Copyright Infringement != Theft • Hacker News Board

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#31

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:31 AM UTC

eyudkowsky wrote: post #27

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…

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?

Uh, yeah? Like, very?

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#32

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:32 AM UTC

jfarmer wrote: post #24

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.

And your point is exactly what?

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#33

Post by rms » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:32 AM UTC

eyudkowsky wrote: post #27

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…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism To me, there is no intuitive moral wrong here to start with.

>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?

Trent Reznor actually did this recently with his Ghosts I-IV album. It was released under a CC non-commercial license, making it freely copyable. But the only Reznor-endorsed way to download it was to pay him $5. In this particular case, at least, there is absolutely nothing immoral about downloading Ghosts from The Pirate Bay, even if Reznor would like the $5.

Reznor seemed guilty about pulling the pay me to download a CC album; his most recent album had sanctioned free bittorrent downloads of ultra-high resolution music files.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#34

Post by jfarmer » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:38 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #32

jfarmer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And your point is exactly what ?

In two sentences:

Copyright and theft occupy different legal, historical, and philosophical spheres. Therefore arguing against copyright infringement because it is a kind of theft is fallacious.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#35

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:39 AM UTC

rms wrote: post #33

eyudkowsky wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism To me, there is no intuitive moral wrong here to start with. >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? Trent Reznor actually did this recently with his Ghosts I-IV album. It was released under a CC no…

If Reznor had not CC'd it, had simply posted it at a URL on his site along with a PayPal link, and said "do not download this until you've paid me", would it still be moral to download it from The Pirate Bay?

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#36

Post by rms » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:41 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #35

rms wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism To me, there is no intuitive moral wrong here to start with. >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? Trent Reznor actually did this recently with his Ghosts I-IV album. It was released under a CC no…

If Reznor had not CC'd it, had simply posted it at a URL on his site along with a PayPal link, and said "do not download this until you've paid me", would it still be moral to download it from The Pirate Bay?

My moral relativism on this issue is as liberal as it gets, so my personal answer is a combination of "yes" and "it doesn't matter."

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#37

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:43 AM UTC

jfarmer wrote: post #34

tptacek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your point is exactly what ?

In two sentences: Copyright and theft occupy different legal, historical, and philosophical spheres. Therefore arguing against copyright infringement because it is a kind of theft is fallacious.

You're right. Copyright infringement is trivial to argue against as a form of free riding. Does your blog post make it in any way easier to reconcile Watterson's rights with the RIAA's demands and the Free Culture people?

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#38

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:44 AM UTC

rms wrote: post #36

tptacek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Reznor had not CC'd it, had simply posted it at a URL on his site along with a PayPal link, and said "do not download this until you've paid me", would it still be moral to download it from The Pirate Bay?

My moral relativism on this issue is as liberal as it gets, so my personal answer is a combination of "yes" and "it doesn't matter."

Which is why I have to suffer FairPlay DRM to download songs from iTunes. Thanks.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#39

Post by rms » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:45 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #38

rms wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My moral relativism on this issue is as liberal as it gets, so my personal answer is a combination of "yes" and "it doesn't matter."

Which is why I have to suffer FairPlay DRM to download songs from iTunes. Thanks.

I have one Waffles invite left... ;)

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#40

Post by jfarmer » Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 4:45 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #30

jfarmer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure what there is to rescue. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Matt's argument, however implicit, was that copyright infringement is wrong because it's a kind of theft. It's not, nor has it ever been and therefore his argument is fallacious.

If that's a semantic argument then I guess I'll have to live with that.