No that is stealing, you are taking someones physical property with out their permission.
And this is where we disagree. According to the definition I provided earlier, stealing does
not have to be a physical object. If I take a book you wrote and publish it with my name, I think it is perfectly acceptible (and very common) to say I "stole" your book, even though I didn't steal a
physical item. If I hack into I-tunes and download their music without their permission, I think it is perfectly acceptible to say I am
stealing their product or service. If I download a movie I did not pay for against the wishes of its creator, I think it is perfectly valid to say I am
stealing their movie. Or, if you want to get technical, I am depriving them of the right to control their creation, just as plagiarism is depriving you of credit for your work.
You are removing their control over their intellectual property. The boundaries of what is stealing and what is fair use are very subjective and arbitrary, as seen that you can't rent computer games legally but you can rent movies or console games. Why one stealing and the other not?
Because we've come to a social consensus, just as we've come to a social consensus that taxation is not stealing, and eminent domain is not stealing. If you're pointing out that there is a degree of subjectiveness to it, I agree. That, however, isn't unique to "stealing." Many terms we use are arbitrary outside of their strict legal definitions -- "murder," for one example (a murder to one person might be a completely justified killing to another -- or not murder at all). That doesn't make the concepts less valid.
Ultimately, we can argue this until we are blue in the face, but we are more debating semantics than anything else. Even if you were to convince me that copyright infringement is 100%, not a form of stealing, I would still consider it to be the moral/ethical equivalent of stealing. As such, I cordially suggest we let this one go since we're probably not going to convince each other in either direction
The point is that the laws don't care about the public and they are not getting written in the publics interest, they are being written in the interest of big business. So just like they can eminent domain your house because someone want to build a shopping mall there and it will improve the tax base. An improved tax base is in the public interest so you will be forced to sell your house to who ever wants to pay a certain amount of money for it.
Slightly different issue, but I somewhat agree. However, while you might be valid in stating that copyright laws as they currently exist are not in the public interest, they do protect more than big business. They also protect small publishers, authors, and musicians.
I'm not, by the way, claiming that copyright laws as they exist are perfect. I think the DMCA, for example, was a horrible piece of legislation that went way beyond protecting copyright, and actually added rediculous restrictions that do not exist for
any other type of product. The idea that it is a crime, for example, for me to remove copy protection from a CD or DVD I purchased legally is absolutely absurd -- as absurd as if the automotive industry made it illegal for me to disassemble my own car. I am merely defending the principle that music, books, games, art, etc. are
products and should be accorded the same rights as other products. If I purchase it legally, I should be able to personally use the product and do with it as I desire. If I don't purchase the product, I don't have any right to use it.
