I don't think I'm moving the goalposts. I used your exact wording, in which you claimed that The Pirate Bay can't be
accused of copyright infringement. Of course they can be accused. Heck, I can accuse you of being a scaly reptilian beast from the planet Xanax
I see, you weren't moving the goalposts, you were merely being pedantic instead. Okay.
In any event, I was just pointing out that, as with arguing over "theft," whether or not they are legally infringing on copyright, I think they are certainly, practically speaking, infringing on copyright, and doing so knowingly.
I don't quite understand. Copyright infringement is purely a legal concept. What is "practically" infringing as opposed to "legally" infringing?
If their rationale for legality is legit, then I can't see how it wouldn't just as legitimately apply to, say, a child pornography bit torrent site. They're not hosting the child pornography, they're just facilitating its download!
Poor analogy. They faciliate downloads, yes. But not of actual illegal content. Downloading a movie or album torrent is not
inherently illegal. I could be using Bittorrent to get an album I've bought, as a digital backup (hell, I've done it on some copyprotected albums I've bought), or a movie which DVD I own. Downloading the new Candlemass album might not be illegal. That depends entirely on the downloader.
On the other hand, downloading child pornography is
always illegal.
I think that's a very narrow definition of theft. If I acquire the exclusive design of the new BMW (or any other nice car) and build an exact replica myself, and sell it for my own company thus taking profits from BMW, by your reasoning, it isn't theft. BMW still has their design. They haven't technically lost anything, since they haven't yet made any profits. Similarly, if I steal someone's entire book, put my name on it, and sell it, they haven't lost anything either. They still have their book.
That's more like plagiarism, and it not only involves
stealing something (your word - the plans, their design), it also steals the
credit, so I would not mind calling it theft. Something is definitely lost on one side, though it's not necessarily the actual property, but the ideas, and the credit toward its rightful original maker.
You seem to be suggesting that the people who take the third option are entirely from the category who did not value the music highly enough to pay for it when the only way to get it was to pay for it, rather than from the category who actually wanted it enough to pay for it but can now get it for nothing.
That seems a very, very questionable assumption.
Where did I say "only", please? I said "a lot". And I base this assumption on admittedly my personal experience and observations, but after spending years on several music forums, I start to notice some patterns. Namely, that people who pirate music they can, and would, otherwise pay for, are very, very few and far between. In my experience, music downloaders are either in the a) "I try before I buy", b) "downloading because I'm too poor, will buy when I get money because I love this band", c) "downloading because this CD is out of print and impossible to find anyway" or d) "this is worth listening, but not worth paying for" categories. A mere handful fell in the other category, and they were mostly little kids who never bought an album in their lives and apparently don't care for liner notes or artwork.
Has anybody else noticed that the companies that are most aggressive about defending their "intellectual property" are always the ones with the crappiest goods to begin with? Like Metallica all upset about pirating--who the hell would bother stealing Metallica songs? And Disney, making the same damn movie for how many decades now? Ooooh, "The Sims 2". Yeah, that's worth the effort of stealing.
I'll add that these aggressive folks also seem to be among the richest. Again, Metallica, Dr. Dre, the RIAA and other assorted @$$holes.
Presuming you are correct about the numbers, it's still irrelevant. The desire to have luxury items like entertainment movies and music drives this part of the economy. Civilized society has decided that, no, you don't, in fact, get to have them if you don't pay the creator. Hence, "I wasn't gonna buy it anyway, so I should get it for free" is an invalid position to take.
Where did I say it was a "valid position to take"? All I said was that it was wrong to call copyright infringement "theft" because nothing is actually stolen. That's really all I said.
If you want to improve your existence, per your own definition of that concept, as is every free person's natural right, then you should pay for that. If you don't think it's worth it financially, then you have chosen to do without, not chosen to get it for free, at your whim.
I'm going to assume that's an impersonal "you", because otherwise, my CD collection finds your preaching very funny.
I would also point out that people who get the product for free and then try it out may also be inspired to buy a product they would not have otherwise considered. In exactly the same way that radio gets people to buy CD's even though their music is free.
Absolutely.
