Nope. Two bottles of identical size and shape with identical labels and caps. You have two, but if I hide them and then show them to you again, you can’t tell them apart.
They are indistinguishable.
We don’t have to.
We have two actions by you. One is a legitimate download, the other is you downloading a pirated copy.
The first is a legal act, the second is illegal.
Much like if you buy a bottle of shampoo, it is legal, and if you steal the second one, that is illegal. Even if the bottles are identical.
So? That’s irrelevant too. Lots of things you own don’t get used up.
The act of stealing is illegal. What you steal is irrelevant.
Person 1: “Copyright infringement is stealing and stealing is wrong.”
Person 2: “Copyright infringement is not stealing because intellectual property is not the same as personal property.”
This is not a discussion that goes anywhere. The real meat of the “stealing” issue boils down to two questions: (1) Why do we consider stealing ethically wrong? and (2) Do those reasons apply to copyright infringement?
These aren’t easy questions (and maybe some would answer question number (1) with, “I don’t.”)
Personally, I don’t think stealing is ethically wrong, per se, but I think laws against stealing are good for society. I don’t think copyright laws are good for society.
My not wanting you to do something doesn’t make that thing ethically wrong.
I concede that copyright infringement is against the law, I am merely exploring the idea that it is not ethically wrong.
Is your idea that stealing is ethically wrong because the law has defined certain things as property, and that copyright infringement is similarly wrong because the law has defined certain things as copyrighted? If that is not your idea, then what is your idea?
It does seem like the duration of copyright has become permanent or nearly so. When did this happen?
In 1998, Scott Joplin’s “Maple Leaf Rag” finally entered the public domain, but the only reason it took that long was because in 1949 Joplin’s widow renewed the copyright for another 50 year term. Meanwhile, most ragtime and other music of that era had fallen into the public domain around that time, because most composers and heirs didn’t bother. IOW the default outcome was that the copyright would eventually expire.
As long as there’s a structure in place to ensure reasonable compensation to you and other copyright owners, I really can’t disagree with GK’s point. OTOH I can see that working out such a structure would be a monumental task.
Just because you don’t see a lot of something happening doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and just because someone doesn’t profit financially from their work doesn’t mean they are willing to give up their control over it.
Some years ago, when I was involved in my university’s radio station, I produced a series of promo spots for various organizations, both on- and off-campus, as well as for station programming. Someone else at the station “sampled” and “re-mixed” some of those spots into a work of his own. I found out about it, listened to the other person’s work, and I was furious. First, because the work I’d done was now useless; people would associate those spots with this guy’s work, not with the intent of informing people of the station’s programs or the organizations who had asked us to do those spots. Second, because he hadn’t asked. He assumed that station material was his to use always and forever, and however he wished. He rationalized his actions as “an artistic decision” and couldn’t understand why my stuff was no longer to be found on station computers. I didn’t stand to make a penny from my work, but this asshole’s actions made it impossible for me or for the station to use it for its intended purpose.
And there are some practical considerations that aren’t being discussed here.
[ul]
[li]Creating a digital copy of something doesn’t produce just one copy. It produces an infinite number of copies. The original copy I created is now living on six separate devices, plus at least two computers, and those are just the eight copies I have direct control over. I know the station keeps archives of its programming, that I e-mailed copies to the organizations, and I know that there is at least one physical CD out there somewhere. This would tend to dilute the value of any digital or physical version that may be available because I can further distribute as many copies as I want at no cost or effort to me.[/li][li]Copyright owners may not have the right to distribute the material for which they hold the copyright, especially when production of the work was collaborative. For example, one of the issues of the most recent writer’s strike had to do with royalties on digital distribution; these royalties had not been part of the previous contract and had to be addressed. The copyright holder may have to re-negotiate writers’ and actors’ contracts to cover digital and box-set distribution, and that may be a can of worms the copyright holder doesn’t want to open.[/li][li]Likewise, clearances may be an issue. Just because you have permission to use archival footage or music once doesn’t mean it’s yours to use always and forever. The copyright owner of the archival footage or music may not want his work to be used.[/li][li]Finally, any of these things can be muddied by unclear copyright status. The original copyright holder may be a deceased individual or a defunct corporation who may not have included the copyright as an asset in the estate, so the copyright was never assigned to anyone who could enforce it. (This is the basis for “orphan copyright.”) There might also be bad blood or legal entanglement as well, and that can make a work unable to be re-released.[/li][/ul]
If I steal something, what will you say? You can’t say “you shouldn’t have done that” because you don’t think it’s wrong. You can only say “I wish you hadn’t done that.” To which I could reply, “but I wanted to, even if you didnt’ want me to. So that’s that. I care about what I want, not what you want.”
So what’s your address?
No, stealing is wrong because it’s wrong. Copyright law defines the details of what stealing is. If you create intellectual property, you are protected by it too.
People who create expect to be covered by the law. Those who expect artists to create stuff for them and then steal it are hypocrites, and hurting their self-interest, because most artists wouldn’t create it in the first place if they couldn’t make a living doing it.
You realize that most of the stuff you consume would dry up without copyright law, since the artists couldn’t make a living, right?
Why don’t you take the challenge I issued earlier in this thread. Don’t consume a single copyrighted item - book, music, movie, or even website - for one year. Whether you pay for it or steal it. See how much stuff you can find that the creator felt no need to copyright. If it is copyrighted by licensed for public use, you can have that. But no material that was once copyrighted and is now public domain either.
I demand that someone on this thread write me a book. Take a few months off your job, with no pay, and write it. Make sure it’s a good one - you might need to spend years on it, just to learn how to write well, and pay for some writing classes.
Why? Seriously, why? Without getting wrapped up in complicated discussions of whether infringement is equivalent to “theft,” or ethical blah blah blah…
Why would you want to abolish copyright altogether? What purpose would that serve, except to discourage people capable of creating something truly new from even bothering?
The thing about your challenge is that every expression that is fixed in a tangible medium is automatically copyrighted under U.S. law, unless it is explicitly dedicated to the public domain. So people create copyrighted works every day without intending to. Also, I don’t believe that, if there were no copyright, all those works would have never been created. Where’s the evidence for that?
I accept the possibility that fewer people would create new works, but I reject the possibility that we would lose out on so much.
People create every day without the expectation of being paid, and the means of creation have become less and less expensive. Take music for example. If the average person writing songs thought that one day she would get paid to do it, I’d say she’s delusional. And yet she keeps on writing songs. That’s creative output without the profit motive created by exclusive control. There’s plenty of it going on.
Furthermore, copyright is a significant intrusion on the freedom of speech. I can’t legally sing “Happy Birthday” without paying someone money. I can’t repeat the “I Have a Dream” speech without negotiating a proper license. That’s a big deal to me, and it needs a significant justification. If the justification is that we need to make sure artists make a living, well, then copyright has never worked. Very few artists are able to make a living from it, and it’s been that way for hundreds of years.
