No, not really. It’s not, I accept, utterly beyond debate that a trivial infringement of a property right (say a minor trespass on land, or a harmless unauthorized use of someone’s car) is in some trivial way immoral, but I think that’s a real stretch. It’s when you cause someone loss in circumstances where you are infringing their rights that the immorality becomes significant.
Agreed. I assume you would also agree that (to consider the obverse of your conclusion) the fact that theft and copyright infringement have a different name doesn’t mean they are not equal legally or even morally?
Well, one obvious category would be causing loss through infringement of property rights. Into which theft and copyright infringement would both fit.
No doubt you could divide that category into smaller categories if you wanted to. If you really really wanted to. If it would make you feel better.
There’s bad law and then there’s bad decisions. Dowling is widely acknowledged by all those who are not in thrall to a political agenda to be extremely bad.
OK, perhaps I’m still missing something. As far as I can tell, you’re just asserting “A isn’t bad by itself, and B isn’t bad by itself, but A + B is bad” without offering any argument for why the whole is greater (or rather, more immoral) than the sum of its parts. This assertion seems awfully convenient for your argument, but I don’t see a basis for it.
So, let me get this straight: you want us to believe the titles of a couple laws are persuasive evidence that copyright infringement is legally a subset of theft, but an actual Supreme Court decision in a case covering that very question is to be dismissed, because some shadowy group of folks who are in thrall to a different political agenda believe the decision is “bad”?
Sorry, dude: it’s the law whether you agree with it or not.
Your statement “Copyright infringement is theft. One is a subset of the other. Arguing any other position can be a political statement or ignorance or simple self-interest, but it is not current law.” was simply false. Your continued insistence that it’s true, in the face of contradictory evidence and without a shred of evidence in favor, is pushing it across the border from ignorant to intentionally misleading.
I suggest you reread it. It’s talking about another case where Dowling was used as precedent (incorrectly, in that author’s opinion). Particularly, the case was about mail and wire fraud, not theft, and the criticism is directed at the application of Dowling’s logic to mail and wire fraud, the laws about which are intended to protect broader interests than the stolen property laws.
I suggest you read the “disputed neutrality” banner at the top of that article, the discussion page, the RfC, the arbitration page, and the arbitrator’s decision. Believe me, I’m familiar with that Wikipedia article. The portion you quoted is not a summary of the entire decision, and notably, it misses the court’s finding that “interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud”.
:rolleyes:
Maybe someday, the definition of theft will be changed to include copyright infringement. Until then, you are wrong.
Your entire argument comes down to saying that since the word theft is not found in some copyright statues, despite over 200 years of precedent of copyright being the legal remedy to the theft of intellectual property, copyright infringement cannot be theft or stealing. (And this despite the recent trend toward putting theft explicitly into the names of such laws, presumably to thwart any pretense that anti-theft arguments could be correct.)
You cannot simply define common language out of English.
Nor can you argue that all Supreme Court decisions are correct. Of course, it’s law: who at any time argued otherwise? But your argument makes as much sense as saying that Plessy v. Ferguson made separate and equal moral as well as legal.
I have to admit that I don’t understand arguments that depend on denying the common and historical sense of everyday words. It’s like arguing the definition of “day” with a Creationist.
Fortunately the law, no matter what you say, is on my side. You steal my words, and I can and will prosecute you under the Copyright Act. That’s reality. None of your sophistry can make a dent in it.
Yes, it is stealing and theft. You’re stuck on the definition of stealing and theft as it pertains to physical property. With time, definitions expand and change. The concept of theft no longer is limited to physical property; it includes intellectual property.
Oh, certainly. But in this case, I don’t think they are currently equal legally. As for moral equivalence, I think that not all sorts of theft are morally equal, and not all sorts of copyright infringement are morally equal. It depends on which act was actually committed, on the circumstances, on the motive, on the consequences. I think it’s not as bad to download a song without permission to figure out if I like it and decide if I then want to buy it, than to download a whole bunch of songs to burn bootleg disks and then sell them. You could find many other examples.
Well, I really don’t have any dog in this fight, I was just pointing out that a few posters in this thread didn’t seem interested in discussing whether copyright infringement and theft are morally the same act, but rather they wanted to affirm that they are to impress on everyone reading that copyright infringement is bad. I’m open to the idea that these two acts are, in fact, the same, although jackdavinci’s argument is somewhat compelling. But in fact, since there are different “degrees” to both theft and copyright infringement, it’s entirely possible that they can be seen as two instances of the same kind of act.
mmmm and who decided this ? Was the patch released to the ten commandments that I missed
It seems obious to me that there is no direct moral equivalence at all. Admittidly in the case someone described early where does work for you directly, that they would not normally be doing, and you refuse to pay them, that is pretty much equivalent to theft. But that is not piracy
The other end of the spectrum, morally speaking, is where a company releases X million copies of some incredibly expensive software, that I would never normal buy, what is morally wrong with me using a pirated copy of that software ? The company loses nothing as I would not have paid them for it either way.
Care to provide a cite? Has anyone ever, in the history of law, been convicted of theft simply for making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work?
Heh, that’s one way to spin it. Perhaps a more likely explanation is that the titles are there to characterize the laws in the minds of voters and legislators, to provide an emotional boost to a law that might not stand out on its own as necessary: see the USA Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Act, etc.
My argument is not that Dowling is “correct” in any moral sense; I’m not holding it (nor would I hold any other law) up as an example of morality.
I’m saying it is a legal precedent which has not been overturned, and for you to claim that infringement is legally considered theft requires you to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court has found otherwise. Dowling debunks your claim that copyright is legally a subset of theft.
Keep repeating that lie; it doesn’t get any truer the more you say it.
We all know copyright infringement is illegal. That’s not the subject of debate here. The reality is that legally, someone convicted of copyright infringement is not considered a thief, his actions are not considered theft, and the copies he makes are not considered stolen property.
And now that we’re in GD, I’ll lay this out… morally, they’re wrong too.
To me, at least, the defining element of theft is that you take something away from someone else. You gain what he loses, and any reparation has to start with giving it back to him.
If someone simply gains without causing me to lose what he gained, there is no theft and I find it hard to see any immorality at all. A simple thought experiment shows that: if someone were to “steal” my car by pointing a magical cloning beam at it, leaving the original untouched but driving off in a brand new copy of my car, I wouldn’t care - I still have a car, why should I care if someone else has one too? Good for him; it’s nice to have a car and I’m glad he can now share that experience. IMO it’s the mark of a small, pitiful person to get upset when someone else gains what you also have.
Another thought experiment confirms that being deprived of the property is what makes theft feel bad: if someone were to set fire to my car, rendering it totally worthless, would that feel better or worse than if he had stolen it and started driving it around on his own? Seems about the same to me; perhaps a bit worse, only because that would mean there’s no chance of getting it back.
Princhester’s argument seems to be–and please correct me if I have this wrong–that what’s being lost is not the copyrighted work itself, but the exclusive right to distribute it, and that such an exclusive right is itself a kind of property. Even if I agree to that for the sake of argument, and concede the earlier point about rights being lost when they are infringed, I still don’t think it’s comparable to theft: the infringer doesn’t gain the exclusive right to distribute it either! That exclusive right is simply gone; no one has it. If anything, the analogous crime is vandalism, the destruction of another person’s property.
On a more subjective level, I really have a hard time thinking of a exclusive distribution rights as comparable to property in any moral sense. One is something you have and enjoy without interfering with other people; the other is something you wield over other people to stop them from doing what they want to do. Doesn’t the latter seem kind of sinister? Don’t you have to be kind of a prick to cherish the ability to veto another person’s actions as much as you’d cherish your land, your home, or your possessions?
The astute reader will note that not only is your post nonsensical, but it also fails to address anything I wrote. Since you’re clearly done with this discussion, perhaps you’d like to try another web site? I hear Disney is fun for the whole family.
I should know better, but I’ll chime in. I’ve always been bemused by the idea of intellectual property because I agree, it doesn’t quite fit along with other ideas of property. Philosophically, an idea has very little value until it’s shared with others (sometime), others who themselves are able to attach some value to the idea.
The best synonym I’ve been able to figure for unauthorized use of intellectual property is Cheating. I am not a lawyer, and this is (I think) not a legal term. Still, it’s not a real good thing for the social contract when it happens too much, no matter what we call it.
Mr2001, I don’t see anything new in your last substantive post that I can be bothered commenting on. I’ve rebutted your points too many times before, and there are no signs that anything anyone says to you might alter your position or even (as far as I can make out) be regarded as worth absorbing by you. If anyone else lurking thinks there is merit in what Mr2001 said in his post #52 and would be interested in a rebuttal, feel free to post to that effect and I’ll see what I can do.
Hmm. If you’re not disputing anything I wrote there, then we can conclude:
[ul]
[li]You acknowledge that exclusive distribution rights can’t be “stolen”, since the person who allegedly takes them doesn’t actually have them at any point. If the copyright work itself isn’t stolen, and the rights aren’t stolen, then we agree there is no theft involved at all.[/li][li]You agree that one does have to be a greedy prick to consider the ability to veto another person’s private actions equivalent to the ability to hold on to one’s own physical property. Why you’re defending these pricks is a mystery, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you just like playing devil’s advocate.[/li][/ul]
If copyright infringement is not ‘theft’, it is still a ‘taking’ from the maker.
Anecdote:
When I was teaching, the textbooks available on a certain subject were poor. People really liked the way I taught it and asked me to write a textbook on it (for the local area). I had other things I wanted to do and I figured that it would take me at least half a year working, say, 3 hours per day on average…about 800 hours. I said no.
They then pitched that it would be used as a textbook in the college for at least 4 years and that about 800 students would use it per semester. If I made a ‘profit’ of $10 per book that would be $8000 for the first semester. Still not worth it ($10 per hour). Each semester after I would probably sell about 100 (students recycle). Over 4 years this would make it up to $20 per hour…plus the chance that the textbook could expand over other campuses.
I was extremely tempted. As I was about to say yes, a fellow professor took me aside and said he did the same thing a few years ago. However, the students just copied the textbook on a copier (no hardcovers - it was just binded paper as mine would be). It was easy for students to use and cost them less. He made little money per hour on his investment.
The College could have stopped this by requiring proof that the textbook was legit…but they didn’t. The Prof was screwed.
BECAUSE of this, I didn’t write the textbook. I didn’t create wealth for myself or add to the world soemthing of use. The students didn’t get the use of a hopefully better and cheaper textbook than what they had to use.
So, yes, I consider it THEFT. People lost something they would have had. They WOULD have had it, and now they don’t.
Not at all. With all due respect, I think it’s pretty obvious that you have some rather severe misconceptions with regard to the content and origins of intellectual property law.
In all the threads we’ve had on this, no one has ever provided an example of anyone who has ever been found guilty of theft for violating copyright. No one has ever found any legal evidence for this claim that’s more substantial than the title of the “No Electronic Theft Act”, which literally has as much relation to the definition of theft as the USA Patriot Act has to the definition of patriotism.
There simply is not one shred of factual evidence to back the claim that infringement is considered a kind of theft under United States law. Or, to put it another way, there’s just as much evidence that jaywalking is a form of rape, assault is a form of tax evasion, and treason is a form of failure to present proof of car insurance.
Meanwhile, there’s an actual Supreme Court case in which it was found that infringement does not equate to theft, and proponents of the “infringement=theft” idea simply wave their hands and ignore it.
You can say whatever you want about my conceptions, but if you can’t back it up with factual evidence, it’s meaningless. And no one has managed to do that. It’s clear that I’m not the one who’s mistaken about the law.
