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

Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#71

Post by jerf »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #28
byoung2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I download the mp3 copy of a CD I own a physical copy of, am I a criminal? Did I steal from the artist? To the first question, I would say that you are guilty of copyright infringement. Compare it to buying a bootleg DVD of a DVD that you already own that was scratched and is now unplayable, or sneaking in to watch the re-release of Avatar now that you own it on Blu-Ray. To the second, no you haven't stolen anythi…

How could he be guilty of copyright infringement when courts have ruled it is legal to have a digital backup of your media? If he copied the mp3s from a friend who ripped the CD as a short-cut, would you still see him as guilty of piracy? I'm sorry, but that viewpoint is ludicrous, but I'm sure the RIAA loves that they've wired people to feel that way. Makes their extortion much easier. (And, yes, I do believe in pay…

Because the law believes that bits have colour: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

I'm not sure if this exact issue has been litigated, probably because the copyright holders would really rather not even discuss the issue, and it isn't the problem anyhow. A strict reading of the laws involved definitely show it's copyright infringement, but one could reasonably argue the appropriate damages for the act should be a flat $0. One can reasonably counterargue too, though. Something along the line of "Well, then they should have bought a second copy", though the problem with that is then you have to defend how when it is disadvantageous to the customer for it to be considered a strictly physical product, we consider it that way, but when it is disadvantageous to the customer to treat it as an abstract intellectual good, we treat it that way too. However, that's only a logical contradiction, not a legal one. This is probably why this has (to the best of my knowledge) never been litigated, even a victory of the case could set a precedent they wouldn't want. Best for them to just keep this out of court.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#72

Post by wildjim »

kyro wrote: post #40

I fully agree, and have yet to hear a solid argument in support of music piracy. Expanding your musical tastes and/or free marketing for the band are typically two very weak arguments, with the latter always unsubstantiated. If I copy your product and disseminate it to those clearly interested in it, I've definitely taken away some of your potential profits. You can argue that there are those whose interest didn't re…

I have yet to hear a solid argument for 75-year "ownership" of a copyright.

I also view the ability to sell the copyrights themselves (patents, etc, etc) to a third-party as very distasteful -- as opposed to allowing someone to use your copyrighted item(s) for compensation -- as it seems very against the spirit of the law to give up your original right as the author.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#73

Post by bediger »

tvon wrote: post #41
byoung2 wrote: post #15

I hate it when people equate piracy with theft...it's copyright infringement, not theft. If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, the original owner, no longer possess the item. If instead the "thief" breaks into my car and copies all of the music from my iPod (let's say that all of the songs are recordings of my band to make things simple) and posts it on several torrent trackers, that's pi…

> If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, the original owner, no longer possess the item. Theft covers more than just the taking of physical property. You can steal an idea, for example.

> You can steal an idea, for example.

How so? I can't even really write about it without getting mired in semantics, but here goes...

Suppose, one icy winter, I see you scraping your car's windows with an inverted plastic coffee mug. I'm having a lot of trouble with my store-bought flat, shovel-shaped scraper. I copy your idea: I bring a plastic mug out to my car, and use that mug to scrape frost off my car's windows the next day.

Did I "steal" your idea? How did I do that? You still have use of your plastic coffee mug. What's missing?

And then there's the issue of independent invention which happens a lot more than "copying == theft" folks ever admit. I invented the round windsheild frost scraper in the mid-80s. Unfortunately, someone else did, too: I found a round scraper in a K-Mart once, with a patent number on it.

Did I steal his/her idea? On my mother's grave, I did not. I invented it independently.

Similarly, I invented the same propulsion system that Freeman Dyson did in the 60s for "Project Orion". My sister claims to have invented "curtain walls" in high school, a long time before she went to college for an architecture degree.

Describe how I can "steal" an idea.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#74

Post by jeromec »

petercooper wrote: post #65
jeromec wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here I don't mean to focus on the methods to get the finished product, but rather copying the product for use. The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. If I want to open source some of the code I write, I'll do it. Aside from that no one should be able to copy and use the code I've written (and open it up to possible distribution) without any regard for my opinion on the matt…

The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. It depends whether you're referring to your own personal definition of "theft" or a legal or common definition (of which there are many). If the former, no-one can quarrel with you, of course ;-) If the latter, in some jurisdictions, permanent deprivation of property is required for "theft", so copying files would not count. Where perm…

I didn't mean to get into the semantics of "theft". If you notice, I said "To me I'd consider that theft".

What is significant, I believe, is the moral weight of categorizing it as theft, rather than specific technical definitions and jurisdictions. I believe the same context is meant by the Obama administration's choice of words. We are at a time in history for which there is no precedent for all the things we are able to do. It's for this reason I bring up these arguments with an audience which seems to largely favor making free use of any product deemed fair game by their own justification.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#75

Post by wildjim »

wmf wrote: post #16
username3 wrote: post #3

> No one walking out of a Walmart with a stack of Richard Marx discs under his arm would be subject to such penalties. Penalties are higher because piracy is easier to get away with?

It's a bad analogy to begin with. The RIAA is suing people for distributing music, not downloading it. Theoretically, these defendants could have distributed hundreds of copies of each song (although it's more likely they distributed zero copies).

Worse, the arguments seem to be based on "potential" rather than "fact".

It seems to me non-"internet" piracy cases are largely based on hard evidence, and when they try to include evidence for "potential to do" it's also based on some other hard-evidence, e.g. a large-scale CD-copying machine, a pallet of 100,000 blanks.

If you'd been convicted before for the same offence, then you're more likely to get more jail-time for repeat offending, i.e. a predilection for continuing that proven behaviour, but the punishment meted-out for copyright offences seems massively, unbelievably out-of-scale. Probably because they're often compensation paid to the copyright owner, rather than punishment for breaking the law.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#76

Post by wildjim »

jerf wrote: post #71
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could he be guilty of copyright infringement when courts have ruled it is legal to have a digital backup of your media? If he copied the mp3s from a friend who ripped the CD as a short-cut, would you still see him as guilty of piracy? I'm sorry, but that viewpoint is ludicrous, but I'm sure the RIAA loves that they've wired people to feel that way. Makes their extortion much easier. (And, yes, I do believe in pay…

Because the law believes that bits have colour: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 I'm not sure if this exact issue has been litigated, probably because the copyright holders would really rather not even discuss the issue, and it isn't the problem anyhow. A strict reading of the laws involved definitely show it's copyright infringement, but one could reasonably argue the appropriate damages for the act should be a fla…

I kind-of agree with the idea of no damages -- where I assume you mean compensation to the aggrieved party -- and instead a fine (or other punishment) for illegal activity, collected and kept by the government.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#77

Post by kemiller »

tptacek wrote: post #70
kemiller wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activities that are actually theft do not require this little semantic pas de deux every time they come up. Sort of like how anything that is actually a science doesn't need to include the word in its name.

Yes, the semantic flaws in the content industry's criticism of file sharing are indeed a great injustice.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. But in this case, it's not some sort of picayune hair-splitting going on. The word "theft" has visceral, ancient connotations for most people. Those with a horse in the much more abstract copyright infringement race would very much like it if everyone would please ignore any and all subtleties and call it "theft".

Squatters also deprive landowners of the potential use of their property, may cause damage or other economic harm, but unless they're taking items from the land and not giving them back, we don't call that theft. We call it trespassing, maybe vandalism. If my neighbor opens a sewage plant in his backyard, it certainly would deprive me of potential sales or rentals of my property, but we still don't call it theft. In fact, we have to make up special zoning laws that restrict what people can do with their property to address just this case, because no preexisting concept works. (Sound familiar?)

These distinctions matter. If they didn't, we wouldn't be arguing about it, would we?

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#78

Post by bediger »

kscaldef wrote: post #24
ThomPete wrote: post #10

It's funny how the word Piracy is used. One has to wonder what kind of pirates we are talking about. The "Pirates of the Caribbean" type of pirates did loot ships, but what they stole where often goods produced by slavery and itself stolen from the colonies. Piracy or as I prefer to call it – copying is the result of a disconnect between price and cost. When you steal you take something away from others so it's not t…

There is absolutely nothing that states that it's fair for musicians or other artist to make millions by mass producing and distributing at almost zero cost. Is it fair for software developers to make money by mass producing and distributing at almost zero cost?

> Is it fair for software developers to make money by mass producing and distributing at almost zero cost?

Well, what about simple Econ 101? In a competitive market, prices tend towards the marginal cost of production. Wow! Someone just invented a technology that allows the duplication and distribution of recorded music to happen at almost zero cost!

Is it fair for the people whose livelihoods are changed by this new tech to lobby/pay for laws to maintain the price of their good at pre-new-tech levels? Is if fair for that new technology to be legally limited by highly unpopular, and un-democratically-created laws? Is it fair for me to be deprived of the use of that new technology for un-infringing uses?

And yes, I've taken advantage of the new technology to mass produce and distribute some of my own software are near zero-cost: http://www.stratigery.com/acl.html Have a copy, for free!

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#79

Post by kemiller »

tvon wrote: post #41
byoung2 wrote: post #15

I hate it when people equate piracy with theft...it's copyright infringement, not theft. If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, the original owner, no longer possess the item. If instead the "thief" breaks into my car and copies all of the music from my iPod (let's say that all of the songs are recordings of my band to make things simple) and posts it on several torrent trackers, that's pi…

> If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, the original owner, no longer possess the item. Theft covers more than just the taking of physical property. You can steal an idea, for example.

Stealing an idea is metaphorical. And generally speaking, I'd say it refers to taking credit for the idea, not simply taking it and understanding it for yourself. Credit as originator is scarce. Instantiations are not.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

#80

Post by tptacek »

kemiller wrote: post #77
tptacek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the semantic flaws in the content industry's criticism of file sharing are indeed a great injustice.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. But in this case, it's not some sort of picayune hair-splitting going on. The word "theft" has visceral, ancient connotations for most people. Those with a horse in the much more abstract copyright infringement race would very much like it if everyone would please ignore any and all subtleties and call it "theft". Squatters also deprive landowners of the potential use of their…

Yes, I do think it is a bit rich for people who are using luxury goods without paying for them because they disagree with the terms they're being sold under to complain about the specific words the sellers use to refer to them.

Just be happy they haven't wised up and started calling pirates "content rapists"; rape is also pretty hard to quantify in dollar terms.

Post reply on HN