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

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#21

Post by mrtron »

tptacek wrote: post #16
xirium wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I also think it is a direct result of the power of the giants. In the US, the RIAA can sue individuals for large sums of money.

In Canada, you can't sue for any amount - you have to show damages. So if downloading a song was copyright infringement here, you would only be able to sue for the cost of the song.

So, it is in the recording association's to have a levy rather than to pursue individual legal action here.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#22

Post by xirium »

tptacek wrote: post #16
xirium wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Taxes may be levied unfairly and they may provide facilities that individuals don't use. However, they are for collective benefit, public ownership and with nominal charge for use, at most. In the case of recordable media levies, the law enriches a private industry to the detriment of the public, distorts a market to the detriment of the public and doesn't exempt us from further fees. Specifically, after you've bought one blank CDROM, you're not exempted from one album sale.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#23

Post by jfarmer »

tptacek wrote: post #20
calvins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

It's not a semantic argument. The syllogism Matt is using, implicitly, is:

Copyright infringement is a kind of theft. All theft is bad. Therefore copyright infringement is bad.

He talks about stealing songs and says, more or less, "Well, you can argue all you want, but downloading a song is stealing and stealing is wrong."

No, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. The two are distinct along legal, historical, and moral dimensions.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#24

Post by jfarmer »

SirWart wrote: post #19

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 h…

As is his right to do. But violating that right is not theft, which involves depriving someone of their property.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#25

Post by tptacek »

jfarmer wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

It's not a semantic argument. The syllogism Matt is using, implicitly, is: Copyright infringement is a kind of theft. All theft is bad. Therefore copyright infringement is bad. He talks about stealing songs and says, more or less, "Well, you can argue all you want, but downloading a song is stealing and stealing is wrong." No, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. The two are distinct along legal, historica…

Demonstrate how this isn't a semantic argument? People aren't "brainwashed" into thinking copyright infringement is wrong. Copyright infringement is intuitively wrong.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#27

Post by eyudkowsky »

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.

Would copyright infringement still seem intuitively, morally wrong, if there were no copyright laws to begin with? If creators were never promised a legal expectation of control over their work, would you be violating any legitimate expectation by copying?

Let's say that someone produces a musical album, and, knowing they cannot legally stop you from downloading it, they ask you not to copy it unless you send them $5. Would it be morally wrong to copy without paying?

Is it the same amount of moral wrong as copying the work of someone who produced an album relying on the promise of legal protection for it?

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#28

Post by mariorz »

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.

What makes you so sure it's harmful? There is hardly enough data yet at a systemic level to prove that argument.

You can maybe intuitively say (as many do) that artists not getting paid will obviously result in less incentive to create and hence less art will be created, but you see, the tricky part with complex systems like this one is that they tend to actually be counter-intuitive and respond to many feedback inflection points.

Better access to more works of art, for example, would undoubtedly lead to some people being inspired to create that otherwise would have not.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#29

Post by jfarmer »

tptacek wrote: post #25
jfarmer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a semantic argument. The syllogism Matt is using, implicitly, is: Copyright infringement is a kind of theft. All theft is bad. Therefore copyright infringement is bad. He talks about stealing songs and says, more or less, "Well, you can argue all you want, but downloading a song is stealing and stealing is wrong." No, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. The two are distinct along legal, historica…

Demonstrate how this isn't a semantic argument? People aren't "brainwashed" into thinking copyright infringement is wrong. Copyright infringement is intuitively wrong.

Thou shalt not copy this scroll without the author's permission? I don't buy it and it doesn't hold ground historically.

Did people not intuit it before the 18th century? It took over 300 years from the invention of the printing press for modern copyright law to form.

Copyright (and patent) law exists and has always existed because it makes political and economic sense.

See Section I, Article 8 is the US Constitution, for example, where Congress gets its authority to establish copyright. Why do they have that authority? To promote the progress of science and useful arts.

Copyright law is a fundamentally different creature than the criminal law that governs theft and, IMO, this is just a reflection of their differing moral status in society.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#30

Post by tptacek »

jfarmer wrote: post #29
tptacek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demonstrate how this isn't a semantic argument? People aren't "brainwashed" into thinking copyright infringement is wrong. Copyright infringement is intuitively wrong.

Thou shalt not copy this scroll without the author's permission? I don't buy it and it doesn't hold ground historically. Did people not intuit it before the 18th century? It took over 300 years from the invention of the printing press for modern copyright law to form. Copyright (and patent) law exists and has always existed because it makes political and economic sense. See Section I, Article 8 is the US Constitution…

You still haven't rescued this from semantics. What's intuitively wrong is freeloading. Tax evasion is a criminal offense, even though it too is simply an example of freeloading.
Post reply on HN