall black hats creeping about in the night stealing cars, burglarizing homes, robbing banks, or walking out on haircuts.

Copying != Stealing.

Copyright infringement != Theft.

The debate really can't get off the ground at all when one side refuses to drop these emotionally charged false equivalences to other crimes. I laid out my entire reasoning for why I don't feel morally compelled to stop downloading copyrighted material, and in return I get "you are just justifying your stealing" or analogies to other crimes.

It seems pretty bonkers to me.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't know how direct it is, but milking more serious offenses for the terminology to give it more emotional kick doesn't help when we're trying to get at a rational and fair way to deal with the issue.

The "it's theft" bit is there to add emotional *bang* to the debate, as Quixote says.

Or you're just loading the term with more "emotional kick" than is actually intended by the speaker. Personally, I just think it's a reasonable shorthand, and don't for a minute believe that there is any ambiguity in meaning whatsoever if I were to say, for example, that someone "stole" a song. If both parties in a conversation understand what is meant, then I don't see the benefit in spending a great deal of time arguing over the minutiae of whether it technically is, or is not, "stealing".

 

[quixotecoyote]

Or you're just loading the term with more "emotional kick" than is actually intended by the speaker. Personally, I just think it's a reasonable shorthand, and don't for a minute believe that there is any ambiguity in meaning whatsoever if I were to say, for example, that someone "stole" a song. If both parties in a conversation understand what is meant, then I don't see the benefit in spending a great deal of time arguing over the minutiae of whether it technically is, or is not, "stealing".

Maybe it would be more obvious if we scaled it up.

Imagine PETA activists calling illegal standards of animal care 'torture'. I might agree it's wrong and I might know exactly what they're talking about, but I'd still object to the different terminology.

 

[Piggy]

Copying != Stealing.

Copyright infringement != Theft.

Sometimes, yes, Copying = Stealing.

And always, Copyright infringement = Theft of intellectual property.

When it comes to the IPSs, however, I don't see how you can hold them responsible. It's like holding the phone company responsible for telemarketing fraud and expecting them to keep tabs on it.

 

[Gate2501]

And always, Copyright infringement = Theft of intellectual property.

Yeah, when you equivocate physical property and intellectual property, it is straight up theft.

 

[Piggy]

Yeah, when you equivocate physical property and intellectual property, it is straight up theft.

It's not an equivocation when you make your living off what your brain, not your brawn, produces.

The Freeloader Culture spouts its slogan -- "Information wants to be free!"

How cute.

They want their corn, but expect others to grow it and starve.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Maybe it would be more obvious if we scaled it up.

Imagine PETA activists calling illegal standards of animal care 'torture'. I might agree it's wrong and I might know exactly what they're talking about, but I'd still object to the different terminology.

This seems to presume that "theft" is inherently worse than "copyright infringement", that the charge is somehow being inflated.

 

[Gate2501]

It's not an equivocation when you make your living off what your brain, not your brawn, produces.

No, it is still equivocation.

The Freeloader Culture spouts its slogan -- "Information wants to be free!"

How cute.

I find it cute that you are the first person in this 10+ page thread to drop such a slogan. Where are my freeloader bros.? Oh wait, this is a strawman.

They want their corn, but expect others to grow it and starve.

How about we stick to copyright violation. What does farming have to do with this? Yeah...

 

[quixotecoyote]

This seems to presume that "theft" is inherently worse than "copyright infringement", that the charge is somehow being inflated.

I'm not going to say 'inherently' because I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think the presumption is justified.

In theft, especially of tangible goods, there is something definitely lost. The victim does not have the actual item in question any longer. In copyright infringement, there is no such analog. The potential for the given sale may be lost, but that isn't the same thing and to my mind is a lesser thing. The infringer hasn't damaged anything but the owner's hypothetical future profits where the theft damages the owner's actual present possessions.

Speaking as a PC game fan, I don't like the effects piracy has on the industry. But I can see the difference between an infringer making a copy of a developer's game and a thief breaking in and stealing their office equipment. One is worse, IMO, than the other.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

They want their corn, but expect others to grow it and starve.

If you've found a way to infinitely copy corn then congrats on your Nobel prize and your applicable analogy. Otherwise if I have empty pockets and I download $1,000 of music, the industry is out the opportunity cost of $0.00. Unlike theft, which is a zero-sum game.


Edit: Copying of media has been prevalent since the 80s, it's part of the cost of doing business in the modern age. I'm sure the music industry wishes it could go back to vinyl, but it's too late now.

Software doesn't even have a golden age of no piracy to long for, and I think it has encouraged greatness. People pay money for what they love, even if they don't have to.

If you have to pay money just to find out that something sucks, guess what, you're encouraging things to suck.

Edit 2: People are compelled to pay for that which they love by the same mechanism that compels them to pay more for that which they love more. It's all very elegant without the personal condemnation!

Edit 3: Legally of course Piggy is correct, but greater exposure and appreciation of all arts is and has been increased by piracy. This arrangement favors quality over packaging and hype, a capitalist's dream if he understands it for what it is.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yeah, if you can come up with the ever elusive evidence that piracy increases sales, I'll start considering that.

 

[Corsair 115]

Yeah, if you can come up with the ever elusive evidence that piracy increases sales, I'll start considering that.

Well, anecdotally, it certainly does in some cases. The effect on the whole, of course, is a different matter.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, anecdotally, it certainly does in some cases. The effect on the whole, of course, is a different matter.

Given that record sales were already declining prior to filesharing, I'm not sure we can state one way or the other just how much loss in sales is due to pirating.

Especially since sales of music jumped back up when it became more readily available online via iTunes and the like.

Tracking down just how much piracy costs in lost sales is a completely arbitrary/subjective amount - and it's swayed by which side the person compiling the stats is on.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Yeah, if you can come up with the ever elusive evidence that piracy increases sales, I'll start considering that.

Increases sales compared to what? The 70s? When was the last time piracy wasn't easy and commonplace? It's a basic fact of the electronic media business. In my opinion broader exposure is a boon to artists but I suppose we don't have a no-piracy bizarro-world with which to compare do we?

Edit: Perhaps "a boon to the arts" would have been a more prudent choice of words. I myself prefer a world where all art is laid bare and garbage doesn't fetch the same price as gold. Sure there are individual winners and losers, but that's how it should be.