Copyright Infringement != Theft
20bits.com
Copyright Infringement != Theft
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#2I created this in response to Matt Maroon's essay on IP: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=207125
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#3I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#4I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.
I intentionally avoided the larger debate, but one point I did make is that it is not a semantic debate.
Arson is also wrong, harmful, and should be illegal. But we don't regulate it in the same way that we regulate theft, nor should we. It would be bad policy.
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#5I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.
I intentionally avoided the larger debate, but one point I did make is that it is not a semantic debate. Arson is also wrong, harmful, and should be illegal. But we don't regulate it in the same way that we regulate theft, nor should we. It would be bad policy.
I'm not sure your analogy holds. What's different about the way we "regulate" arson and theft? They're both criminal offenses, and both offenses leave you civilly liable for damages. Finish your point; I'm interested in hearing it.
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I intentionally avoided the larger debate, but one point I did make is that it is not a semantic debate. Arson is also wrong, harmful, and should be illegal. But we don't regulate it in the same way that we regulate theft, nor should we. It would be bad policy.
I'm not sure your analogy holds. What's different about the way we "regulate" arson and theft? They're both criminal offenses, and both offenses leave you civilly liable for damages. Finish your point; I'm interested in hearing it.
You're right, it's not the best analogy.
Or maybe it is. People clearly see arson and theft and distinct things even if they don't understand that they're both prosecuted similarly.
But legally speaking arson and theft are closer than copyright infringement and theft.
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#7I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.
I do not agree what is deemed copyright infringement in the US is wrong and harmful in all cases. Luckily, the Canadian government agrees with me. A 2005 ruling states "Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.".
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#8I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.
I do not agree what is deemed copyright infringement in the US is wrong and harmful in all cases. Luckily, the Canadian government agrees with me. A 2005 ruling states "Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.".
Doesn't that virtually eliminate the point of copyright? Almost all music and movies are bought for "personal use", so what if everyone downloaded for free instead of paying?
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not agree what is deemed copyright infringement in the US is wrong and harmful in all cases. Luckily, the Canadian government agrees with me. A 2005 ruling states "Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.".
Doesn't that virtually eliminate the point of copyright? Almost all music and movies are bought for "personal use", so what if everyone downloaded for free instead of paying?
Canadians pay levies on recordable media (and have since cassette tapes) that goes to the Canadian recording industry.
Initially it was deemed legal to tape the radio for personal use. Now that has moved into the digital age.
It does not whatsoever eliminate the point of copyright. I can't bootleg albums and sell them on the street.
To answer your question, nothing would happen if more people downloaded movies and music for personal use. Lots of Canadians still buy music to support the artists, and still purchase DVDs. Movies still make a killing in theatres, and musicians still make most of their money on tour.
Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that virtually eliminate the point of copyright? Almost all music and movies are bought for "personal use", so what if everyone downloaded for free instead of paying?
Canadians pay levies on recordable media (and have since cassette tapes) that goes to the Canadian recording industry. Initially it was deemed legal to tape the radio for personal use. Now that has moved into the digital age. It does not whatsoever eliminate the point of copyright. I can't bootleg albums and sell them on the street. To answer your question, nothing would happen if more people downloaded movies and mu…
There are two obvious problems with the Canadian system:
(1) It's a tax on everyone that, at least in part, takes money out of reasonable people's pockets and gives it to Miley Cyrus.
(2) No equitable mechanism exists to apportion that tax revenue, with an end result that Nielson SoundScan becomes social policy.
The problem with copyright isn't copyright. The problem with copyright is that the music distribution channel is controlled by a small, intertwined group of cartels. We should solve the right problem.