4 ms·

That was the part that stuck out to me the most. Someone in the music/movie industries certainly must understand the fundamental difference between copyright in

That was the part that stuck out to me the most. Someone in the music/movie industries certainly must understand the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physical theft.

rbanffy 17y ago
It's either that or they have a massive human resources problem.
raganwald 17y ago
Your argument begs its conclusion. You say that someone in the music industry must understand "the fundamental difference between X and Y." This implies that there is such a difference and takes it as fact without asserting it as such. That is normally fine, but in this case that's the exact point you are debating with the music industry.
- weavejester 17y ago
  Is there a need to state the obvious? Both copyright infringement and theft can be economically damaging to the victim, but this does not mean they are equivalent.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    > Is there a need to state the obvious? There is a need to state the obvious when you are talking about record industry executives who are stating that they disagree with what you or I consider to be obvious. If it was that obvious, there wouldn't be any debate, would there?
    - mock 17y ago
      There is no debate. Copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright infringement is also not murder, arson, or vandalism. Words mean something. That's why we have different words for different things. When someone says "Copyright infringement is theft", they're making a rhetorical point by conflating two different things, just like when someone says "All property is theft." This does not mean there is any debate that "property" and "theft" are the same thing.
      - raganwald 17y ago
        > There is no debate Well, I guess you automatically "win" whatever discussion you are having when you open with those four words. I presume the logical next step is for us to switch into Monty Python skit mode: "There is no debate." "Yes there is." "No there isn't." "Yes there is." "No there isn't." "Well the RIAA is debating you, so yes there is." "No they aren't. They can't simply make a rhetorical point conflating two different things and call that a debate. They have to make something that I agree is a valid debating point." "No they don't." "Yes they do..."
- daveungerer 17y ago
  Stealing someone's intellectual property would imply that they no longer have the ability to sell licences or transfer the ownership rights of the intellectual property. So if it was actually possible to steal a song, what you'd be stealing is all future royalties on the song as well as the right to transfer ownership of the intellectual property to someone else, while at the same time preventing the original owner from doing the same. Which is, of course, preposterous. If someone infringes on your copyright, you can still continue selling licences as well as fully transfer ownership of the intellectual property. That's why it's not stealing. Note: I'm not condoning copyright infringement, just pointing out that it's not equivalent to stealing. I don't see the debate you're referring to. When the music industry chooses to redefine a word, pointing out that that's what they're doing is sufficient. I took the extra step of actually repeating the definitions here, but that shouldn't be necessary.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    Hey, I don't disagree with your feelings on the matter, but there is still a logical fallacy in the way you put it the first time. Consider the following statements: 1. There must be some executive who agrees that there is a difference between copying and theft, and; 2. There must be some executive who agrees that since there is a fundamental difference between an act that gives to one without depriving another and an act which gives to one while depriving another, there must therefore be a fundamental difference between copying and theft, and; 3. There must be some executive who understands the difference between copying and theft. The first one makes it plain that there is debate as to whether X and Y are different. The second puts your terms on display for debate. The third assumes them.
    - daveungerer 17y ago
      I'm not actually the person who made the first statement. But as I see it, he made 2 statements: 1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft. 2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries. Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.

That was the part that stuck out to me the most. Someone in the music/movie industries certainly must understand the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physical theft.

rbanffy 17y ago

It's either that or they have a massive human resources problem.

raganwald 17y ago

Your argument begs its conclusion. You say that someone in the music industry must understand "the fundamental difference between X and Y." This implies that there is such a difference and takes it as fact without asserting it as such. That is normally fine, but in this case that's the exact point you are debating with the music industry.

weavejester 17y ago
Is there a need to state the obvious? Both copyright infringement and theft can be economically damaging to the victim, but this does not mean they are equivalent.
- raganwald 17y ago
  > Is there a need to state the obvious? There is a need to state the obvious when you are talking about record industry executives who are stating that they disagree with what you or I consider to be obvious. If it was that obvious, there wouldn't be any debate, would there?
  - mock 17y ago
    There is no debate. Copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright infringement is also not murder, arson, or vandalism. Words mean something. That's why we have different words for different things. When someone says "Copyright infringement is theft", they're making a rhetorical point by conflating two different things, just like when someone says "All property is theft." This does not mean there is any debate that "property" and "theft" are the same thing.
    - raganwald 17y ago
      > There is no debate Well, I guess you automatically "win" whatever discussion you are having when you open with those four words. I presume the logical next step is for us to switch into Monty Python skit mode: "There is no debate." "Yes there is." "No there isn't." "Yes there is." "No there isn't." "Well the RIAA is debating you, so yes there is." "No they aren't. They can't simply make a rhetorical point conflating two different things and call that a debate. They have to make something that I agree is a valid debating point." "No they don't." "Yes they do..."
daveungerer 17y ago
Stealing someone's intellectual property would imply that they no longer have the ability to sell licences or transfer the ownership rights of the intellectual property. So if it was actually possible to steal a song, what you'd be stealing is all future royalties on the song as well as the right to transfer ownership of the intellectual property to someone else, while at the same time preventing the original owner from doing the same. Which is, of course, preposterous. If someone infringes on your copyright, you can still continue selling licences as well as fully transfer ownership of the intellectual property. That's why it's not stealing. Note: I'm not condoning copyright infringement, just pointing out that it's not equivalent to stealing. I don't see the debate you're referring to. When the music industry chooses to redefine a word, pointing out that that's what they're doing is sufficient. I took the extra step of actually repeating the definitions here, but that shouldn't be necessary.
- raganwald 17y ago
  Hey, I don't disagree with your feelings on the matter, but there is still a logical fallacy in the way you put it the first time. Consider the following statements: 1. There must be some executive who agrees that there is a difference between copying and theft, and; 2. There must be some executive who agrees that since there is a fundamental difference between an act that gives to one without depriving another and an act which gives to one while depriving another, there must therefore be a fundamental difference between copying and theft, and; 3. There must be some executive who understands the difference between copying and theft. The first one makes it plain that there is debate as to whether X and Y are different. The second puts your terms on display for debate. The third assumes them.
  - daveungerer 17y ago
    I'm not actually the person who made the first statement. But as I see it, he made 2 statements: 1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft. 2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries. Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.