I thought of another example in response to the ridiculous claim that copyright violation doesn’t “steal” anything.
If you stow away on a ship or airplane without a ticket, or sneak out of a hotel without paying your bill, you didn’t take anything, right? The boat was going to sail, with or without you. You left the hotel empty-handed and used a bed that would be there anyway, right? As long as you don’t steal the towels, you haven’t stolen.
Right?
Thank you.
Now we’re getting somewhere. I agree, it’s not a very good measure for Coke.
But why even argue for 18 pages that “sales” are demonstrably up when you can just say the following:
“Album sales are down substantially and singles sales are up dramatically”
Then an honest discussion can continue about what that means and what is a good measure for determining the health of the content industry.
You keep wanting to force a conclusion instead of just walking through an analysis based on just facts.
Those are all reasonable questions with no clear answer and certainly worth an honest discussion. (You see how I do that? I don’t say “those are demonstrably blah blah blah”, I just use logic and facts to continue the discussion, it’s easy, forget your biases, just analyze the pros and cons).
I’m not that interested in the content industry, I’m interested in the content producers. I don’t believe that it’s necessarily true (or necessarily false) that what’s good for one is good for the other.
I’ve repeatedly asked for someone to attempt to refute what I’ve said, and you’re the first person to do so.
Thanks for doing so, the reason I didn’t answer your question first time is that I didn’t think it was being asked honestly. I appear to have been wrong about that, so you have my apologies.
I’m willing to have that sort of discussion if other people are. Conversely, if the level of argument is “you steal and want artists to starve you scumbag”, I’ll respond in kind.
Nobody said “you steal and want artists to starve you scumbag.”
But I did say you steal.
But this entire sub-discussion is due to you stating that “sales” for the industry are up.
Why would you make that statement and defend it so strongly and now turn around tell me you aren’t interested in that point?
Okay. Why would it not be?
Artists benefit by having a secondary market to sell their works to (the industry) instead of having to do it directly to consumers. And they can decide under what terms. Or decide not to, and sell it directly, or give it away.
Whoa, I never thought of it like that.
You changed my mind. Thanks.
I don’t expect someone who doesn’t believe it’s unethical to steal to change his mind about what’s stealing and what isn’t. According to you, stealing the towels at the hotel is perfectly okay too. So let’s let someone else take a stab at thinking about this post.
I agree. I had a bad night and doled out some unwarranted (and unattractive) snark.
However, those things you mentioned also wouldn’t be theft. Stowing away would perhaps be trespass. Leaving the hotel without paying would be breach of contract, not even a crime. We have different penalties for these things and call them something different because they have harms that are different from the harms of theft. Same with copyright infringement.
I wasn’t complaining about the snark. I can snark with the best of them.
I didn’t like how you just dismissed my argument though.
Fine.
It’s still illegal, it still should be illegal, and if you want to think of copyright violation as trespass, that works for me.
The point is that something of value is taken from someone, unethically.
I think if you leave a hotel without paying, it’s usually a criminal offense of some kind. I’m not sure what. I wouldn’t try it.
Again, even if it isn’t stealing, it is taking something without paying for it, even if you walk away with nothing tangible in your hand.
Yep.
We can call it stealing in a broader sense, and you can say its not really, and then we can say that whatever it is, it’s unethical. And I say so.
Also, it turns out, I am technically wrong: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s484
Of course you are.
In general would you agree or disagree that when the product is free (pirated or hand out CD’s after a gig) there is a fair portion of the consumers that would not have been consumers had they had to pay the current asking price?
I think when one sees significant or rampant piracy there is a comment there with regard to the current asking price of the good.
Certainly with regard to music the level of piracy seems at least in part due to the simplicity with which the product can be pirated. It is a little like leaving your car running in the drive while you dash in the house. Sure the person who takes it is a thief, but in a lot of jurisdictions you will also be fined for your negligent actions that made the theft so simple. The music industry is going to need to find a decent* DRM system if they want to impact the pirating.
*not rootkits and malware
Perhaps, but that number is less than 100% though.
If nobody will buy it, the owner can choose to give it away at any time.
It’s not ethical to steal just because you don’t like the asking price. Nor is it a reason to change IP laws.
It’s not ethical to steal just because it’s easy to steal.
I assure you I am not trying to set you up for a “gotcha”, just trying to understand where our perspectives differ. So do you agree with the statement as I presented it or disagree. You’ve kind of split the difference there with “perhaps” and “less than 100%”
Certainly the number is not 100%. If it were that would indicate that there is essentially zero market for selling music.
Agreed. Some owners even choose to give away copies when they believe they have a marketable product. Demos, samples, prizes, etc. Free product alone does not necessarily diminish the market.
True. But if one’s goal is to protect the marketability of their IP, they really should listen to what the file sharing market is telling them. In simple terms the publishers are being told their product (music) is a commodity that isn’t worth the asking price nor the potential consequences to a significant number of citizens. Are they all “criminals”? I suppose, but probably in the same sense that anyone who has smoked marijuana is a criminal.
IP laws should be changed because they aren’t working. After many years of millions of motorists ignoring the blanket 55 limit, finally the lesson was learned and more sensible and reasonable limits were set. Certainly this didn’t eliminate speeding, but it did impact the number or speeders and the amount by which they speed. Maybe all IP laws don’t need to change, but copyright certainly should be looked at. I think it ridiculous that one could invent a mechanism to provide cheap clean energy and only be able to protect the design by patent for 25 years, yet write a song about cheap clean energy and protect that for life+70 years.
Again I agree. And yet in many jurisdictions all across the US if your negligent actions contribute to the ease of the theft you might find yourself fined. Knowing full well that there are people interested in your possessions, it probably isn’t a good idea to leave them lying around on the boulevard.
I find it interesting that the licensing of music (because that is really what the consumer is doing, buying a license to use it) is handled so differently from the licensing of software. On one hand you have the publishers (software) taking active steps to make the sharing of their product difficult in order to protect their IP. On the other hand you have the music industry putting their product out their with virtually no hoops to jump through. And then acting astonished that someone took the car they left the keys in for a joy ride.
My answer is that it is irrelevant then.
Stolen products are not “free” though. The seller has not decided that it is in his interest to give away his product to market it.
Or crack down on illegal activity.
I doubt you’d respond to people stealing your stuff by giving it away.
Sure. Didn’t justify the speeding.
Okay, but again, not relevant.
Yeah, that’s dumb. Still, so what? Are you blaming the victim?
You find it irrelevant that our perspectives may differ?
I find that odd. Is your intent here to “set me straight”, because if so you might want to know where (if at all) our opinions differ. Or you can just tell me how it is. In which case I’ll consider our discussion ended.
With just ask one last question. How’s that workin’ for ya?
True. And in most cases stolen products do not significantly impact the market for legitimate copies. If they do, I wonder if there is something wrong with enforcement and/or the pricing structure of the product.
I’ll ask again “How’s that workin’ for ya?”
This has proven to be a mostly ineffective approach to reduce the amount of sharing over the past 2 decades (nearly). Maybe another approach would work better?
I wouldn’t be naive enough to leave it out on the boulevard for all to see and to take with ease and little chance of repercussion. I would lock it up and make it hard to get at. And if it continued to be stolen, I would invest in a more secure means of keeping it locked up and safe.
True. But it did recognize the futility of trying to enforce a system that the public in general had ceased to believe in.
To you. Others in this thread have espoused the relevance.
Absolutely! Not entirely mind you, but they certainly are complicit. This isn’t akin to a mugging victim being blamed for walking down the street. This is akin to the bank leaving your money on the counter and the doors unlocked after hours. Don’t even try and tell me you wouldn’t be a little pissed at the bank. Artists should be irate with the PRO’s and the labels for failing to better protect their IP. They invested as little as possible to go digital without any thought for the consequences. Myopically, or just plain greedily, thinking they were going to grow their margins by slashing distribution costs. Not even realizing that the lack of investment ensured that it would be essentially zero cost for anyone else to get into the business of distributing music.
Ok, I was dishonest. I do have one more question. Why is your moniker an obvious rip-off of a well known celebrity’s name?
Didn’t mean it that way. It’s irrelevant if some people make copies who wouldn’t if they had to pay for it, I mean.
Please prove they don’t significantly impact the market.
When someone steals something, I don’t wonder if the price is too high, I wonder what’s wrong with someone who thinks they are entitled to steal.
Perhaps. But I"m not going to consider anything until we clear up the simple fact that stealing is wrong. For me, that’s the basis for starting the discussion. No rationalization.
Me too.
But it would still be illegal to steal it, wouldn’t it?
You don’t blame rape victims for going out to the wrong bars either.
How is that the least bit different?
I would. However, that would not in the least diminish my anger at the thieves. They are just as guilty, and wrong, as they would be if they had dug a tunnel under the bank.
First thing that popped into my head.
[QUOTE=lance strongarm]
Perhaps. But I"m not going to consider anything until we clear up the simple fact that stealing is wrong. For me, that’s the basis for starting the discussion. No rationalization.
[/QUOTE]
Stealing is wrong. Infringement is wrong. It doesn’t follow that a) infringement is stealing, b) infringement is as great a wrong as stealing, c) infringement should be prosecuted and/or punished similarly to stealing.
You want all or nothing, but unless you have billions in the bank, an in-house legal staff and a raft of lobbyists, you’re not likely to get it. Any decisions that infringement is stealing will benefit the biggest players only.
Fine. You had me at “infringement is wrong.” (Though it’s still stealing in the ethical sense, if not the legal sense).
I say stealing because some people just can’t make the connection that infringement is like stealing.