Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Infringement != Theft

20bits.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#11

Post by [deleted] »

jfarmer wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#12

Post by mrtron »

tptacek wrote: post #10
mrtron wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chan…

I agree the system has some major flaws. It is better than the alternative system with the RIAA prosecuting people for 10,000$ per song in my opinion. I don't want my money going to poor 'artists' that are just manufactured entities by massive labels. Luckily the recent rulings do not support a levy on digital music players or digital storage devices.

Your proposed problem to focus on solving would drastically improve the American system if changed, so I hope it happens.

One final point I would like to add: I did not purchase music in university when I could not afford the luxury. Since I have improved my economic situation, I have recently purchased various older albums. I think that is a good example of how the system can potentially be successful.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#13

Post by tptacek »

mrtron wrote: post #12
tptacek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chan…

I agree the system has some major flaws. It is better than the alternative system with the RIAA prosecuting people for 10,000$ per song in my opinion. I don't want my money going to poor 'artists' that are just manufactured entities by massive labels. Luckily the recent rulings do not support a levy on digital music players or digital storage devices. Your proposed problem to focus on solving would drastically improv…

Ask 10 people whether they'd rather give $1 to Clay Aiken or see a single mom sued for $2,500 for illicitly distributing a Coldplay album. You're right; they'll all fork over the $1. But they'll all have to think about it for a second.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#14

Post by wmf »

mrtron wrote: post #9
wmf wrote: post #8

Earlier 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…

I forgot about the recordable media taxes, although I think that simply paying for the music you listen to is simpler and fairer.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#15

Post by xirium »

mrtron wrote: post #9
wmf wrote: post #8

Earlier 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…

> Canadians pay levies on recordable media

I find this concept very objectionable. If I buy a blank CDROM for the purpose of distributing my own software then music companies receive some of the proceeds of the sale because I could have used the discs to copy their work.

That's a bad law because I'm assumed to be guilty and I have no recourse to prove innocence. Furthermore, why is the levy specific to recordable media? If we're going to be fair then we should have similar levies on cars, crowbars and numerous other items which can be used in crimes that deprive people.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#16

Post by tptacek »

xirium wrote: post #15
mrtron wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Canadians pay levies on recordable media I find this concept very objectionable. If I buy a blank CDROM for the purpose of distributing my own software then music companies receive some of the proceeds of the sale because I could have used the discs to copy their work. That's a bad law because I'm assumed to be guilty and I have no recourse to prove innocence. Furthermore, why is the levy specific to recordable med…

You realize that almost every other public good is funded this way, right?

Edit ... not that Miley Cyrus is a public good, but still.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#17

Post by calvins »

tptacek wrote: post #3

I'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 think the point is that we should be more careful with the words we use. Saying that copyright infringement is theft is just sloppy thinking, and is likely to confuse the issue and lead to even more sloppy and confused thinking.

You might argue that both are wrong, that both are illegal, or whatever. Fine. Just don't say they're the same thing, because they're not.

Redefining words for purposes of brainwashing consumers is propaganda pure and simple, even if you believe that copyright infringement is wrong and should be illegal.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#18

Post by xirium »

jfarmer wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In UK law, theft is when someone is permanently deprived of something. The thief doesn't have to gain from the act for it to be theft. The similarity between theft and arson would be that rightful owners would be permanently deprived in both cases.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#19

Post by SirWart »

I think the last example is a little off. It compares taking a friend's book to simply copying it, but the friend presumably does not own the copyright to the book.

The idea of copyright extends beyond money. By being able to freely copy an artist's work the artist loses control of his creation. Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, did not license out his characters for lunchboxes or plush toys because he felt it would hurt the artistic value of the comic, even though he could have made much more money licensing it. He was able to prevent licensing because he owned the right to copy his creations.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#20

Post by tptacek »

calvins wrote: post #17
tptacek wrote: post #3

I'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 think the point is that we should be more careful with the words we use. Saying that copyright infringement is theft is just sloppy thinking, and is likely to confuse the issue and lead to even more sloppy and confused thinking. You might argue that both are wrong, that both are illegal, or whatever. Fine. Just don't say they're the same thing, because they're not. Redefining words for purposes of brainwashing cons…

It's equally bad to elevate a semantic argument so you can use it as a straw man, as you implicitly do with the word "even" in the sentence "even if you believe copyright infringement is wrong".

And face it, the Free Culture side of this debate uses that tactic a lot. "Copying isn't piracy! Pirates kill people! Abolish copyright!"

Post reply on HN