7 ms·

Is Copyright Infringement Theft?

14 points by grellas 16y ago

steveklabnik 16y ago
Let me preface this with my bias: I personally advocate the abolishment of copyright and patents. I think that crowds like this find the "lolz it's not theft, it's infringement" argument to be a particularly apt one. I've been guilty of such things myself, after all, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. However, I think this makes an interesting distinction: it doesn't really matter, from a 'hearts and minds' perspective. Neither side really 'wins' from this kind of argument, because the argument fundamentally isn't about the definition of theft. It's unfortunate that 'pro idea freedom' (two can play this game) advocates are effectively slandered by suggesting that they're 'thieves' or 'pirates,' but I'm not sure that an overtly semantic argument is the best way to get around this. I think it's better to make it a 'stealthily semantic' one, that is, don't talk about definitions, just move the dialogue to the core point: creators do not have a _right_ to profit, and therefore, they're not deprived of anything through infringement. It's not about theft, because they had nothing in the first place, ideas are not property. Even if you disagree with this line of reasoning, I think everyone can agree that a real, actual dialogue is better than what appears on the surface like quibbling. Yes, one can still be 'anti-theft' and 'anti-copyright', and theft and infringement are semantically distinct. But it's just not a deep enough level of discourse to truly explore the issue: we're seeing a natural progression of technology and culture, with many powerful, entrenched interests. It's a really, really important topic, and deserves more than soundbite arguments.
- kiba 16y ago
  It's a business model problem but the IP defender fear that it isn't possible to make money or there will be less money to be made after IP are abolished. They want to hold the IP abolitionist to the highest standard of evidence and at the same time, not give up every inches of ground without a really strong fight. Meanwhile, the abolitionists have the hard task of finding examples. Then, the defenders alway have an objections to all the examples that the abolitionists did find, which are diverse range of examples. For example, popular band business model wouldn't work for small, in between-size, and vice-versa or mock business models that sell ancillary goods such as T-shirt. All the objections by IP defenders is nice and all, except it's irrational. There is no attempt on behalf of IP defenders to gather experimental data, any kind. There is no attempt to think but refute every single abolitionist's suggestions. They make any excuses for staying still, good or bad. For the reason of criticizing without offering much in return, few IP opponents have the ability to force a model update in me or at least an ample amount of models to investigate. One recent model update was making me take into account that monopoly profit can be use to maintain marketshare against copyfree and copyleft opponents. Another model was that weak DRM technologies sometime does increase sales though I didn't do much reading into it.
parfe 16y ago
Copyright has put such a serious restraint on the public that we have become prohibited from ever owning our own culture. I'll die long before the public owns any work created in my lifetime. Was bootlegging immoral? It certainly could be, but prohibition created such an oppressive environment that it was necessary. The same goes with Micky Mouse copyright law. Decades old TV shows lost to time, no name bands disappearing from the shelves at Walmart, and Wedding Photos aging beyond the point of restoration require we infringe out of cultural preservation. Describing it as theft, or a crime is not relevant. The infringement is necessary.
CodeMage 16y ago
Hart's argument is basically the same as Sheffner's argument, at least the part he quoted: I just have a hard time getting too worked up about what label we attach to copyright. And I suspect most non-philosophers agree. Consider this thought experiment: Go to a studio head and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give you your copyright wish list: repeal first sale, make Justice Ginsburg's concurrence in Grokster the controlling opinion, delete Cablevision, Perfect 10 v. Amazon (and a few other Perfect 10 cases while we're at it) from the law books, and codify a "making available" right. But here's the catch: From now on, you are forever forbidden from referring to copyright as 'property,' and must instead call it a 'set of social relationships.'" Or go to a copyright skeptic, and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give you your copyright wish list: reduce the term of copyright back to 14 years, expand fair use, eliminate the derivative works right, and repeal the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. But there's the catch: From now on, you must refer to copyright as property; no more of this 'set of social relationships' mumbo-jumbo." I'm confident both the studio head and the copyright skeptic would take those deals in a heartbeat. Ultimately, it's the substance, not the label, that matters. My question is: why the hell do you think the "studio head" and the "copyright skeptic" are arguing about terminology in the first place? The way I see it, Hart is basically saying "If you were offered to have things your way, but had to give up terminology, you would do it in a heartbeat, so why do you argue about terminology in the first place?" Which, to me, sounds naive. The reason people are arguing about legal definitions of terminology in the first place is because legal terms have certain definitions which govern how decisions are made in court.
sophacles 16y ago
This argument is somewhat disingenuous. It completely glosses over a huge portion of the issue, that has nothing to do with legal definitions. Namely, stealing deprives the victim of something they otherwise would have, or even more coloquially "did he take away your stuff?". Now the crux of the debate rests on this very simple concept. If I take your car, without permission, it is stealing it. Very obviously you have been deprived of your car. If I stay in your hotel, and then decide not to pay my bill, I have deprived you of the 1. the overhead associated with a person's visit and 2. revenue that room otherwise could have generated. Now here is the question: when I copy your song, am I depriving you of anything? All the electronic devices are using resources paid for by third parties. You can still sell your song just fine, my act of copying has in no way prevented you from selling the song to other people. I may or may not have bought the song, so it is questionable if I am even depriving you of money you otherwise would have made (assuming no-fee copying, e.g. torrenting). So, all that explaining to get to a "maybe" answer to "did he take away your stuff?" when applied to copyrighted data (a song). Now, there is some more nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am obviously depriving you of money people are willing to pay for it. If I give away your song tho, there is no money I am depriving you of -- the people who gave me $0 are not guaranteed to give you the asking price without my giveaway. Further, how much of my giveaway is made up for in increased popularity? Could I charge back with a "stolen services" suit, declaring that my giveaway of your song helped push it to number 1, therefore you owe me marketing fees? Basically, yes, some people get caught up in the legal definition aspect, but that is because the legal definition argument closely mirrors my question of "did he take your stuff". I do agree though, that maybe we nerds should come up with a good way of discussing it w/out invoking lawyers anyway.
- rick888 16y ago
  "If I take your car, without permission, it is stealing it. Very obviously you have been deprived of your car." Should we change the term "identity theft". Technically, it's not theft at all and nothing has been taken from you. If I have a website that shares your credit card numbers online (I'm not using the cards, just giving out the numbers), would you call this theft? Nothing has been physically taken from you. "Now here is the question: when I copy your song, am I depriving you of anything? All the electronic devices are using resources paid for by third parties. You can still sell your song just fine, my act of copying has in no way prevented you from selling the song to other people. I may or may not have bought the song, so it is questionable if I am even depriving you of money you otherwise would have made (assuming no-fee copying, e.g. torrenting)." I find that most people that don't want to call copyright infringement theft do so because they don't feel what they are doing is wrong (and want to make it seem like it's fine). It's not theft, it's counterfeiting. It would actually be better for the content owner if it was theft, because digital goods rely on the perception of value. If everyone can get your software for free, it drives the perceived value (and the actual value) to $0.
alan-crowe 16y ago
Picture yourself as a philosopher-king trying to write wise laws so that your people prosper. You are going to have to face the distinction between rival goods (usually made of atoms) and non-rival goods (often made of bits). The difference is important in economics and hence to the prosperity of you people. You will end up with different laws, calling the misappropriation of rival goods theft and the misappropriation of certain non-rival goods copy-right infringement. Perhaps one adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should both be criminal matters and attract the same penalties despite the differences. Perhaps another adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should be criminal and civil matters respectively because of the differences. Perhaps a third will try to elide the differences between rival and non-rival goods by calling both misappropriations theft. You should kick the third adviser out of you council because the difference between rival goods and non-rival goods is central to the discussion. Burying the point by stretching the meaning of the word theft is an obstacle to a sensible discussion not a contribution.
auxbuss 16y ago
Copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright needs global reform. Patent law requires global reform. And ACTA is about as far from the appropriate reform as one could possibly be. But that's what you get when you leave these things to politicians who have zero experience of them. And have zero buy-in and ultimately zero responsibility for them. They have no idea of which they speak. But they aren't going to admit it, are they? Caveat: I own both copyrighted and patented works. I say: reform, reform, reform.
- rue 16y ago
  I think it is necessary to recognise an author's moral right to the work or, if you wish, mandatory attribution. No-one ought be allowed to take someone else's work as theirs. Beyond that the issue gets a bit hazy.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    No-one ought to be allowed to murder, rape, molest, torture, etc...
    - rue 16y ago
      One component of the discussion is getting rid of copyrights altogether, so I fail to understand your point.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        Are you serious? You said "No-one ought be allowed to...". Well, to do those kinds of things, we need laws, and ways of enforcing those laws. So, to enforce "mandatory attribution" to an author of a work, would require some sort of legal mechanism to do so. Protecting the author's "moral right" involves him or her having some sort of protection by the law, in the same vein the law protects citizens from rape, murder, and other violent acts. My point being, simply because there is a law or a "moral right" to prevent certain acts, does not and cannot stop those acts from occurring, although it may reduce the frequency of those acts. Lastly, I was unaware this thread mentioned anything about "getting rid of copyrights", particularly when you "think it is necessary to recognize an author's moral right to the work or, if you wish, mandatory attribution."
tptacek 16y ago
What do you think, 'grellas? I think I speak for a lot of us when I say we'd be interested in your take.
yason 16y ago
Semantics aside, the situation is very different between physical goods and duplicable goods. I don't know anything else but this very thing ought to be reflected in the interpretation of law somehow. For example, the scale of thievery/infringement goes roughly from: - Stealing physical media (= traditionally illegal, one is left without) - Copying to self or a friend (= should be legal: it's none of anyone else's business what I and my friends share among ourselves. And I have a limited number of friends anyway) - Copying to a "friend" or internet peer (= question mark; I think it should be legal but many don't) - Selling copies to a friend (= should be illegal as I would be pocketing actual money and the original author wouldn't) - Selling copies to a "friend" or internet peer (= definitely illegal, I'm making money out of others' work) Thus, the culprit gray area is copying to others without a fee. It's also the point where the most arguments (to both directions!) are about. I don't have the answer. I do, however, have one point: no law should be based on speculation. If you could clearly show that someone would have bought a copyrighted piece but got it for free instead, only then there might be some case for the original copyright holder to be entitled to some money, capped at most to the regular list price of the copyrighted work in particular. However, if you can't show that then I think it's pretty clear that nothing substantial has happened and, also, nobody could ever be convicted in that situation.
ahi 16y ago
Mangling Proudhon, "Intellectual property is theft."
chopsueyar 16y ago
For those of you interested in the history of intellectual property, copyright, and its "evolving principles", may I suggest the book Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership. http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art-Ownership/dp/0374223130 http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art-Ownership/dp... Also, since we love hypothetical situations, how about this: I create a replication device that can create an identical copy of any physical object. Walking down the street, I stop in front of your brand new Lexus and make a copy of the car for myself. I then drive away in the replica. Now, did I steal your car? Is that larceny? Or did I violate some other law? What if it was a Model T manufactured in 1908? Of course, if new laws need to be created/revised/abrogated to treat IP violations as acts of larceny, clearly the original laws were never intended to equate the two. Otherwise, additional legislation would not be necessary (DMCA, ACTA, etc...)
chopsueyar 16y ago
Here is an actual example. Last week, I visited the Cincinnati Museum Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Union_Terminal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Uni...) and saw the traveling exhibit, "America I Am", presented by Tavis Smiley. As I entered the exhibition, a museum attendant informed me I was not allowed to take any videos or pictures of anything within the exhibit (with or without flash). As I walked through the exhibit, I noticed a copy of the Declaration of Independence. For those of you unaware, this document was created in approximately 1776. The copy on exhibit is one of 25 remaining copies of approx. 200. If I were to take a picture of the Declaration of Independece, would that be theft? Would it be copyright infringement? Ironically, at the end of the exhibit, visitors have an opportunity to record a video of themselves, which is then uploaded and distributed to the "America I Am" website (http://www.americaiam.org http://www.americaiam.org).

14 points by grellas 16y ago

Let me preface this with my bias: I personally advocate the abolishment of copyright and patents. I think that crowds like this find the "lolz it's not theft, it's infringement" argument to be a particularly apt one. I've been guilty of such things myself, after all, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. However, I think this makes an interesting distinction: it doesn't really matter, from a 'hearts and minds' perspective. Neither side really 'wins' from this kind of argument, because the argument fundamentally isn't about the definition of theft. It's unfortunate that 'pro idea freedom' (two can play this game) advocates are effectively slandered by suggesting that they're 'thieves' or 'pirates,' but I'm not sure that an overtly semantic argument is the best way to get around this. I think it's better to make it a 'stealthily semantic' one, that is, don't talk about definitions, just move the dialogue to the core point: creators do not have a _right_ to profit, and therefore, they're not deprived of anything through infringement. It's not about theft, because they had nothing in the first place, ideas are not property. Even if you disagree with this line of reasoning, I think everyone can agree that a real, actual dialogue is better than what appears on the surface like quibbling. Yes, one can still be 'anti-theft' and 'anti-copyright', and theft and infringement are semantically distinct. But it's just not a deep enough level of discourse to truly explore the issue: we're seeing a natural progression of technology and culture, with many powerful, entrenched interests. It's a really, really important topic, and deserves more than soundbite arguments.

kiba 16y ago
It's a business model problem but the IP defender fear that it isn't possible to make money or there will be less money to be made after IP are abolished. They want to hold the IP abolitionist to the highest standard of evidence and at the same time, not give up every inches of ground without a really strong fight. Meanwhile, the abolitionists have the hard task of finding examples. Then, the defenders alway have an objections to all the examples that the abolitionists did find, which are diverse range of examples. For example, popular band business model wouldn't work for small, in between-size, and vice-versa or mock business models that sell ancillary goods such as T-shirt. All the objections by IP defenders is nice and all, except it's irrational. There is no attempt on behalf of IP defenders to gather experimental data, any kind. There is no attempt to think but refute every single abolitionist's suggestions. They make any excuses for staying still, good or bad. For the reason of criticizing without offering much in return, few IP opponents have the ability to force a model update in me or at least an ample amount of models to investigate. One recent model update was making me take into account that monopoly profit can be use to maintain marketshare against copyfree and copyleft opponents. Another model was that weak DRM technologies sometime does increase sales though I didn't do much reading into it.

parfe 16y ago

Copyright has put such a serious restraint on the public that we have become prohibited from ever owning our own culture. I'll die long before the public owns any work created in my lifetime. Was bootlegging immoral? It certainly could be, but prohibition created such an oppressive environment that it was necessary. The same goes with Micky Mouse copyright law. Decades old TV shows lost to time, no name bands disappearing from the shelves at Walmart, and Wedding Photos aging beyond the point of restoration require we infringe out of cultural preservation. Describing it as theft, or a crime is not relevant. The infringement is necessary.

CodeMage 16y ago

Hart's argument is basically the same as Sheffner's argument, at least the part he quoted: I just have a hard time getting too worked up about what label we attach to copyright. And I suspect most non-philosophers agree. Consider this thought experiment: Go to a studio head and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give you your copyright wish list: repeal first sale, make Justice Ginsburg's concurrence in Grokster the controlling opinion, delete Cablevision, Perfect 10 v. Amazon (and a few other Perfect 10 cases while we're at it) from the law books, and codify a "making available" right. But here's the catch: From now on, you are forever forbidden from referring to copyright as 'property,' and must instead call it a 'set of social relationships.'" Or go to a copyright skeptic, and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give you your copyright wish list: reduce the term of copyright back to 14 years, expand fair use, eliminate the derivative works right, and repeal the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. But there's the catch: From now on, you must refer to copyright as property; no more of this 'set of social relationships' mumbo-jumbo." I'm confident both the studio head and the copyright skeptic would take those deals in a heartbeat. Ultimately, it's the substance, not the label, that matters. My question is: why the hell do you think the "studio head" and the "copyright skeptic" are arguing about terminology in the first place? The way I see it, Hart is basically saying "If you were offered to have things your way, but had to give up terminology, you would do it in a heartbeat, so why do you argue about terminology in the first place?" Which, to me, sounds naive. The reason people are arguing about legal definitions of terminology in the first place is because legal terms have certain definitions which govern how decisions are made in court.

sophacles 16y ago

This argument is somewhat disingenuous. It completely glosses over a huge portion of the issue, that has nothing to do with legal definitions. Namely, stealing deprives the victim of something they otherwise would have, or even more coloquially "did he take away your stuff?". Now the crux of the debate rests on this very simple concept. If I take your car, without permission, it is stealing it. Very obviously you have been deprived of your car. If I stay in your hotel, and then decide not to pay my bill, I have deprived you of the 1. the overhead associated with a person's visit and 2. revenue that room otherwise could have generated. Now here is the question: when I copy your song, am I depriving you of anything? All the electronic devices are using resources paid for by third parties. You can still sell your song just fine, my act of copying has in no way prevented you from selling the song to other people. I may or may not have bought the song, so it is questionable if I am even depriving you of money you otherwise would have made (assuming no-fee copying, e.g. torrenting). So, all that explaining to get to a "maybe" answer to "did he take away your stuff?" when applied to copyrighted data (a song). Now, there is some more nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am obviously depriving you of money people are willing to pay for it. If I give away your song tho, there is no money I am depriving you of -- the people who gave me $0 are not guaranteed to give you the asking price without my giveaway. Further, how much of my giveaway is made up for in increased popularity? Could I charge back with a "stolen services" suit, declaring that my giveaway of your song helped push it to number 1, therefore you owe me marketing fees? Basically, yes, some people get caught up in the legal definition aspect, but that is because the legal definition argument closely mirrors my question of "did he take your stuff". I do agree though, that maybe we nerds should come up with a good way of discussing it w/out invoking lawyers anyway.

rick888 16y ago
"If I take your car, without permission, it is stealing it. Very obviously you have been deprived of your car." Should we change the term "identity theft". Technically, it's not theft at all and nothing has been taken from you. If I have a website that shares your credit card numbers online (I'm not using the cards, just giving out the numbers), would you call this theft? Nothing has been physically taken from you. "Now here is the question: when I copy your song, am I depriving you of anything? All the electronic devices are using resources paid for by third parties. You can still sell your song just fine, my act of copying has in no way prevented you from selling the song to other people. I may or may not have bought the song, so it is questionable if I am even depriving you of money you otherwise would have made (assuming no-fee copying, e.g. torrenting)." I find that most people that don't want to call copyright infringement theft do so because they don't feel what they are doing is wrong (and want to make it seem like it's fine). It's not theft, it's counterfeiting. It would actually be better for the content owner if it was theft, because digital goods rely on the perception of value. If everyone can get your software for free, it drives the perceived value (and the actual value) to $0.

alan-crowe 16y ago

Picture yourself as a philosopher-king trying to write wise laws so that your people prosper. You are going to have to face the distinction between rival goods (usually made of atoms) and non-rival goods (often made of bits). The difference is important in economics and hence to the prosperity of you people. You will end up with different laws, calling the misappropriation of rival goods theft and the misappropriation of certain non-rival goods copy-right infringement. Perhaps one adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should both be criminal matters and attract the same penalties despite the differences. Perhaps another adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should be criminal and civil matters respectively because of the differences. Perhaps a third will try to elide the differences between rival and non-rival goods by calling both misappropriations theft. You should kick the third adviser out of you council because the difference between rival goods and non-rival goods is central to the discussion. Burying the point by stretching the meaning of the word theft is an obstacle to a sensible discussion not a contribution.

auxbuss 16y ago

Copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright needs global reform. Patent law requires global reform. And ACTA is about as far from the appropriate reform as one could possibly be. But that's what you get when you leave these things to politicians who have zero experience of them. And have zero buy-in and ultimately zero responsibility for them. They have no idea of which they speak. But they aren't going to admit it, are they? Caveat: I own both copyrighted and patented works. I say: reform, reform, reform.

rue 16y ago
I think it is necessary to recognise an author's moral right to the work or, if you wish, mandatory attribution. No-one ought be allowed to take someone else's work as theirs. Beyond that the issue gets a bit hazy.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  No-one ought to be allowed to murder, rape, molest, torture, etc...
  - rue 16y ago
    One component of the discussion is getting rid of copyrights altogether, so I fail to understand your point.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      Are you serious? You said "No-one ought be allowed to...". Well, to do those kinds of things, we need laws, and ways of enforcing those laws. So, to enforce "mandatory attribution" to an author of a work, would require some sort of legal mechanism to do so. Protecting the author's "moral right" involves him or her having some sort of protection by the law, in the same vein the law protects citizens from rape, murder, and other violent acts. My point being, simply because there is a law or a "moral right" to prevent certain acts, does not and cannot stop those acts from occurring, although it may reduce the frequency of those acts. Lastly, I was unaware this thread mentioned anything about "getting rid of copyrights", particularly when you "think it is necessary to recognize an author's moral right to the work or, if you wish, mandatory attribution."

tptacek 16y ago

What do you think, 'grellas? I think I speak for a lot of us when I say we'd be interested in your take.

yason 16y ago

Semantics aside, the situation is very different between physical goods and duplicable goods. I don't know anything else but this very thing ought to be reflected in the interpretation of law somehow. For example, the scale of thievery/infringement goes roughly from: - Stealing physical media (= traditionally illegal, one is left without) - Copying to self or a friend (= should be legal: it's none of anyone else's business what I and my friends share among ourselves. And I have a limited number of friends anyway) - Copying to a "friend" or internet peer (= question mark; I think it should be legal but many don't) - Selling copies to a friend (= should be illegal as I would be pocketing actual money and the original author wouldn't) - Selling copies to a "friend" or internet peer (= definitely illegal, I'm making money out of others' work) Thus, the culprit gray area is copying to others without a fee. It's also the point where the most arguments (to both directions!) are about. I don't have the answer. I do, however, have one point: no law should be based on speculation. If you could clearly show that someone would have bought a copyrighted piece but got it for free instead, only then there might be some case for the original copyright holder to be entitled to some money, capped at most to the regular list price of the copyrighted work in particular. However, if you can't show that then I think it's pretty clear that nothing substantial has happened and, also, nobody could ever be convicted in that situation.

ahi 16y ago

Mangling Proudhon, "Intellectual property is theft."

chopsueyar 16y ago

For those of you interested in the history of intellectual property, copyright, and its "evolving principles", may I suggest the book Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership. http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art-Ownership/dp/0374223130 http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art-Ownership/dp... Also, since we love hypothetical situations, how about this: I create a replication device that can create an identical copy of any physical object. Walking down the street, I stop in front of your brand new Lexus and make a copy of the car for myself. I then drive away in the replica. Now, did I steal your car? Is that larceny? Or did I violate some other law? What if it was a Model T manufactured in 1908? Of course, if new laws need to be created/revised/abrogated to treat IP violations as acts of larceny, clearly the original laws were never intended to equate the two. Otherwise, additional legislation would not be necessary (DMCA, ACTA, etc...)

chopsueyar 16y ago

Here is an actual example. Last week, I visited the Cincinnati Museum Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Union_Terminal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Uni...) and saw the traveling exhibit, "America I Am", presented by Tavis Smiley. As I entered the exhibition, a museum attendant informed me I was not allowed to take any videos or pictures of anything within the exhibit (with or without flash). As I walked through the exhibit, I noticed a copy of the Declaration of Independence. For those of you unaware, this document was created in approximately 1776. The copy on exhibit is one of 25 remaining copies of approx. 200. If I were to take a picture of the Declaration of Independece, would that be theft? Would it be copyright infringement? Ironically, at the end of the exhibit, visitors have an opportunity to record a video of themselves, which is then uploaded and distributed to the "America I Am" website (http://www.americaiam.org http://www.americaiam.org).