# Should copyright violations be considered "stealing" or "theft"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822 "2004-07-13T01:03:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/21 "2004-07-13T05:48:18Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > I honestly think the buyer should have limits. I can’t remember the name of the painting or the owner, but there was a Japanese collector who asked that one of his Van Gogh paintings be cremeted with him. That, IMHO, is utterly wrong. Well, I’m with you there. > [@](#): > > He stated that the _only_ right he retained was to put his signature upon it. I could do whatever I wanted to do with the artwork, so long as I didn’t claim it as my own. This was four years ago, so I don’t know if the laws have changed or not. I do know that he was much more knowledgeable in the area of copyright law than I could ever hope to be. Did he tell you that you could publish copies of the work and sell it or give copies away? > [@](#): > > However, if a copy of the work leaks out I think that the artist is merely entitled to the royalties which they could normally expect from the publication of such work. “Leaked out”? Is that some sort of sly speech for “stolen”? Because I don’t see how else something that the artist DID NOT want released could be “leaked,” unless something nefarious was going on. So you mean that if someone can _steal_ someone else’s private work (even if the original is returned later), then it’s okay to publish it against the artists’ wishes, and all the artist can do is accept royalties? No way to undo the wrong that was done to them, eh? (Their work was stolen or swiped from them, after all.) And what amount of royalties do they get? Do they get to set a price of how much their work is worth, or do they lose that right as well, after their work is stolen? > [@](#): > > Yeah, sure. They’d be bored by 99.9999999999% of them, but then again, future historians could potentially find them of value. I have, in all honesty, seriously considered burying things like love letters I’ve recieved in time capsules because I’ve thought that they might be valuable to future historians. Ah. So, because you think that most people would be “bored” by your work and (I’m guessing) you’re not worrying about people rooting through your private belongings, looking for stuff to publish, that everyone else should feel the same unconcern about their private belongings? Did it occur to you that perhaps some people have a great sense of privacy about certain works and feel like their privacy should be respected? > [@](#): > > But to me, the more important issue is the works which are emphemerially published. Things like TV episodes which air only once, books which are allowed to fall out of print and folks such as myself who might find interest in them are denied access to them. It does become a little different once the work is released, because the artist apparently thought it was okay enough to be seen. (Hence, they weren’t concerned about their privacy, at least at that time.) But, sometimes people change their minds, and I think when it’s their work, and they’re still alive, they’ve got a right to change their minds. But—I do understand that there is a different dynamic once the work has been released. > [@](#): > > I don’t know. Hm. So, do you think that Sibelius, for instance, didn’t have a “right” to destroy his own work, but you just aren’t sure of what method should be used to control his actions over his own work? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/22 "2004-07-13T22:54:33Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Did he tell you that you could publish copies of the work and sell it or give copies away? Yes. > [@](#): > > “Leaked out”? Is that some sort of sly speech for “stolen”? Because I don’t see how else something that the artist DID NOT want released could be “leaked,” unless something nefarious was going on. Unless, of course, the artist gave a copy of the rough to a friend, for the express purpose of having that friend give feedback on the work, and this friend gave copies of his copy to other people he knew. > [@](#): > > So you mean that if someone can _steal_ someone else’s private work (even if the original is returned later), then it’s okay to publish it against the artists’ wishes, and all the artist can do is accept royalties? No way to undo the wrong that was done to them, eh? (Their work was stolen or swiped from them, after all.) Kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle once he’s gotten out. Especially with all the dirt cheap duplicating equipment available these days. > [@](#): > > And what amount of royalties do they get? Do they get to set a price of how much their work is worth, or do they lose that right as well, after their work is stolen? In the book publishing industry and the recording industry, creator’s have a negotiated royalty rate with the publisher, if an _established_ artist has his work bootlegged, he/she should be able to sue and recoup the same rate (or slightly higher) from the bootleggers. > [@](#): > > Ah. So, because you think that most people would be “bored” by your work and (I’m guessing) you’re not worrying about people rooting through your private belongings, looking for stuff to publish, that everyone else should feel the same unconcern about their private belongings? Did it occur to you that perhaps some people have a great sense of privacy about certain works and feel like their privacy should be respected? As the question was originally directed at me, I gave my answer. I _cannot_ answer for the rest of humanity. > [@](#): > > It does become a little different once the work is released, because the artist apparently thought it was okay enough to be seen. (Hence, they weren’t concerned about their privacy, at least at that time.) But, sometimes people change their minds, and I think when it’s their work, and they’re still alive, they’ve got a right to change their minds. But—I do understand that there is a different dynamic once the work has been released. True, but at the same time, there _is_ the issue of “cultural heritage” (for lack of a better term). The original _Star Wars_ movies (to use a well bitched about example) are what inspired a generation of people, the crap Lucas retouched and rereleased is _not_. However, Lucas has indicated that he has _no_ intention of releasing the unmolested versions of those films, and that _no_ versions of those films, other than those approved by him, can ever be released so long as copyright is enforced (Which is, now what, a hundred years _after_ death?), thus leaving a generation of scholars who _weren’t_ around to see the originals wondering what all the fuss was about. (That’s assuming, of course, that there’s _no_ changes to copyright law between now and then.) Now, I can certainly understand an artist _not_ wanting someone else to change his work (Orson Welles last words were supposedly, “Please don’t let Ted Turner rub his crayons all over my beautiful movie.”), but to deny people the ability to _compare_ two different versions of the same work by an artist is another matter altogether. > [@](#): > > Hm. So, do you think that Sibelius, for instance, didn’t have a “right” to destroy his own work, but you just aren’t sure of what method should be used to control his actions over his own work? No, I don’t know what the solution is. Pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/23 "2004-07-13T23:42:02Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Yes. Did you pay him more for publishing rights? Or did you just have a verbal agreement? The way copyright is now (and if you don’t believe me, check out [copyright.gov](http://copyright.gov)) when you buy an original piece of artwork, you are _not_ buying publishing rights. Those must be negotiated. Which, apparently, you did with this particular artist. But publishing rights are not a “given” when artwork is sold. > [@](#): > > Unless, of course, the artist gave a copy of the rough to a friend, for the **express purpose** of having that friend give feedback on the work, and this friend gave copies of his copy to other people he knew. Did I say “nefarious”? Yes, I did. And someone who accepts a copy of someone else’s work, given with the **express purpose** feedback but nothing more, is acting in a nefarious manner when they “leak it” out anyway. That’s extremely dishonest behavior. You lend something to someone, telling them, “I am lending this to you with the understanding that you are just looking at it to give me some feedback, I am not interested in having it published at this time” and the person “leaks” it anyway, they are a scumbag. Pure and simple. > [@](#): > > Kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle once he’s gotten out. Especially with all the dirt cheap duplicating equipment available these days. So, when someone trusts a scumbag who “leaks” (i.e. steals) their work, then it’s just too bad, huh? Of course, if artists knew that such a possibility existed, they’d just simply never show anything to anyone, they’d never _trust_ anyone, and how would that foster creativity? Where would those wonderful things that you feel you have some “right” to enjoy be, if all artists were too distrustful to show anything to anyone, unless they were 100% sure they wanted it to be released? Boy, deja vu. Who would have thought there’d be more than one person on this board who believes that people have little right of privacy nor, essentially the right _not_ to publish. Yikes. > [@](#): > > In the book publishing industry and the recording industry, creator’s have a negotiated royalty rate with the publisher, if an _established_ artist has his work bootlegged, he/she should be able to sue and recoup the same rate (or slightly higher) from the bootleggers. What about an unestablished artist? What about an “unknown” artist who has finally, _finally_ done that really good work that is destined to finally get them that enviable contract that they’ve so long struggled for, but oh wait, some scumbag “leaked” their work and now it’s everywhere. How much would such a previously unknown artist earn? They have no past record of sales, they were a “nobody” before. So, how much? Who gets to decide? And, what about an established artist’s right to _negotiate_ for a higher price for a work that took extraordinary effort? If it’s bootlegged (stolen), then they lose their negotiating ability. But oh well. Too bad, some scumbag stole their work, who cares now? After all, the public gets to enjoy the work, so what if the artist got screwed over. > [@](#): > > I _cannot_ answer for the rest of humanity. Okay, so I’ll make it a straightforward question: Do you think that artists _owe_ humanity all of their work? In other words, do you believe that all of humanity _deserves_ to see every single photograph, painting, essay, song, poem, etc. that _every other person_ has created? Do you think that when an individual has created something, they have no _right_ to say, “I don’t want this published” because the _rights_ of the rest of humanity to see their unpublished works trumps the individual’s desire to not have it published? That’s kind of a mouthful, but it still is a yes or no question. > [@](#): > > True, but at the same time, there _is_ the issue of “cultural heritage” (for lack of a better term). Well, he will have a hard time controlling this, because older versions of the movies were out for years and no doubt someone’s archived them in some way. I feel that he must know that it’ll be virtually impossible to clamp down on _all_ older copies, and I am sure he’s not staying awake at night, worrying about it. But the bottom line is. . . it’s still his baby. He did it. We didn’t. He invested his life to create the work. We didn’t. We just sat back, passively, and enjoyed it. His investment in it is so much more profound than ours. We did nothing other than soak it in. His wishes trump ours. But, with that said, he’s not going to be able to completely stamp out all copies of the old versions of the films. Hell, I have copies of the old versions. > [@](#): > > Now, I can certainly understand an artist _not_ wanting someone else to change his work (Orson Welles last words were supposedly, “Please don’t let Ted Turner rub his crayons all over my beautiful movie.”), but to deny people the ability to _compare_ two different versions of the same work by an artist is another matter altogether. ::Shrug:: I “deny” people the right to see earlier versions of my photographs and artwork. Few care in my case, but if they did, I still don’t think they’ve got a right to see my older work if I don’t want them to see it. (Of course, I can’t stop them from searching down old copies of work I’ve already sold and I wouldn’t put in a lot of effort trying to prevent them from looking.) But the bottom line is that the work is mine, dammit. Not theirs. I have old sketchbooks that are pretty embarrassingly bad. No one has seen those in years, and I don’t intend that anyone (if anyone cared) is going to see them now, just to satisfy their own curiosity. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t know what the solution is. Pure and simple. Okay, let’s put it this way: if you could find a way to effectively do it, would you want for artists be controlled to the extent that they would be prevented from destroying or altering their work, or do you believe that they should be left to their own devices, even if you don’t always like the decisions that they make? Should they be _allowed_ to make final decisions about their work, while they are still alive? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/24 "2004-07-14T00:00:49Z")
The Quality Book publishing company gives Good Author an advance so he can write a book. They also give an advance to Bad Author. Both authors write their books and QB Publishing dutifully publishes them. BA’s book doesn’t sell very well. GA’s book, OTOH, can’t stay on the shelf. The Shady Book publishing company sees the success of GA’s Book and slinks off to the library, sets up their own presses, and starts churning out their own copies of GA’s book, and selling them. SB pub. reaps the benefits (best selling books) without incurring any of the risks (poorly selling books). QB pub. can’t recover the losses for all the bad books it publishes, because whenever it publishes a good book, the return is divided amongst itself and copycat publishers. The same goes for Good Author. QB eventually goes bankrupt, and Good Author looks for more profitable work. Shady Publishing doesn’t court authors or give advances, so with no more books (good or bad) being produced, they, too, go out of business. There are no more books being published. Copyright is envisioned to prevent the above scenario. Shady Book publishing can’t just start printing and selling it’s own copies of every best-seller that comes along and leave the business of finding and producing those best-sellers to others. Suppose, though, that Good Author sees that his books are flying off the shelves and that Quality Publisher’s presses can’t keep up with the demand? Furthermore, GA and QB publishing might still not be able to reap the full rewards of their best seller, because of the secondary market competing with second run publishing, or a simple inability to reach multiple markets cost effectively. This is bad because the public may not be able to read the book at all due to scarce supply or being in a neglected market. Copyright is envisioned to prevent the second scenario as well. QB Publishing or Good Author can liscense the work to Shady Publishing, to allow them to print copies to meet the local demand, or to Next Town Presses to make copies for markets that QB Publishing couldn’t supply themselves. Shady Publishing and Next Town Press give GA and/or QB Pub. a cut of the profits. The public gets as many books as they demand, and the various publishing houses continue to stay in business. Digital distribution doesn’t really play well with either of the above scenarios. QB Publishing, or Good Author himself, can make an arbitrarily large number of perfect copies and distribute them worldwide for minimal unit cost. The Risk that justifies the first scenario is minor, and the Supply Problem that justifies the second scenario is non-existant. Since the reason for copyright is the promotion of science and the useful arts, the question must be asked if, in an age where anyone could reach a worldwide audience… does restricting the ability of individuals to republish, without a liscense, to other individuals promote the arts? Or is digital distribution and redistribution a more effective way? If it IS a more effective way, yet traditionally analog publishing houses refuse to offer digital editions… should the rights we’ve granted them allow them to prevent others from filling in for their refusal to supply? We grant copyright with the understanding that copies will be produced… if the rights holder is not producing copies, and individuals fill in to supply those copies to each other, are they not effectively revoking the right they granted due to the rightsholder failing to meet their obligation? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/25 "2004-07-14T00:55:00Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Did you pay him more for publishing rights? Or did you just have a verbal agreement? I guess you’d call it verbal since it was in an email (which I no longer have). > [@](#): > > The way copyright is now (and if you don’t believe me, check out [copyright.gov](http://copyright.gov)) when you buy an original piece of artwork, you are _not_ buying publishing rights. Those must be negotiated. Which, apparently, you did with this particular artist. But publishing rights are not a “given” when artwork is sold. That’s why I asked him about it before I bought the work, since I wanted to be clear on the matter. > [@](#): > > Did I say “nefarious”? Yes, I did. And someone who accepts a copy of someone else’s work, given with the **express purpose** feedback but nothing more, is acting in a nefarious manner when they “leak it” out anyway. That’s extremely dishonest behavior. You lend something to someone, telling them, “I am lending this to you with the understanding that you are just looking at it to give me some feedback, I am not interested in having it published at this time” and the person “leaks” it anyway, they are a scumbag. Pure and simple. In your opinion. The artist may, in fact, be looking for the person to spread it around, since, if the person _doesn’t_ spread it around, the work may, in fact, be crap. > [@](#): > > So, when someone trusts a scumbag who “leaks” (i.e. steals) their work, then it’s just too bad, huh? Well, the RIAA doesn’t seem to be having much luck in eliminating file sharing of music, now do they? Everytime they clamp down on one outlet, another springs up in Whack-A-Mole fashion. > [@](#): > > Of course, if artists knew that such a possibility existed, they’d just simply never show anything to anyone, they’d never _trust_ anyone, and how would that foster creativity? Where would those wonderful things that you feel you have some “right” to enjoy be, if all artists were too distrustful to show anything to anyone, unless they were 100% sure they wanted it to be released? Some artists already do that. J. D. Salinger claims to still be writing, but refuses to have his work see publication because he doesn’t like how the world reacts to it. > [@](#): > > Boy, deja vu. Who would have thought there’d be more than one person on this board who believes that people have little right of privacy nor, essentially the right _not_ to publish. Yikes. I didn’t say that people didn’t have the right to privacy or to withhold publication. I _do_ recognize the fact that for everyone working on copy protection, there’s an equal (or greater) number of folks out there working just as hard at breaking that protection. I also recognize that if someone _does_ violate your privacy, that you can _only_ punish them, _not_ reverse the loss of privacy. > [@](#): > > What about an unestablished artist? What about an “unknown” artist who has finally, _finally_ done that really good work that is destined to finally get them that enviable contract that they’ve so long struggled for, but oh wait, some scumbag “leaked” their work and now it’s everywhere. How much would such a previously unknown artist earn? They have no past record of sales, they were a “nobody” before. So, how much? Who gets to decide? It is my understanding that publishers have a set royalty rate for _non-established_ artists, and while this no doubt varies from publisher to publisher, it should be relatively easy to take an average of those, add a few percentage points to it, and make that the basic rate. > [@](#): > > And, what about an established artist’s right to _negotiate_ for a higher price for a work that took extraordinary effort? If it’s bootlegged (stolen), then they lose their negotiating ability. But oh well. Too bad, some scumbag stole their work, who cares now? After all, the public gets to enjoy the work, so what if the artist got screwed over. At least they get _something_, ya know? And it’s not like the artist would be guarenteed a set amount anyway. What if that artist is convinced that he or she’s created the greatest work of art and every publisher looks at it and decides it’s crap? Doesn’t matter what kind of track record the artist might have at that point, if the publisher’s _don’t_ want it, the artist can only self-publish the work (and if it _is_ crap, he/she isn’t going to be making very much money at self-publishing). > [@](#): > > Okay, so I’ll make it a straightforward question: Do you think that artists _owe_ humanity all of their work? In other words, do you believe that all of humanity _deserves_ to see every single photograph, painting, essay, song, poem, etc. that _every other person_ has created? Do you think that when an individual has created something, they have no _right_ to say, “I don’t want this published” because the _rights_ of the rest of humanity to see their unpublished works trumps the individual’s desire to not have it published? I don’t have an answer for that. Because one of the thing’s which makes art so valuable is it’s rarity. Having every scribble that Picasso put down might dilute the beauty of the works we _do_ have. Then again, we look at works by Kafka and Joyce, who both destroyed many of their writings without them having ever seen the light of day, and can only wonder at what the world has lost. I would _like_ (I would _like_? I would like a trip to Europe!) for us to be able to save every scrap ever created by every great artist, but that is simply not possible. I _do_ think, however, that the line should be drawn for works which are already published and that the creator decides they want to withdraw or alter. If the _newer_ version is clearly superior, or if the original work is horribly flawed, then the marketplace will lose interest in flawed version. Plus, the artist could get some valuable feedback that way. We’ll take Lucas, again, for an example. If he made both versions of the original _Star Wars_ trilogy available, and the bulk of consumers purchased the unadulterated versions, he’d have to ask himself what it was about the originals which made them so much better. If the bulk of consumers who bought the unadulterated versions are of the age group which would have seen them in the theaters when they originally premiered, while the bulk of the consumers who bought the Special Edition versions, were people who’d only seen the originals on TV or video, then he would realize that it was purely a generational type thing. > [@](#): > > Well, he will have a hard time controlling this, because older versions of the movies were out for years and no doubt someone’s archived them in some way. I feel that he must know that it’ll be virtually impossible to clamp down on _all_ older copies, and I am sure he’s not staying awake at night, worrying about it. But the bottom line is. . . it’s still his baby. He did it. We didn’t. He invested his life to create the work. We didn’t. We just sat back, passively, and enjoyed it. His investment in it is so much more profound than ours. We did nothing other than soak it in. His wishes trump ours. But, with that said, he’s not going to be able to completely stamp out all copies of the old versions of the films. Hell, I have copies of the old versions. Right, you have copies of the originals, but with the way that the megacorporations are trying to rework copyright law, it will be _illegal_ for you to transfer them from video tape to a more permanent medium. I’m not talking about you opening up “ **yosemite** ’s House of Bootleg Videos.” I’m simply talking about you, transfering the video tapes which you _legally_ obtained, to a DVD, so that you can continue to enjoy the movies without having to worry about degredation of the video tape. Should the megacorps have the “right” to restrict you from doing that? One can argue that by allowing you to transfer those movies to DVD you’re denying the megacorp monies which they feel they would otherwise recoup by you going out and buying the DVDs. That’s _assuming_, of course, that you would go out and buy the DVDs, even though the version available _doesn’t_ match the version that you currently have. I don’t know about you, but if it’s a choice between me ponying up money for the Special Edition versions or watching a slowly decaying video tape of the originals, I’ll take the decaying tape, thank you very much. And if those efforst to block people from making an archival copy of something are successful (which is a _distinct_ possibility), then eventually it will become well-neigh impossible to view the originals. There’s also the matter of works which the copyright holder doesn’t feel there’s an economic justification to keeping in print. This means that if you _do_ want to find a copy of the work, you’ll have to do a _lot_ of scrounging around to find a copy, if you can. Then, of course, there’s the issue of whether or not the copy you manage to find is a _legal_ copy. I spent two freakin’ years looking for a copy of _The Indomitable Tin Goose_ which is the biography of Preston Tucker. I managed to find a used copy, but it took nearly constant scouring of eBay, aLibris, and other used book websites and stores before I was able to find it. At that point, I didn’t care if the copy was legal or not, I just wanted to be able to read the damn thing (no, none of the libraries had it). The Tucker Club would _love_ to be able to reprint the book and make it available for sale to the public, but the publisher, who controls the rights to the book, demands an exorbitant sum for this, which the club _cannot_ afford. There’s any number of recordings out there, that are out of print, because the right’s holder doesn’t feel that there’s enough of a demand to make copies readily available. But, of course, if copies of the recordings _aren’t_ readily available, how are people going to know about them? How are they going to be able to listen to them and say, “You know, I’d like to have a copy of that, I think I’ll go buy it.” Taste is a fickel thing, just ask any of the classical composers whose work went unappreciated during their lifetime, but gained acceptance after they died. > [@](#): > > ::Shrug:: I “deny” people the right to see earlier versions of my photographs and artwork. Few care in my case, but if they did, I still don’t think they’ve got a right to see my older work if I don’t want them to see it. (Of course, I can’t stop them from searching down old copies of work I’ve already sold and I wouldn’t put in a lot of effort trying to prevent them from looking.) But the bottom line is that the work is mine, dammit. Not theirs. I have old sketchbooks that are pretty embarrassingly bad. No one has seen those in years, and I don’t intend that anyone (if anyone cared) is going to see them now, just to satisfy their own curiosity. Right, you _can’t_ stop them _now_, but with the way the megacorps are trying to put the screws to folks now (BTW, didja know that the RIAA is trying to get companies to produce things like MP3 players which require a _thumbprint_ to operate? Where’s your right to privacy then, if those things come to pass? Why should _anyone_ have to submit a thumbprint in order to be able to listen to music which they _legally_ purchased?), it will become difficult, if not impossible for anyone to track down older versions of an artist’s work, if the copyright holder (who might _not_ be the artist) doesn’t want them to. > [@](#): > > Okay, let’s put it this way: if you could find a way to effectively do it, would you want for artists be controlled to the extent that they would be prevented from destroying or altering their work, or do you believe that they should be left to their own devices, even if you don’t always like the decisions that they make? Should they be _allowed_ to make final decisions about their work, while they are still alive? Yes or no? NOTA. I would like for the _market_ to decide which is more valuable, but I also recognize that if this were the case, many of the great works of art which we have today would never have been created, so I have to simply say that while I would prefer that all versions are available, I recognize that this is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/26 "2004-07-14T03:12:10Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > That’s why I asked him about it before I bought the work, since I wanted to be clear on the matter. And so you understand that he did not have to give you publishing rights. He chose to. > [@](#): > > In your opinion. The artist may, in fact, be looking for the person to spread it around, since, if the person _doesn’t_ spread it around, the work may, in fact, be crap. Good grief. Talk about missing the point. Let’s say we are living in a world where the climate is: whatever you get your mitts on, you can copy all you want and nobody can stop you or punish you. If the artist lives in that universe, with that understanding of the way things are, then if they “share” a bunch of copies of their work with others, knowing full well that these others can distribute the work, then they obviously don’t _mind_ if the work is shared. They won’t be harmed if it does. Their attitude will convey that. But if an artist, living in that same universe where anything is open season to be copied, and they adamantly _don’t want_ the work to be copied, they’ll tell everyone who they lend out a copy, “I DO NOT want this to be leaked out. Please. Just read it and tell me what you think of it, and then give it back.” If, then, someone “leaks” it anyway, they are, no doubt about it, a **scumbag**. But we don’t live in that world. People show their unpublished works to others all the time, with the automatic assumption that it will not be spread around. For one thing, because most people respect others’ privacy and don’t release others’ works, out of politeness and human decency. And for another thing, anyone who “leaked” it would get in a world of legal troubles for doing so. It doesn’t stop the bootlegging completely, but the bootlegging isn’t accepted or mainstream, which is apparently is something you wouldn’t mind happening. > [@](#): > > Well, the RIAA doesn’t seem to be having much luck in eliminating file sharing of music, now do they? Everytime they clamp down on one outlet, another springs up in Whack-A-Mole fashion. It’s harder once the stuff is out there. But that’s not actually what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about someone’s _unpublished_ work that they _don’t_ want published, but that is published anyway, against their will. > [@](#): > > Some artists already do that. J. D. Salinger claims to still be writing, but refuses to have his work see publication because he doesn’t like how the world reacts to it. And, he lives with the realization that no publishing company will _ever_ release bootleg copies of his books, because he could make them hurt, real bad. He also lives with the realization that if he chose to show some of his work to anyone (just so they could see it) that they couldn’t “leak” it without also being in a world of legal hurt. He wouldn’t have such assurances if things were the way that you desire them. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say that people didn’t have the right to privacy or to withhold publication. No, you are just saying that it’s okay if scumbags “leak” their work against their will, and there’s nothing that should be done about it. > [@](#): > > I _do_ recognize the fact that for everyone working on copy protection, there’s an equal (or greater) number of folks out there working just as hard at breaking that protection. You mean “scumbags” working to break the protection. > [@](#): > > I also recognize that if someone _does_ violate your privacy, that you can _only_ punish them, _not_ reverse the loss of privacy. True enough, but it seems like you want to institutionalize the violation. Allow the scumbag bootleggers to make money and then (graciously) allow the violated artist some royalty. That’s not how it is now. Bootlegging exists, but it’s not mainstream. You won’t find bootlegged items being sold on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). Bootlegging is bad now, but if it were acceptable, it would be far worse. > [@](#): > > It is my understanding that publishers have a set royalty rate for _non-established_ artists, and while this no doubt varies from publisher to publisher, it should be relatively easy to take an average of those, add a few percentage points to it, and make that the basic rate. And you mean that _never_ NEVER, has a new artist ever been able to negotiate for a higher price? What about the artists’ right to decide what their work is worth? I have stuff that I’d part with or share if I got paid enough. It wouldn’t be worth it for me to sell at a lower price. I may never sell it (and that’s okay with me) if nobody can reach my price. That’s my right. So what you’re saying is that if, in some alternative universe, some scumbag is able to swipe my work and publish it against my will, that, along with being violated in that way, I don’t even get to decide how much my work is worth? Talk about adding insult to injury. > [@](#): > > At least they get _something_, ya know? Right. I understand what you’re saying, and I think you’re thinking that something is better than nothing, and I can sympathize with that. But not when the trade-off is that bootlegging because more mainstream and acceptable. No. > [@](#): > > And it’s not like the artist would be guarenteed a set amount anyway. True enough. And artists who don’t like the price they are offered can hold out for a higher price, or just decide that it’s _not worth it to them._ They have that right. To set their own price. They aren’t _owed_ a certain price, true, but then again, they don’t _owe_ the world access to their art. Bottom line, it ought to be on _their_ terms, since they are the ones who made the damned art. > [@](#): > > What if that artist is convinced that he or she’s created the greatest work of art and every publisher looks at it and decides it’s crap? Then they don’t sell it. Happens all the time. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t matter what kind of track record the artist might have at that point, if the publisher’s _don’t_ want it, the artist can only self-publish the work (and if it _is_ crap, he/she isn’t going to be making very much money at self-publishing). Right. So what was your point anyway? No should force an artist to accept any set amount for the art. The artist should always be able to say, “Sorry, that’s not enough, the deal is off.” You want to take that away from them. > [@](#): > > I don’t have an answer for that. You know, I have to say with brutal honesty that I find it a little scary that you don’t have an answer to the question about whether or not an individual has the right _not_ to publish. That seems to me to be a pretty fundimental right: kind of like the right to privacy. To have to hem and haw about whether or not a person has a _right_ to not publish? Odd. > [@](#): > > I would _like_ (I would _like_? I would like a trip to Europe!) for us to be able to save every scrap ever created by every great artist, but that is simply not possible. Who gets to define what a “great” artist. What if someone isn’t “great” one moment but then some decide that they are? Would you like for every person to save every scrap they’ve created, just in case they are deemed “great” some day? (I’m getting a little far afield here . . . 😉 ) > [@](#): > > I _do_ think, however, that the line should be drawn for works which are already published and that the creator decides they want to withdraw or alter. If the _newer_ version is clearly superior, or if the original work is horribly flawed, then the marketplace will lose interest in flawed version. I understand your frustration at _knowing_ that something was out there, and now it’s harder to find. For what it’s worth, I know the feeling of frustration and have often shared it. I think that I feel more frustration over something not being released, not because the artist fervently wished for it not to be released, but because of some big business contract bullshit, or apathy on the part of a publisher who owns rights, etc. _That_ annoys me. But if the artist deeply feels that the work should not be released again? I still feel disappointed, but I also wish to respect their feelings. > [@](#): > > Plus, the artist could get some valuable feedback that way. Who said that the artist wanted or needed feedback? They do not exist soley to be educated by the public, you know. > [@](#): > > Right, you have copies of the originals, but with the way that the megacorporations are trying to rework copyright law, it will be _illegal_ for you to transfer them from video tape to a more permanent medium. I agree that the megacorporations are taking it way too far. They aren’t artists, they are businessmen. I tire of some of their antics. (Special ire directed at the RIAA.) > [@](#): > > There’s any number of recordings out there, that are out of print, because the right’s holder doesn’t feel that there’s enough of a demand to make copies readily available. But, of course, if copies of the recordings _aren’t_ readily available, how are people going to know about them? How are they going to be able to listen to them and say, “You know, I’d like to have a copy of that, I think I’ll go buy it.” Taste is a fickel thing, just ask any of the classical composers whose work went unappreciated during their lifetime, but gained acceptance after they died. These problems are going to be easier to resolve (and to some extent, solutions already exist) in the form of Print On Demand, and so forth. Print on Demand can take an out of print book, scan it, and make copies available, one copy at a time, for interested buyers. Not much up-front cost (just a few hundred, usually) and the book is available for those who care. If the copyright owner doesn’t feel there is much percentage in them releasing the work, then Print On Demand should make it more feasable for them to release the work anyway. It’ll only get cheaper and easier in that regard as technology improves. > [@](#): > > Why should _anyone_ have to submit a thumbprint in order to be able to listen to music which they _legally_ purchased?), Well, the RIAA is evil, we all knew that. But I’m not talking about that right now. I’m mostly talking about an individual’s right _not to publish._ > [@](#): > > NOTA. I apologize, I am not familiar with that acronym. Could you explain it, please? > [@](#): > > I would like for the _market_ to decide which is more valuable, but I also recognize that if this were the case, many of the great works of art which we have today would never have been created, so I have to simply say that while I would prefer that all versions are available, I recognize that this is impossible. You know, it was really a simple question. Should the artist have a right to do with what they will with their art, or not? At least I thought it was a simple question. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/27 "2004-07-14T12:33:14Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > if you told what you said above to any higher-up in the RIAA or MPAA, you’d get laughed or yelled at Yes, but the same thing would happen if I told a lunatic that, no, he is **not** Napoleon. 😉 > [@](#): > > Right now, they’re doing all they can to, at the very least, morally equate copyright infringement with theft, if not make them legally the same thing. And like Slashdot’s meme, I have no doubt that theirs is spreading too, perhaps even more successfully. That (like any other spreading of disinformation) is a problem. > [@](#): > > Oh, and in my OP, I meant to say, of course, that "no one’s, AFAIK, arguing that it’s NOT a crime… Fair enough (though in some cases it is a tort, not a crime, and IMHO the law should be reformed so that it is generally a tort and only becomes a crime under particularly aggrivated circumstances such as fraudulent representation that you are selling genuine authorized copies). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/28 "2004-07-14T12:41:40Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > BTW, didja know that the RIAA is trying to get companies to produce things like MP3 players which require a thumbprint to operate? Where’s your right to privacy then, if those things come to pass? Why should anyone have to submit a thumbprint in order to be able to listen to music which they legally purchased?) If a merchant is having problems with shoplifters, most of his law-abiding customers will be sympathetic, and even tolerate a few reasonable inconveniences directed at reducing the problem. If the merchant takes to hiring goons to randomly strip-search customers, break into houses to look for shoplifted goods, and the like… well, that sympathy is gonna go away real fast. That, in a nutshell, is the media industry’s problem, and they seem bound and determined to make it worse. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/29 "2004-07-15T00:30:05Z")
You will forgive me, but I’ve had to split my response up, because as a single post, it’s too large for the software to handle. > [@yosemite](#): > > And so you understand that he did not have to give you publishing rights. He chose to. Well, if he _hadn’t_ I wouldn’t have bought the artwork from him. Lest you think that I took advantage of a poor starving artist, the gentleman was [Philip S. Egan](http://www.route-66.com/cars/tucker.htm), who while not wealthy or well-known, is certainly _not_ hurting for work. In addition, he was kind enough, without my asking, to knock several hundred dollars off his usual rate. > [@](#): > > Good grief. Talk about missing the point. Oh, no, I _got_ your point. I just didn’t think it had as much merit as you do. After all, if I go handing the keys to my car to just anyone, and they take my car to a chop shop, strip it and sell it for parts, whatever rights I may have to my property, don’t override the fact that I’m a dumbass for giving my keys to anyone who asks for them. > [@](#): > > Let’s say we are living in a world where the climate is: whatever you get your mitts on, you can copy all you want and nobody can stop you or punish you. In many ways we already do. > [@](#): > > If the artist lives in that universe, with that understanding of the way things are, then if they “share” a bunch of copies of their work with others, knowing full well that these others can distribute the work, then they obviously don’t _mind_ if the work is shared. They won’t be harmed if it does. Their attitude will convey that. Of course, no one is forcing them to do this, they are doing it out of their own free will. > [@](#): > > But if an artist, living in that same universe where anything is open season to be copied, and they adamantly _don’t want_ the work to be copied, they’ll tell everyone who they lend out a copy, “I DO NOT want this to be leaked out. Please. Just read it and tell me what you think of it, and then give it back.” If, then, someone “leaks” it anyway, they are, no doubt about it, a **scumbag**. They’re certainly _not_ a friend, but let me ask you this: If someone handed you something that was utterly the most profound life-changing thing you’d ever seen, and you _knew_ that it could better the lives of many of your friends and family, would you be inclined to keep it quiet? Even if the person who gave it to you said, “Don’t let anyone else see this.” Mind you, I’m _not_ talking about being handed classified documents which if they were publically known could put someone’s life in danger, but something for the betterment of all mankind. What if you had _no_ idea of when or if this item would ever be made available to the general public? What if you _knew_ that the moment people saw this, it would uplift them _instantly_? Would you honor that person’s request to keep it silenced up, or would you shout it from the rooftops? > [@](#): > > But we don’t live in that world. People show their unpublished works to others all the time, with the automatic assumption that it will not be spread around. That’s a generalization. I’ve shown my writings to friends with the express purpose of getting it out there and circulated around so that I could get all kinds of feedback on it. I _did not_ say for the person to do this, however, I _knew_ that if the person liked the writings he would start sharing it around. > [@](#): > > For one thing, because most people respect others’ privacy and don’t release others’ works, out of politeness and human decency. That’s a generalization again, and has no validity in this argument because we’ve no idea of what the merits of any such work would be, nor do we know the character of theindividuals the work might have been shown to. > [@](#): > > And for another thing, anyone who “leaked” it would get in a world of legal troubles for doing so. Assuming, of course, that the artist could afford to hire a lawyer and sue the person, assuming, again, that the artist would want to do such a thing. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t stop the bootlegging completely, but the bootlegging isn’t accepted or mainstream, which is apparently is something you wouldn’t mind happening. Bootlegging pretty much _is_ mainstream in a lot of places in the US, and in many countries around the world as well. It is _not_ legally accepted, but it’s not hard to find bootlegged copies of nearly anything if you want one. > [@](#): > > It’s harder once the stuff is out there. But that’s not actually what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about someone’s _unpublished_ work that they _don’t_ want published, but that is published anyway, against their will. Then we go back to the whole stolen car business, if I go handing the keys to my car to just _anyone_ who asks for them, I’m a dumbass. > [@](#): > > And, he lives with the realization that no publishing company will _ever_ release bootleg copies of his books, because he could make them hurt, real bad. He also lives with the realization that if he chose to show some of his work to anyone (just so they could see it) that they couldn’t “leak” it without also being in a world of legal hurt. He wouldn’t have such assurances if things were the way that you desire them. Well, J. D. Salinger’s not exactly poor, but what recourse does Salinger have if I were to break into his house, steal his writings, convert them into .PDFs, and then post them anonomously on the internet on servers based in some country where US authorities have no hope of ever getting the servers shut down? If I screw up and leave fingerprints lying around, then I can be arrested for breaking and entering, but prosecuting me for copyright infringement is going to be a bit difficult, if Salinger doesn’t have copies of his writings that I’ve stolen which can be shown as evidence. With enough money, I could hire a lawyer of the same caliber as any Salinger could hire, and have the same number of writing experts stating that the works _weren’t_ his as he could have backing up his claim. > [@](#): > > No, you are just saying that it’s okay if scumbags “leak” their work against their will, and there’s nothing that should be done about it. No, I’m saying that what ever you _do_ will _not_ reverse the damage which has been done to that person’s privacy. Prosecuting a murderer doesn’t bring the victim back to life, and I’d argue that it _doesn’t_ deter other criminals from performing the same act, it _does_, however, hopefully, prevent that person from killing anyone else. > [@](#): > > You mean “scumbags” working to break the protection. You can call them “scumbags” if you like, but those “scumbags” also enable me to make archival copies of works I have which would be difficult, if not impossible to replace. Also, why should I have to carry around my entire CD collection with me, when I can easily rip it to a convient format like AAC, and carry it around in a device like an iPod? If I’m talking with someone, and I think that they might like a particular piece of music, I can _easily_ let them _hear_ it (no burning copies of the music, in this scenerio). Additionally, if I _don’t_ have to buy one copy of the music for “home” use, and another copy for use on my iPod, I can then spend my money on _more_ music, by a larger number of artists, instead of having to shell out money for duplicates all the damn time. If the RIAA does manage to find a way to prevent me from buying a CD, ripping it to my PC, and burning a copy for my car or transferring it to a device like an iPod, you can bet that I’ll be scouring the net, looking for ways around this, and I **won’t** be buying _any_ music until I’m able to find a workaround, so the artists and the labels will be gaining _nothing_ from me by doing this. I have a friend who’s spent the past fifteen years working in the music industry, and he’s so disgusted by the way labels treat artists (he’s a recording engineer, BTW), that he _refuses_ to buy CDs since he knows that the odds of the artist ever seeing any of the money is practically nil. He’d much rather support the artist by going to their concerts and (if possible) purchasing the music from them directly. > [@](#): > > True enough, but it seems like you want to institutionalize the violation. Allow the scumbag bootleggers to make money and then (graciously) allow the violated artist some royalty. Which, again, is better than nothing. > [@](#): > > That’s not how it is now. Bootlegging exists, but it’s not mainstream. You won’t find bootlegged items being sold on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). Nope, but I can find guys on street corners selling me DVDs of movies that are still in the theaters, I can find them selling me bootlegged CDs, or I can avail myself of the internet and download the stuff _for free_. > [@](#): > > Bootlegging is bad now, but if it were acceptable, it would be far worse. Supposition. > [@](#): > > And you mean that _never_ NEVER, has a new artist ever been able to negotiate for a higher price? What about the artists’ right to decide what their work is worth? That, is why God created agents. > [@](#): > > I have stuff that I’d part with or share if I got paid enough. It wouldn’t be worth it for me to sell at a lower price. I may never sell it (and that’s okay with me) if nobody can reach my price. That’s my right. So what you’re saying is that if, in some alternative universe, some scumbag is able to swipe my work and publish it against my will, that, along with being violated in that way, I don’t even get to decide how much my work is worth? Talk about adding insult to injury. Can you _afford_ to hire a lawyer to go after them? Even if you can, many artists _can’t_. Certainly if someone were to steal my writings and publish them, I can’t afford a lawyer to go after them. I _accept_ that _fact_, and if it ever happens I will still _accept_ it, I will **not** be hounding Congress demanding that they rewrite the laws so that the Federal government has to pay for the prosecution of that individual, I will **not** demand that Congress force companies to come up with technologies that will make it difficult for people to make simple archival copies of their personal property (remember some efforts at copy protection wouldn’t be able to discriminate between a _legal_ copy and an _illegal_ copy, they would just _automatically assume_ that any copy you wanted to make _was illegal_). What I _would_ do is make damn sure that the next time someone tried to _physically break in and steal_ my personal property, they had as difficult time getting in and getting the stuff as is allowed by law. > [@](#): > > Right. I understand what you’re saying, and I think you’re thinking that something is better than nothing, and I can sympathize with that. You’re right there. > [@](#): > > But not when the trade-off is that bootlegging because more mainstream and acceptable. No. Yes, well, the current efforts at copy protection (and, IMHO **all** future efforts) are futile. [Sony spent something like $1 billion dollars to develop a copy protection scheme which _could be beaten with the application of a Sharpie!_](http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1143826) I’d _much_ rather have had Sony spend that money promoting new or little known artists. > [@](#): > > True enough. And artists who don’t like the price they are offered can hold out for a higher price, or just decide that it’s _not worth it to them._ They have that right. To set their own price. They aren’t _owed_ a certain price, true, but then again, they don’t _owe_ the world access to their art. Bottom line, it ought to be on _their_ terms, since they are the ones who made the damned art. Maybe so, but if the world is _not_ willing to pay the price that the artist demands, then the artist will have to _accept_ that fact. Sure, the artist could go around sticking guns in people’s faces and demand money from them, but that approach isn’t going to get them very far. Even if the law says it’s _legal_ to do so. Sooner or later, someone’s going to put a stop to what the artist is doing, and they’re _not_ going to care about the legality of the matter. > [@](#): > > Then they don’t sell it. Happens all the time.Right. So what was your point anyway? Hey, if you wanna ignore my point, be my guest. > [@](#): > > No should force an artist to accept any set amount for the art. The artist should always be able to say, “Sorry, that’s not enough, the deal is off.” You want to take that away from them. No, I _don’t_ and I _can’t_. If the artist doesn’t want to sell his/her work, there’s nothing I can do, short of sticking a gun in his/her face, to get him/her to do so. I would like to see artists to get some kind of compensation for their efforts, but I also recognize the fact that it’s impossible for them to be paid for every copy of their work. What if every time you wanted to listen to a song, you had to pay money for it? What if every time you wanted to read a book, you had to pay money for it? What if every time you wanted to look at a painting or a photograph or a movie, you had to pay for it? You can bet that _all_ of us would be spending a _lot_ less time enriching our lives with art. However, _this is exactly the kind of scenerio that many artists and megacorps desire._ ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/30 "2004-07-15T00:34:28Z")
Part two. > [@](#): > > You know, I have to say with brutal honesty that I find it a little scary that you don’t have an answer to the question about whether or not an individual has the right _not_ to publish. That seems to me to be a pretty fundimental right: kind of like the right to privacy. To have to hem and haw about whether or not a person has a _right_ to not publish? Odd. Well, all I can say is that you’re _not_ the first person to call me “odd” and you’ll not be the last, I’m sure. > [@](#): > > Who gets to define what a “great” artist. What if someone isn’t “great” one moment but then some decide that they are? Would you like for every person to save every scrap they’ve created, just in case they are deemed “great” some day? (I’m getting a little far afield here . . . 😉 ) Well, I do. I realize that it’s a long shot that anyone will ever consider me to be great, but what the hell, right? After all, it was the personal diaries of nuns which gave folks insight into the course of Alzheimers. It’s those little scraps of personal letters which people sent to their loved ones, that enable us to get a sense of what it was like to be alive in America at the time of the Civil War. > [@](#): > > I understand your frustration at _knowing_ that something was out there, and now it’s harder to find. For what it’s worth, I know the feeling of frustration and have often shared it. I think that I feel more frustration over something not being released, not because the artist fervently wished for it not to be released, but because of some big business contract bullshit, or apathy on the part of a publisher who owns rights, etc. _That_ annoys me. I have a copy of _Koyaanisqatsi_ which I paid $200 for. It **does not** leave my possession. I **do not** loan it out to _anyone_. If someone wants to watch it, I’m more than happy to invite them over to watch it, or take it over to their house and watch it with them there. Had not Godfrey Reggio been able to regain the rights to the film and thus arrange mass distribution of it, you can bet that I’d be burning DVDs of the film to loan out to people. They _would not_ get to borrow my $200, and I wouldn’t even put _that_ in my DVD player when I wanted to watch the film, I’d put in one of my duplicates. And lest you accuse me of being a mad duplicator, since the film _has_ come out on DVD, I’ve **purchased** multiple copies of the film and given those away to friends, plus I’ve, again, **purchased** multiple copies for _myself._ Why did I do this, when I could have _easily_ (I’ve got the necessary gear, BTW.) just burned copies and given those to folk? Because I think that the _message_ conveyed by the film (and the others in the 'Qatsi trilogy) is _so_ important, that I want to make sure that not only does Reggio have the money to make more films, but I want the movie studios to realize that, yes, this shit really _does_ matter. > [@](#): > > But if the artist deeply feels that the work should not be released again? I still feel disappointed, but I also wish to respect their feelings. Hey, what gives them the right to deny me my happiness? I’d _gladly_ fork over money to Lucas for DVDs of the original _Star Wars_ trilogy. Heck, I’ll even let him clean the prints up, but if Greedo shoots first, I ain’t buyin’. > [@](#): > > Who said that the artist wanted or needed feedback? They do not exist soley to be educated by the public, you know. And art does _not_ exist in a vacuum. Directly and indirectly, both the world and the artist are changed by how society reacts to the creation of a particular artwork. The artist can _try_ to limit the impact of the world’s reaction upon his/her psyche, but the world will also do it’s damnedest to make sure that the artist knows _exactly_ how the world feels about the matter, even if they have to imprison or murder the artist to get their point across. > [@](#): > > I agree that the megacorporations are taking it way too far. They aren’t artists, they are businessmen. I tire of some of their antics. (Special ire directed at the RIAA.) Well, if the RIAA and others get their way, the _only_ way you’ll get to enjoy the same amount of art as you do now, will be by availing yourself (as I will) of those methods developed by the people you’re currently calling “scumbags.” > [@](#): > > These problems are going to be easier to resolve (and to some extent, solutions already exist) in the form of Print On Demand, and so forth. Print on Demand can take an out of print book, scan it, and make copies available, one copy at a time, for interested buyers. Not much up-front cost (just a few hundred, usually) and the book is available for those who care. And I certainly hope that it becomes popular, I’ve been bitching that we need print on demand since 1991 or so. > [@](#): > > If the copyright owner doesn’t feel there is much percentage in them releasing the work, then Print On Demand should make it more feasable for them to release the work anyway. It’ll only get cheaper and easier in that regard as technology improves. Assuming, of course, they’re _not_ a total bastard and have acquired the rights solely so that they can supress the work. Which, sadly, has happened in the past. (Though, I must confess that I was in favor of Ted Nugent’s plan to buy Muzak solely for the purpose of shutting it down. 😉 ) > [@](#): > > Well, the RIAA is evil, we all knew that. But I’m not talking about that right now. I’m mostly talking about an individual’s right _not to publish._ Which is one that is, sadly, unsolvable. I remember watching a documentary on the excavation of a pre-Revolutionary slave grave yard in New York. The excavation was being done by anthropologists, archeologists, and assorted volunteers. Many people in the African-American community saw this as grave desecration and were opposed to it. However, having grown up in a primarily white community and being raised on images of slaverly like those found in _Gone With the Wind_, I was fascinated and _appalled_ at what those poor individuals had to endure during their lives. Mind you, I knew slavery was bad, and I was opposed to discrimination of any sort at this point, but until I saw the forensic specialist holding the skull of a slave in his hands, and detailing the kind of excruciating agony in which that woman died, I did _not_ fully understand how great the horrors of slavery were. Now, suppose that the scientists had respected the wishes of those who felt the graves _shouldn’t_ be exhumed. I, and others who saw that program, would _not_ have the visceral reaction to the discussion of slavery that we do now. It would all be an intellectual matter, and I could discuss it the way one would discuss the weather. I would _not_ know with the very fiber of my being that slavery, in any form, is utterly and totally wrong. And at the risk of Godwinizing this, what if Anne Frank’s father had _not_ decided to publish Anne’s writings simply because she was dead, and thus could have no say in the matter? I don’t know, but I think that the reason he chose to publish those writings was so that the world would have a greater understanding of the horrors which occured during WW II. To say that because Anne Frank (and others who have died) shouldn’t have their work published because we _don’t_ know if that’s what they would have wanted strikes me as wrong. It is denying the world a window on a time and place which was very different than the one we live in now. Whether it be Europe during WW II, or America before Columbus landed here, or any other place on Earth, to deny those of us who were born too late to experience those things first hand, is wrong, IMHO. The only hope we have of learning from history, is by looking at those scraps which have been left to us, and if that means someone’s rights have to be trampled on, well, I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, don’t you agree? > [@](#): > > I apologize, I am not familiar with that acronym. Could you explain it, please? It’s the winner of nearly every election, were it allowed on the ballot: None Of The Above. > [@](#): > > You know, it was really a simple question. Should the artist have a right to do with what they will with their art, or not? At least I thought it was a simple question. And simple questions often don’t have simple answers. Like why is the sky blue? Or why do people die? Try explaining those to a child, and you’ll find that the answers aren’t so simple. The best answer I can give is that it depends upon the artist, and I’m sure that will \*not \* satisfy you. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/31 "2004-07-15T03:37:08Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Well, if he _hadn’t_ I wouldn’t have bought the artwork from him. Well, it was nice that you were able to come to an agreement. But I am guessing that you don’t buy a lot of original art, then. Because if you say, “This comes with all rights, doesn’t it?” a lot of artists are going to say, “I don’t think so.” > [@](#): > > After all, if I go handing the keys to my car to just anyone, and they take my car to a chop shop, strip it and sell it for parts, whatever rights I may have to my property, don’t override the fact that I’m a dumbass for giving my keys to anyone who asks for them. We don’t usually show our work to just “anyone.” But yes, if you show something to a stranger, you never know what they might do with it. It doesn’t make the stranger any less of a **scumbag** for releasing it, though. > [@](#): > > In many ways we already do. Of course, no one is forcing them to do this, they are doing it out of their own free will. No, we certainly do not live in that world. If we did, there would be unauthorized copies of any old thing selling on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). Places like CafePress would not have a paranoid copyright protection policy. Authors and artists and moviemakers would not get big contracts, because they couldn’t sell their work for that much. Why pay someone a lot of money for something when every Tom Dick and Harry can sell their own bootleg copy in a few days for a far lower price? What would be the point? It would be cheaper to be a bootlegger and just steal everyone else’s stuff, rather than actually seek out authors, get them to sign a contract, pay them, and be out all of that money. No, I think that things would be _a lot_ different if bootlegging were _really_ mainstream. > [@](#): > > If someone handed you something that was utterly the most profound life-changing thing you’d ever seen, and you _knew_ that it could better the lives of many of your friends and family, would you be inclined to keep it quiet? Oh good frickin’ grief. What is this, some sort of hyper drama moment? Art doesn’t cure cancer. It’s just someone’s private creation—their personal possession. Maybe there’s one in a million chance that someone would do something _so_ fantastic that it would warrant violating their trust and their fundimental right to privacy. But most of the time, it does not apply. There’s no frickin’ excuse to publish it against their wishes. > [@](#): > > I’ve shown my writings to friends with the express purpose of getting it out there and circulated around so that I could get all kinds of feedback on it. I _did not_ say for the person to do this, however, I _knew_ that if the person liked the writings he would start sharing it around. They are lucky that you feel this way, and that you have some unspoken understanding about it. But I’m telling you, they shouldn’t assume that it would be the same for all people. And when you mean, “spread it around,” what are you talking about? Do they publish it on the Internet? Sell copies through a POD? Buy ISBN numbers, publish it with a POD and sell it on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com)? Or do they just show it to a few more friends, assuming that you “wouldn’t mind”? One is quite different than the other. Most artists wouldn’t get their knickers in a bunch if a friend of a friend saw something they did (even if no express permission was given), but if it ended up on P2P or on someone’s website? Totally different matter. > [@](#): > > Bootlegging pretty much _is_ mainstream in a lot of places in the US, and in many countries around the world as well. It is _not_ legally accepted, but it’s not hard to find bootlegged copies of nearly anything if you want one. Until Random House is publishing bootlegged novels and they are selling them on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com), it is not that terribly “mainstream.” Once again, let’s steer this back on course: to someone’s unpublished works. Sure, they might end up on P2P. They might end up on a website. The copyright holder can do only so much about the P2P, but copyright holders routinely contact the ISPs of copyright violators’ sites and have the sites removed. This is pretty common. Not as satisfying as suing, but it makes things inconvenient for the violator. > [@](#): > > Then we go back to the whole stolen car business, if I go handing the keys to my car to just _anyone_ who asks for them, I’m a dumbass. And the person who steals the car is still a scumbag. > [@](#): > > Well, J. D. Salinger’s not exactly poor, but what recourse does Salinger have if I were to break into his house, steal his writings, convert them into .PDFs, and then post them anonomously on the internet on servers based in some country where US authorities have no hope of ever getting the servers shut down? If I screw up and leave fingerprints lying around, then I can be arrested for breaking and entering, but prosecuting me for copyright infringement is going to be a bit difficult, if Salinger doesn’t have copies of his writings that I’ve stolen which can be shown as evidence. Dude, you’re scaring me. > [@](#): > > With enough money, I could hire a lawyer of the same caliber as any Salinger could hire, and have the same number of writing experts stating that the works _weren’t_ his as he could have backing up his claim. We are having another moment, aren’t we? Let’s get down to reality again. Sure, in some bizarro alternaworld this _might_ happen, but odds are that you wouldn’t break in, that you wouldn’t know where to look, and even if you did steal them, they wouldn’t be the only copy and Salinger would prove that he did them. I don’t know how he’d get them off P2P, but they’d never be accessed by many people, because a lot of people don’t get into P2P. (Not that this would be any consolation to him, I’m sure.) The books would never be published by Random House, and they’d never be sold on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). They wouldn’t be “mainstream,” like his other books. Of course, I’m guessing that you _want_ them to be “mainstream,” so at least he can get royalties. Do you see why that would not comfort him much? With P2P, less people read the book. (A lot of us don’t like to read on the screen. Me included. A lot of us don’t scour P2P regularly—me included.) With [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com), _everybody_ gets to read the book. He gets a little money, but not near enough to compensate him for the violation. Money isn’t everything. And while we’re at it, if it’s bootlegged and no one person has “rights” to it, where is the money for his royalties going to come from? Who will pay for a book that is up on P2P, and is being published by a multitude of different publishers, all who are trying to undercut each other in price? The work will be next to worthless (money-wise), if anyone can get it for next to nothing. > [@](#): > > No, I’m saying that what ever you _do_ will _not_ reverse the damage which has been done to that person’s privacy. And so you want to take the punishment away, make it “mainstream”? How is that going to help? “You shouldn’t have stolen Mr. Salinger’s work, but since you have, we’re going to let you keep selling his work.” That’s bullshit. When a wrong is committed, you always try to at least _try_ to undo the damage. It can’t be undone, not completely, but the way it is now, it can be diminished. Because there won’t be any bootlegged books on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). When a copyright violator is reported to their ISP, they are shut down. You, apparently, want that all to go away, want the bootlegged stuff to sell and make money, all for what? So the artist can get a little slice of the bootlegged profits? Gee, thanks. > [@](#): > > You can call them “scumbags” if you like, but those “scumbags” also enable me to make archival copies of works I have which would be difficult, if not impossible to replace. The scumbags are the ones who “leak” someone else’s work when they have no right, and the ones who devise a way to violate someone else’s copyright. I don’t think it’s too scummy to help someone archive their CD collection, but of course we know that with many people, it doesn’t stop there. > [@](#): > > Nope, but I can find guys on street corners selling me DVDs of movies that are still in the theaters, I can find them selling me bootlegged CDs, or I can avail myself of the internet and download the stuff _for free_. Supposition. You can find it because you are looking. A lot of us wouldn’t have a clue where to look, and even if we found it, we wouldn’t buy it. Face it: It _ain’t mainstream_. Mainstream is published by Random House, sold at Borders and up on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). Being sold by a guy named “Vinnie” on a street corner ain’t mainstream. > [@](#): > > That, is why God created agents. But the work has already been stolen and released by scumbags. What can an agent do at this point? > [@](#): > > Certainly if someone were to steal my writings and publish them, I can’t afford a lawyer to go after them. A Cease and Desist letter often does wonders. > [@](#): > > I _accept_ that _fact_, and if it ever happens I will still _accept_ it, But you don’t speak for everyone else. You may want to roll over and take it, but not everyone else does. And once again, I’m talking primarily about someone stealing your unpublished works. If some scumbag did that to me, I’d try to make them hurt in so many ways. Just because that is the **SCUMMIEST** thing to do to someone. I wouldn’t do it for the money, I’d do it to make them suffer. Because they’d deserve it, for being such a **SCUMBAG**. > [@](#): > > Maybe so, but if the world is _not_ willing to pay the price that the artist demands, then the artist will have to _accept_ that fact. Sure, the artist could go around sticking guns in people’s faces and demand money from them, but that approach isn’t going to get them very far. Even if the law says it’s _legal_ to do so. Sooner or later, someone’s going to put a stop to what the artist is doing, and they’re _not_ going to care about the legality of the matter. _What?_ What in the world are you going on about? An artist can ask for a price. They can be told, “Sorry dude, no way. That’s too high.” The artist can’t _demand_ payment for their art. They can, instead, say, “Well, you don’t get to use it, then.” But you are saying that when the artist is ripped off by some _scumbag_ that it’s too bad, they don’t get to choose their own price. Well, no. They don’t. So what is the alternative then? The alternative is that _THE ARTWORK IS NOT USED._ That is the alternative. It isn’t, “Sorry, we don’t want to pay that but we insist on using your artwork anyway. Oh no, you can’t refuse to allow us to use your artwork if you don’t like our price: _you have no choice._ We’ve already stolen it and here’s all we’re willing to pay. Too bad if you don’t like it, not a penny more from us.” That sucks, big time, don’t you see that? > [@](#): > > No, I _don’t_ and I _can’t_. If the artist doesn’t want to sell his/her work, there’s nothing I can do, short of sticking a gun in his/her face, to get him/her to do so. Ah, but you can steal it and then tell them that it’s too late, the work is already out there, it’s everywhere and it’s going to stay everywhere, we aren’t going to even _try_ to take it down, and oh, but the way, here’s a royalty for you, take it or leave it. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > What if every time you wanted to listen to a song, you had to pay money for it? What if every time you wanted to read a book, you had to pay money for it? What if every time you wanted to look at a painting or a photograph or a movie, you had to pay for it? You can bet that _all_ of us would be spending a _lot_ less time enriching our lives with art. However, _this is exactly the kind of scenerio that many artists and megacorps desire._ Oh, that’s bullshit and you know it. Many artists share their work for free on the Internet. I am one of them. I have several 50-100+ page websites with all free stuff. All I ask is that people don’t violate my copyright. But they can print out copies for themselves, put the pictures on their own t-shirts, all sorts of stuff. All free. And you _know_ (or you soon will know) what a stingy bitch I am, 😉 so if I’m that generous, don’t you imagine that umpteen artists are far more generous? One of my favorite pasttimes these days is to go to one of the Apple Garageband “Communities” (like MacIdol) and download music composed by these artists. I’ve gotten some really awesome stuff, and it’s all free for me to enjoy. Artists deal with competition all the time. We can’t _afford_ to be _too_ stingy with our work, because we won’t sell any. Few of us can afford to demand that every time someone casts their eyes on our work that they have to pay us. All we ask is that we not be screwed over by **scumbags**. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/32 "2004-07-15T03:56:13Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > What do you think of the seriousness of copyright infringement as a crime? Is it theft? No one’s arguing, AFAIK, that it’s a crime (since it’s hard to argue with passed laws), but it’s often said in the context of the rightness of these laws that copyright infringement, absent those laws, is theft, which always gets pounced on with the above arguments and more. In their eyes, copyright infringement and theft are two unrelated acts/crimes. I agree. Copyright infringement is not theft. (It isn’t rape, terrorism, public indecency, or underage drinking either.) Theft is where you deprive someone else of their property. If I steal a CD from you, then you can’t listen to it anymore, nor can you sell that CD to someone else. Theft is bad, not because I’m getting something for free, but because I’m depriving you of something that belongs to you. If you still have the CD, then nothing has been stolen. You can still listen to it and sell it to someone else. Unauthorized copying is illegal, and we could go on all month about whether it’s immoral or should be legal (though I’ve had enough of that), but it’s silly to call it theft. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/33 "2004-07-15T03:59:22Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Part two. See what you’re making me do? Write posts in two parts! Curse you! 😉 > [@](#): > > After all, it was the personal diaries of nuns which gave folks insight into the course of Alzheimers. It’s those little scraps of personal letters which people sent to their loved ones, that enable us to get a sense of what it was like to be alive in America at the time of the Civil War. It’s very nice when people share these things, but things should be shared willingly, not forced out of people’s hands. Don’t you see that it’s all spoiled when it’s forced? You can’t do it that way. And if you want to allow scumbags to steal stuff and then just tell the victim to suck it up, that it’s too late and you won’t even _try_ to minimize it, you’re making it worse for the victims. It’ll make people more mistrustful and resentful. > [@](#): > > The artist can _try_ to limit the impact of the world’s reaction upon his/her psyche, but the world will also do it’s damnedest to make sure that the artist knows _exactly_ how the world feels about the matter, even if they have to imprison or murder the artist to get their point across. Dude, you’re scaring me again. 😉 > [@](#): > > Well, if the RIAA and others get their way, the _only_ way you’ll get to enjoy the same amount of art as you do now, will be by availing yourself (as I will) of those methods developed by the people you’re currently calling “scumbags.” There are shades of gray to this, I admit, and the shades will get more gray as the RIAA gets more outrageous. But it still does not mean that people who steal someone else’s _unpublished_ work and release it are not scumbags. > [@](#): > > Assuming, of course, they’re _not_ a total bastard and have acquired the rights solely so that they can supress the work. Which, sadly, has happened in the past. And I agree, that’s crappy. > [@](#): > > And at the risk of Godwinizing this, what if Anne Frank’s father had _not_ decided to publish Anne’s writings simply because she was dead, and thus could have no say in the matter? No doubt there were other girls in a similar position who wrote diaries, and they were never shared. We’ll never know, because the people who had access to the diaries never released them. Some things are not meant to be released. If you try to force it on them, it won’t help. You can’t force people to give up part of their privacy. (I don’t know if you literally want to _force_ them, but you don’t seem too broken up thinking about the violation of their privacy.) These things must be shared willingly. You can try to persuade someone to share, to beseech them, but you can’t force them and you can’t deny them their right not to share it. These are private things, and no matter how beautiful, they are not automatically owned by the world. I have a stack of sketchbooks and a plethora of negatives. I think I’ve got some nice work in there. But it is not owned by the world. It is owned by me. I am happy to share some of it, but I don’t _owe_ it to the world. And nobody can convince me otherwise. > [@](#): > > The only hope we have of learning from history, is by looking at those scraps which have been left to us, and if that means someone’s rights have to be trampled on, well, I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, don’t you agree? **YOU CAN’T FORCE PEOPLE**. You can’t. You force people and they balk. They get resentful. They find more clever ways to hide their own personal possessions (because let’s get down to it: these are their _personal posessions)._ You can’t force them under the premise that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one,” not as a matter of course. Frankly, that’s more than a little creepy. Like I said before, perhaps once in a million times would it be warranted, but most of the time, no. You start treating people like they don’t count, and their privacy doesn’t count, like all they are to you is some entity that creates stuff you like—not a human being with feelings—then you take away their humanity. That’s not right. It doesn’t work that way and it never will. Creativity withers and dies under those kinds of circumstances. > [@](#): > > It’s the winner of nearly every election, were it allowed on the ballot: None Of The Above. Once again, you’re scaring me. It’s not a complicated question, no matter how you want to hem and haw. Do people have a right over their own private possessions and creations? Yes or no? It’s really not difficult. You just want to make it difficult. > [@](#): > > The best answer I can give is that it depends upon the artist, and I’m sure that will \*not \* satisfy you. No, it won’t. Because that leaves me to think that you don’t think that all artists—who are human beings, by the way—do not deserve the basic human right to privacy, and to control their own creations. And that’s just beyond bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/34 "2004-07-15T04:06:26Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Nope; the artists got paid when the CD was first sold (or so I presume – if not, that’s a separate issue that is not in any way affected by the later second-hand sale). As they would if the CD was copied. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/35 "2004-07-15T05:04:03Z")
**Tuckerfan** , it seems to me that you believe that society has a right to access anything that evokes some sort of emotional/intellectual response. Well, convince me. What about the ‘viscreal’ response gives it such importance that I ought to have the right to access anything that will give it to me? For every piece of history that we have access to there are millions of things that are lost forever. That’s part of change, part of life, and part of existance. If we held onto everything so we could look back and fawn over greatness, or comiserate with the dead, we would run out of room for things new. Let some of the old go and create new art, new ideas. The goal of ultimate preservation and retention is folly and ultimately impossible. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/36 "2004-07-15T06:53:32Z")
Eonwe summed it up in two paragraphs, where I needed two long-winded posts. 😉 Sheesh. To sum it up another way, it’s cruel to treat artists as if they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their art. It would be cruel and inhumane to tell, for instance, the teenaged girl who wrote a politically significant diary that she _must_ share it with the world, even though it contains something personal that she, in her shyness, would find embarassing. And don’t tell me that such a scenario wouldn’t happen if things were the way you wanted them, **Tuckerfan** , because we know that they could. What one person might find significant and not at all potentially embarassing could be utterly mortifying to another. And when you tell the person who is _closest_ to the thing that they no longer have a voice, and that their feelings have been overridden, for the “greater good”? That’s cruel. People should be allowed some dignity. It’s cruel and unbelievably selfish and self-absorbed to tell someone that it’s too bad how violated they feel, because, after all, “We all want to _enjoy_ it! What about our _ **right** _ to enjoy it?” My gosh, that has got to be the most appallingly selfish thing ever. As if the public’s _right_ to be “entertained” should trump all else, including a human being’s dignity and sense of self. Because that’s what would be taken away—their sense of self. The sense that they have something that they can call their own, because they _created_ it out of nothing, and that _nobody_ should be able to take it away without their consent. And you want to institutionalize it being taken away, and tell the victim that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” For _what_? So that a bunch of people can be _entertained?_ That’s appalling. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/37 "2004-07-15T07:41:49Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > It’s cruel and unbelievably selfish and self-absorbed to tell someone that it’s too bad how violated they feel, because, after all, “We all want to _enjoy_ it! What about our _ **right** _ to enjoy it?” > > My gosh, that has got to be the most appallingly selfish thing ever. As if the public’s _right_ to be “entertained” should trump all else, including a human being’s dignity and sense of self. Because that’s what would be taken away—their sense of self. The sense that they have something that they can call their own, because they _created_ it out of nothing, and that _nobody_ should be able to take it away without their consent. And you want to institutionalize it being taken away, and tell the victim that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” For _what_? So that a bunch of people can be _entertained?_ That’s appalling. I agree. In cases where the artist does not wish their work to be released, it isn’t just about money anymore. It’s about having some basic respect for other people. It arguably does Britney Spears little harm if someone rips one of her CDs and shares MP3s or burns an illegal copy to give or sell to a friend. At worst Ms. Spears & Co. lose a sale; at best someone who would never have bought the CD in the first place gets to hear her music and may decide they want to buy legitimate Britney Spears CDs in the future (provided, of course, they have no musical taste). A case can be made that it’s still immoral and should be illegal, but a case can also be made that loosening copyright restrictions would ultimately benefit artists, especially those without a huge marketing team behind them like Britney Spears. This is an issue where both sides have some good points to make. But if we’re talking about an unauthorized release of Britney Spears’s private diaries, or recordings that she considered too personal or embarassing to be made public, it’s a whole 'nuther ballgame. She may be a public figure, but she has some right to her privacy and to keep other people from taking her personal property even if it’s just for long enough to make a copy. People who have _not_ chosen to live in the public eye have an even greater right to privacy. I have made a few of my drawings available on the Internet, and although I expect that others not attempt to pass these off as their own work or profit from them in any way, it doesn’t bother me if they save or print copies for their own personal use. But the only drawings I’ve posted are the ones that I selected myself and that I am cool with having made public this way. My current drawing notebook is in the desk drawer beside me as I sit here typing this, and damned if anyone’s going to look at it unless _I say so_. I’d be happy to show it to almost anyone who asked, but it does not belong to the world. It belongs to me. If it were released without my permission it would mean that either someone broke into my apartment and stole it, both crimes in and of themselves, or that someone who I trusted enough to lend it to violated that trust to make unauthorized copies. The latter seems unlikely to happen to me as I simply don’t trust other people that much (although my main concern would be that they’d lose it or spill something on it), but if I did and my trust were betrayed it’s not a mistake I would make twice. I’d either stop drawing altogether or I’d make darn sure that no one could ever get their mits on my pictures ever again. Neither possibility is going to lead to more art for everyone or greater public access to my work. If people want to “enjoy” my drawings but they don’t want to enjoy them on my terms, they’re killing the goose that lays the golden (well, maybe bronze) eggs. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/38 "2004-07-16T03:48:29Z")
Sorry, folks, but I’m afraid that I’m going to have withdrawl from this debate for at least a couple of days due to health reasons. Saw the doc this morning and my blood pressure has jumped 30 points since my last visit and is now hovering around 150/90, they’ve got me on some new medication (with the usual 20 pages of potential side effects), and I’m awaiting the results of a whole slew of blood tests. So as you can imagine, this whole issue with copyright violation is a minor matter with me. If my pressure comes down in the next couple of days, I’ll post my response to your comments, but otehrwise we’ll just have to leave it where it stands. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/39 "2004-07-16T06:24:20Z")
Ugh. Hope you’re feeling better soon. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822/40 "2004-07-16T07:20:05Z")
Good luck, **Tuckerfan**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-copyright-violations-be-considered-stealing-or-theft/254822.md?page=3)