What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
U.S. Leaders Should Heed Their Own Advice On Internet Filters

Copying Is Not Theft

Culture

from the stating-the-obvious dept

Thu, Apr 15th 2010 09:13am -

Big Media has been producing (mis)educational videos since it’s early non-hit, "Don’t Copy That Floppy." Most of us have seen those "Piracy: It’s a Crime" clips that incorrectly equate downloading with stealing. The Copyright Alliance offers a whole series of propaganda videos for school children. It’s no surprise that Big Media is ahead of ahead of copyright reform advocates in propaganda. Fortunately, one animator (me) and the nonprofit QuestionCopyright.org are addressing this imbalance with media of our own:

This first Minute Meme explains the obvious: copying is not theft, it’s copying. We first released it with a scratch track of my feeble voice singing a capella. We invited any and all to re-record the audio and redistribute freely. Some pretty great remixes emerged; among my favorites are Taro’s French version and Norman Szabo’s energetic quasi-Punk rendition, with an entirely re-animated bridge. All of these remain in circulation, but Nik Phelps’ bouncy, safe-for-work "party horns" arrangement is now QuestionCopyright.org’s "official" release. It will be interesting to see whether it accumulates more views over time than the first scratch track version.

Filed Under: ,

257 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Copying Is Not Theft”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
257 Comments
Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Sorry...

But I hate this stuff, from BOTH sides of the argument. Perhaps it’s just me, but I find little touches like going from a black and white background prior to “copying” the bike to a lush green after “copying” to be the type of subliminaly insidious garbage that are too often used by governments and corporations these days.

I don’t mean to be insulting. I just want to think that people are pefectly capable of understanding this issue once it’s properly explained to them. Again, this might just be me, but I think that if people took the time to sit kids down and discuss this issue or present it in a more boardroom type of way, they could get it just fine. Treat people like the intelligent, nuanced folks they are, and they just might surprise you.

Sorry, Nina. I enjoy your contributions here, truly. Obvious propaganda and propaganda tactics from any side annoy me. It causes my bullshit detector to immediately go on high alert…

Free Capitalist (profile) says:

Re: Sorry...

I see where you’re coming from DH (and agree), but at this point maybe it’s not such a bad thing to fight fire with fire… especially when people at large are often just gazing at the pretty, flickering flames.

My own feeling is that copyright and IP in general is a complicated, but very, very apropos issue to our present and future, here at defining early days of the information age. The methods and rights we establish today might just resound throughout society for centuries.

The big problem I see is the issue doesn’t yet have the super-mass-awareness it warrants. People are still consumed by talk about health-care “reform” and cyber-bullying.

Clint says:

Re: Sorry...

Remember, half of the people you know have below average intelligence. Do you really think these people would understand this if you sat them down when people don’t understand how to send attachments in email or think that the contrails created by airplanes are really poisons being released by the government to control us?

There’s a reason why the type of “subliminaly insidious garbage” you talk about is used. It works. You may very well see it for what it is, and understand it, but it still works on the majority of the population, so why not use it? To not use it would be like fighting in a war and only using pistols when the other side has all the weapons they could think of.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Sorry...

“Remember, half of the people you know have below average intelligence. “

A common fallacy spread by people who don’t understand statistics. Say you have three people with intellegence of 120, and one with an intelligence of 62. Average intelligence is 105.5, but only 25% of the people involved are ‘below average’. 75% of the people are ‘above average’.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Sorry...

“However, in your view, we should trash the whole operation and basically give up any market share we had?”

Sigh, no, we should be encouraging more companies like Ford to come about. Instead of pumping money into the companies that fucked it up, taxpayer money mind you, we could be using that money as grants for newer, smarter auto companies.

Why is my tax money going into failed auto manufacturers? Why are we rewarding failure? How does that mesh with operant conditioning theorems with regard to how this is all going to turn out next time?

Anonymous Coward says:

“Theft” has a legal meaning and a colloquial meaning. Why the preoccupation with the former when the latter is usually intended eludes me.

Why not just say “Copying a work protected under copyright law without authorization from the copyright holder is illegal unless you can demonstrate that the affirmative defense of fair use applies, and in particularly egregious situations can land you in jail, not to mention that it can also cost you some big bucks.”?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“”Theft” has a legal meaning and a colloquial meaning.”

Words matter. They mean things. Colloquial usages are meaningless when discussing public policy. There is a legal definition, and then there is a common usage definition. The legal definition flatout says that copyright infringement ain’t theft. How about the common usage definition?

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property (Merriam-Webster)

None of those fit with copyright infringement….like, at ALL.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Yes, show the presentation to your children and then sit down with them to have a rousing discussion of public policy. Of course the discussion of public policy should be had at their bedtime because it will surely put them to sleep.”

You know what, that’s the kind of self-defeating attitude that creates this whole mess to begin with. People are SMART….but only if you challenge them to be. That goes double for kids. There’s no reason why you couldn’t have an interesting discussion on this topic from both viewpoints in a Jr. High or High School setting.

What’s the alternative? Kids won’t listen, so we’ll just dazzle them with pretty pictures and soundtracks and hope they get the point? FUCK that.

It’s like when we went to war. What we needed as a people after 9/11 was a very frank and detailed description of what happened, where we were going, that area’s history, and why we were going there. What’d we get? All night footage of the bombs going off. That is how you get an uninformed public….

Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Also, I liked AC’s ability to switch the argument to a different one once you proved the first one wrong.

Now that you’ve countered the second one, what’s next? Let me help him out: “DH, you used all caps on the word SMART, so you must be wrong. And you cussed.”

How can you win an argument against someone who just argues consecutive issues?

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Yes, show the presentation to your children and then sit down with them to have a rousing discussion of public policy. Of course the discussion of public policy should be had at their bedtime because it will surely put them to sleep.”

You sir, madam, or herm are an appathetic idiot. Whine … “Its to tough for me to think of a way to make this interesting for my kids”, “Why do I have to teach my kids, thats what school is for”, “My kids dont need to have a sense of social and societal responsibility”, “I dont have time to help them understand the society we live in”.

Just let them grow up to be as appathetic as yourself and a member of the nanny state. I mean who cares if government is currently doing the bidding of lobbyists and big corporations. It doesnt matter in any way shape or form, does it?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Theft

Copying isn’t “theft” in most colloquial meanings of the word, either.

The colloquial meaning of “theft” also includes plagiarism. And plagiarism is not against the law, even civil law.

In fact, that’s probably what most people think copyright infringement is. When someone says “that guy stole my song,” what meaning springs to mind?

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege

It remains important to bear in mind that the natural right is to privacy.

Theft is a violation of that right (from which the notion of property derives), through the unauthorised removal of someone’s material possessions.

Problems arise when people infer a natural right as limited to a specific violation. It is just as much a violation of privacy to burgle an individual’s house and make and remove a copy their diary as it is to remove their diary. The fact that a burglar may be productive in their act is irrelevant.

So people do have a natural exclusive right to the intellectual works in their possession, against unauthorised copying as much as removal. This is a natural monopoly that lasts a lifetime.

It is only the unnatural monopoly of copyright, that 18th century privilege, that inveigles itself as a laudable extension.

So, copying is not theft, but that doesn’t mean that in some cases unauthorised copying can’t violate privacy as much as unauthorised material removal. A thief generally seeks to gain. The spiteful burglar seeking to deprive is a rarity.

In other words, to elevate copying into an intrinsically good act because it is apparently productive, is to lose sight of what makes theft unethical.

From: http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/04/digital-economy-act-built-on-sand.html

:Lobo Santo (profile) says:

Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege

From a “real world” point of view (real world being defined as “physics” + “biology”):

The only rights YOU have are the rights YOU can personally enforce, which for most people generally encompasses ‘breathing’ and ‘eating things which are within reach’ and perhaps ‘if anybody tries to kill you, you try and kill them right back’ if you’re of the survivalist (or whatever) mindset.

You have no right to privacy (real world, legality aside)

Laws are cute and all, but in the real world they’re ultimately useless. (Tomorrow, we’re passing a law declaring we’ve got a moonbase–on the moon. Plus, if they fail to contact us by radio once a week the moonbase will be fined $10,000,000. This should end our deficit problems in not time.)

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege

The only rights YOU have are the rights YOU can personally enforce

Those aren’t rights, those are things you’re able to do. By your reasoning, I have the right to take a knife over to my neighbor’s house and take all her money by force, because I can personally enforce that. And after I leave, she has the right to get her gun out of the safe and come over and shoot me and take back all her money plus mine too, because she can enforce that. And of course I don’t have the right to stop her, because my knife will be ineffective against her gun. I am unable to enforce anything in that situation, therefore I don’t have the right to keep breathing.

Rights are very different from whatever we’re capable of enforcing against those around us.

RD says:

Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege

“Problems arise when people infer a natural right as limited to a specific violation. It is just as much a violation of privacy to burgle an individual’s house and make and remove a copy their diary as it is to remove their diary. The fact that a burglar may be productive in their act is irrelevant.”

Well, er, no, actually.

In this example, what is missing is that the “burglar” (that is you, the consumer) did NOT, in fact, “burgle” an “individuals house.” The content (the diary, in this case, equating to movies or music) is OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC, for a cost. Once you own that, you havent “burgled” anything even if you copy it. Your analogy doesnt work because there IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, when you SELL a copy of your work PUBLICLY. Sorry, its just not.

Now, let say its my PRIVATE diary (or lets say, a book I am working on writing) that I HAVE NOT released/sold, and someone in fact breaks in, copies it, and then releases that, then yes, THAT would be a kind of theft, and I DO have every expectation of privacy and property rights to it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The copying of un-published work is theft.

In the case of copying the diary, there is theft involved. The owner had privacy and had a secret. After the copying, they no longer have that privacy/secret.

Something has been taken, and we know what that is, and it isn’t really the diary/work in progress/whatever. They still have THAT assuming it was copied and left.

What has been stolen is their privacy/secret.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege

Privacy?

You’re on crack.

Privacy would apply to my “personal papers”. It’s wrong for you to steal them and copyright has nothing to do with it. The notion that copyright has anything to do with my “personal papers” just shows how much misshapen copyright ideas have permeated our culture.

Copyright is simply the wrong framework for considering the theft of your diary. It isn’t a published work and quite likely isn’t a creative work either. The relevant “social contract” isn’t in force.

Property is a natural right on it’s own.

That is why ownership of your house, your computer and your cat doesn’t “expire”.

There’s centuries of interesting bits surrounding property rights. These include things that Big Media probably never want to be applied to Snow White. Adverse posession and taxes would probably be the top ones.

NAMELESS.ONE says:

id like to hear psychiatrist views on this

if we prevetn all copying then should we not teach kids to copy us?

copying is the basic way all humans learn.
END of story
if you want a smart country or society
COPY innovate off that learn and add to so the next gen can copy and innovate again

thats how it is shall be and forever more

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: @darkhlemet

Er, okay….

And that has what to do with my wish for frank discussion vs. pretty pictures?

Where did I postulate anything in contradiction to what you said? Are you imagining that I’m pro-copyright here? Do you think I’m against the substance of Nina’s video? Have you taken the time to remove that ladybug that keeps randomly jumping up and down on your caps lock button?

Answers to these questions and more on the next episode of How Will NAMELESS.ONE Confuse Us Today?!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Unintended message?

I know this wasn’t the point of the video, but wont the IP Maximalists point out that at the end of the video there is no originality? It’s like some kind of maccabre cross between rubber-hose animation and that part of the Matrix where everyone was Agent Smith. Don’t we want to show that even with copying, original works will still be produced?

lux (profile) says:

Just hold on a second...seriously..

Mike,

So it’s not wrong to buy a DRM-free CD from Warner Bros. Music, make 1000 copies, and distribute them to my company freely without any ethical or legal concern?

I paid for 1 CD, now I have 1000. Whether my co-workers would have bought the CD is irrelevant – keep in mind I don’t believe in the ‘lost sale’ argument.

THOUGH EXPERIMENT:

If there all of a sudden existed a machine that could copy cars (or other very large expensive pieces machinery) with a click of a button, we wouldn’t have an automotive industry – it would crumble. An entire neighborhood would simply chip in to buy a nice $30,000 car, then just copy it 50 times (freely) so everyone can have one. How nice!

CONCLUSION:
You act like your argument of ‘copying isn’t theft’ is scalable – when it is not – as it clearly does not pass the thought experiment above.

P3T3R5ON (profile) says:

Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

It’s not like the $9.99 was the only money spent to now have 1000’s of copies of the CD. There are other monitary factors in play.

The neighborhood dropped $30k on the car but what about the machine? I mean how much did the CD-R advance because of its massive use in the 90’s, mostly due to people making their own music, copying or backing up.

I mean if there was such a copying machine, the auto industry would have patented or copyrighted it so they can produce 1 model and then duplicate it for us to pay the full price for even though over the long run the price would drop.

greg.fenton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

Your thought experiment is essentially asking if it is morally okay for people to leverage a new efficient process, or if they should continue to support the older, less efficient one?

Or am I missing something?

Under the old way of doing things, Warner produced a physical product and distributed that product to consumers who could not otherwise get it. They made available samplings of that product for free via broadcast, and they marketed that product.

Under the new way, there is no need for the distribution of physical goods. The cost of distribution of the electronic goods is negligible. Therefore, Warner finds itself looking to continue a massively inefficient system in light of a new world.

I’m not saying there is no room for Warner. What I am saying is that their old role is no longer needed, and in fact is quite problematic (inefficient flows and execessive uses of resources). They can find a new role in this new world, so it isn’t like they themselves are useless or discarded in the new world. However isn’t it more immoral in this new world to be forced to prop up those inefficiencies?

RD says:

Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

“So it’s not wrong to buy a DRM-free CD from Warner Bros. Music, make 1000 copies, and distribute them to my company freely without any ethical or legal concern?

I paid for 1 CD, now I have 1000. Whether my co-workers would have bought the CD is irrelevant – keep in mind I don’t believe in the ‘lost sale’ argument.”

Jesus F-ING christ, what is WRONG with YOU PEOPLE?? Where do you come from? You spout these strawman arguments then bitch that the conclusion drawn is bad or wrong.

Lets try this again for YOU PEOPLE (ie. idiots in the cheap seats):

1) Mike has NEVER EVER EVER EVER (EVER GOD DAMN IT!) advocated making 1000 copies and distributing them. EVER. Get this through your F-ING head. Ever. OF COURSE ITS WRONG! And, of COURSE its illegal. The point that you and your whiny bitch cohorts miss, however, is that its 1a) Not THEFT, as defined by law (it IS illegal, but IT IS NOT F-ING THEFT) and 1b) There are times when it CAN be a good thing (or be USED/LEVERAGED to HELP make money).

2) Whether you “believe” in something or not DOESNT MEAN IT ISNT TRUE. You can “not believe” in God, or evolution, or that your children love you, but those things CAN stand apart, and be true nonetheless, whether you believe or not.

Stop with creating strawman (false, misleading, intentionally misrepresenting) arguments and then going “so what about that huh???” So what about it? Nothing. You raised false arguments. Go buy a clue before speaking next time. Please.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

OF COURSE ITS WRONG!

I don’t consider it wrong. No one *at all* is harmed by the reproduction of an infinite good. I know, what about so-called “lost sales”? I’m IP raping the artists’ and their children!!

Well, you can’t lose something you never had. Lost sales are when someone returns a good for a refund or if someone attempts to buy a good that is out of stock. If I decide to read a book from the library instead of buying a movie on iTunes, have they “lost” a sale due to libraries? No, they haven’t.

Since at the very worst, copyright infringement is a net neutral action, and at best it is a net positive action, it stands to reason that it is not wrong.

In my opinion, anyway.

McBeese says:

Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

How about if I take a $20 bill out of your wallet, copy it a few hundred times, and give you back your $20. It isn’t theft. Has anybody lost anything? In fact, won’t it ‘generate’ sales of goods that otherwise wouldn’t have happened… so isn’t it potentially a good thing?

Now that I’ve made money an infinite good, my employer will need to connect with me and create reasons to work. Good luck with that, boss.

It’s too bad if the feds don’t like my new model, they need to catch up with the times. Why should they be allowed to assign a value of $20 to a piece of paper that costs a fraction of a cent? Why should they be granted a monopoly on the design of a $20?

I tell you, this video has inspired me! My scanner is cranking out $20s while I hum along to the ‘Copying is Good’ song.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Just hold on a second...seriously..

WINNER! Finally, someone actually get’s the point! Thank you good sir.

What happens when everyone has an unlimited amount of money? No one will trade anything of value for money?

What happens which everyone has an unlimited amount of digital goods? No one will trade anything of value for digital goods.

So, you agree that there’s nothing wrong with not paying for an infinite digital good?

hxa says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Just hold on a second...seriously..

A cultural object has intrinsic value, a piece of currency, as currency, doesn’t. That invalidates the analogy.

Since the value of a cultural object doesn’t depend on rules of copying, where is the justification for why that system should exist? You have entirely avoided giving that.

McBeese says:

Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

“1) Mike has NEVER EVER EVER EVER (EVER GOD DAMN IT!) advocated making 1000 copies and distributing them. EVER. Get this through your F-ING head. Ever. OF COURSE ITS WRONG! And, of COURSE its illegal. The point that you and your whiny bitch cohorts miss, however, is that its 1a) Not THEFT, as defined by law (it IS illegal, but IT IS NOT F-ING THEFT) and 1b) There are times when it CAN be a good thing (or be USED/LEVERAGED to HELP make money).”

I FULLY support this point, word for word.

MANY people pretend that it isn’t WRONG and ILLEGAL by hiding behind the banner of ‘it isn’t THEFT.’

The video above falls short of what is needed because although it does a great job of explaining why copying isn’t theft, it suggests that ALL copying is good and leaves the issue of copyright infringement under the carpet. Out of sight and out of mind.

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

Ok, you seem a little dense; let’s try this again – and did you happen to even watch the video sbove?

It is completely erroneous, as it’s giving the facade that this argument can be applied to physical goods (and don’t tell me the CD is actually what you’re interested in, it’s not – you are interested in the data, not the medium).

Ok, so in the video, a mickey mouse looking character magically copies a bike for his friend. Yay! Now there are two bikes for the price of one. Now I agree semantically that this is not theft, since nothing was stolen, but was actually duplicated. If that’s your entire argument right there, then Jesus let’s move on already – (i.e. No shit)

Now, since we cannot magically manifest things (i.e. laws of physics, transfer of energy and whatnot), this whole argument can ONLY be applied to infinite, non-physical goods.

If this is incorrect, please cite examples. I’ll wait.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

It is completely erroneous, as it’s giving the facade that this argument can be applied to physical goods

It’s making the argument that theft != copy, and is doing so solely because some people think that rape is okay.

..and by rape, I mean using the wrong word to create an emotional reaction that doesn’t exist when using the correct word.

I’m really astounded that you can sit there and tell me rape is okay. Really!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

You do not understand the legal concept of “theft”. It illegal to “steal” trade secrets from a company. That doesn’t mean you have to grab a bunch of papers off of someone’s desk, you could actually just make copies and take those to a competitor — there is no legal differentiation between the two. You have stolen information that you had no legal right to. “Stealing” is classified as “theft of property”.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

as it clearly does not pass the thought experiment above.

It doesn’t pass that “thought” (though I feel very little went into it) experiment because you set it up to fail. Let’s do a little math, shall we?

With a car-copying-machine:

A neighborhood pitches in $30,000 to buy a car and copies it 50 times. The car company has $30,000 and the neighborhood has 50 cars.

Without a car-copying-machine:

No one in the neighborhood has the money to buy a $30,000 car. The car company has $0 and the neighborhood has 0 cars.

Now, explain to me how the car company is better off with $0 and no customers than with $30,000 and 50 people driving their cars?

I’ll wait. 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..


Now, explain to me how the car company is better off with $0 and no customers than with $30,000 and 50 people driving their cars?

That assumes companies would still be around at that point. A machine that copies a car wouldn’t take money from the company if that company shifted… say, selling designs for better cars that people could copy. Having a billion $50,000 cars wouldn’t lessen the value of the car itself, as one of those cars to a starving family would see it as a blessing. It would only make the materialistic value of the car much less, which is the place where investors lurk.

If everyone had a car copying machine in their garage, they could simply go to their driveway, click a few buttons, get a car, and drive away. The value of the car to the owner is something to drive around in and take him from place to place. He/She may not care how much it cost or how much was lost to the engineers who designed it. They only care that it works and gets them from place to place.

A device such as that will get here soon enough, especially the way science is going. And if the government blocks any such item or sale and even makes it a criminal offense, people will simply build the machines in their garages and post the plans online… or give them to their neighbors.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

THOUGH EXPERIMENT:
If there all of a sudden existed a machine that could copy cars (or other very large expensive pieces machinery) with a click of a button, we wouldn’t have an automotive industry – it would crumble. An entire neighborhood would simply chip in to buy a nice $30,000 car, then just copy it 50 times (freely) so everyone can have one. How nice!

Dead wrong. The automotive industry would not ‘crumble’. It would change. Business models would have to adapt or they would crumble. Those who try to prolong the inevitable will die off and make way for new automotive companies who are willing to change.

If a machine was created that could instantly copy anything, value of items would shift to something else. In a materialistic world, any materialistic person would see the value crash as material value of any item that could be copied goes away.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

“If there all of a sudden existed a machine that could copy cars…”

Then there would be no more car manufacturers, because they wouldn’t be needed. There would be a need to make one car, or several one-car variations for variety sake, and that’d be it. It wouldn’t be profitable to manufacture cars (and wouldn’t they just use the replication machine anyway?), so it’d be likely that the government would release a car or two to start the copying. Your thought experiment was actually a good one, because this is exactly what’s happening to the movie/music industry (with private amatuer/artistic entities taking on the first manufacturer role)….

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

“Ok, so the backbone of American Industry (millions of jobs) goes down the tubes.”

No, instead lets keep people doing jobs that we no longer need them to do. That’s how you stimulate an economy! You know, they used to pay people to light lamps along the street so people could see. Why aren’t we still paying those people? Because we pay the ones that work for the electric company instead. Jobs that disappear because they aren’t needed will be replaced by jobs that ARE needed. This isn’t a vaccum we’re living in….

“Gov’t doens’t give bailouts for fun, it was aboluley needed.”

Okay, seriously, I’m not trying to pick a fight here, but that has to be the single most naive thing I’ve ever read on this site….

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Just hold on a second...seriously..

” ‘Gov’t doens’t give bailouts for fun, it was aboluley needed.’

Okay, seriously, I’m not trying to pick a fight here, but that has to be the single most naive thing I’ve ever read on this site….”

I’d actually like to see you logically rebut this statement, instead of pure speculation and ad hom attacks. I’ll wait.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Just hold on a second...seriously..

“I’d actually like to see you logically rebut this statement, instead of pure speculation and ad hom attacks. I’ll wait.”

Look, if you have managed to stay completely ignorant of the torrential debate of why this past round of govt. bailouts was granted, and the plethora of reasons why it WASN’T needed and SHOULDN’T have been done, then I applaud you. I wish I could have avoided all of that noise.

Long story short: the bailouts were given to the auto industry because everyone involved in that industry make a ton of campaign contributions: from the company owners to the employee unions. We sacrificed the long term good for the short term gain. We treated a symptom rather than the problem. We he had a cancerous tumor in our arm and we decided to give the patient painkillers instead of cutting off the arm.

Trust me, this whole auto manufacturer failure deal will be coming back for another bailout within 20 years. And, btw, for all that “needed” bailout, you’ll notice that Detroit is still a wasteland. They’re talking about converting land in the inner city to FARMLAND for fucks sake….

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Just hold on a second...seriously..

“Trust me”

Unfortunately, your appeal to confidence does not convince me of anything. And if you weren’t aware, there have been major cutbacks and changes to the auto industry as a result of the bailout. As a result, it came out a cleaner, more efficient model of itself.

As for this:

“We he had a cancerous tumor in our arm and we decided to give the patient painkillers instead of cutting off the arm.”

You clearly do not have an understanding of how important the auto industry is to America. It may be outdated, it may be old, but we need it. All this tech-savvy, “learn to adapt”, “don’t prop up old business models” falls by the wayside when our nation is in a severe economic crisis. Sitting back and doing nothing while several major, backbone corporations go bankrupt is bad for the business of America. Same with the bank bailout – nothing is going to be perfect, and all you guys can sit around and hypothesize about what should ideally happen, or with a shit-eating-grin talk about how illogical the moves they are making are.

I agree the auto industry was crap for a while, and that they severely lacked the foresight that Japanese automakers did. However, in your view, we should trash the whole operation and basically give up any market share we had? Being a good hard-working American, I’d rather not give up on something as you would – cause that’s the easy thing to do. We should rather re-work it, pump a little love into it ($), and try for something better – which is what we did as a nation, and we are better because of it.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Just hold on a second...seriously..

“However, in your view, we should trash the whole operation and basically give up any market share we had?”

Sigh, no, we should be encouraging more companies like Ford to come about. Instead of pumping money into the companies that fucked it up, taxpayer money mind you, we could be using that money as grants for newer, smarter auto companies.

Why is my tax money going into failed auto manufacturers? Why are we rewarding failure? How does that mesh with operant conditioning theorems with regard to how this is all going to turn out next time?

RD says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Just hold on a second...seriously..

“We treated a symptom rather than the problem. We he had a cancerous tumor in our arm and we decided to give the patient painkillers instead of cutting off the arm.”

Yep. I have noticed this very problem in how our govt responds to things for, oh, at least the past 30 years (most of my life). The Bush administration was the absolute nadir of this principle as well. Just look at their reaction to 911 and Katrina. Band-aids instead of any real, meaningful changes/aid to address the ROOT PROBLEM. Been this way for a long time, and I dont see it ever changing in my lifetime (which may be truncated by quite a bit thanks to this kind of myopic way of dealing with issues).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Just hold on a second...seriously..

I’m glad you pointed out the obvious, since it seems people’s arguments like to stop right before they reach this point, as though 1 lost job in a fading industry actually means there will always be 1 less job available forever.

Jobs move. They are always being created and destroyed for a variety of reasons. If an assembly line becomes fully automated, manual labor jobs on the line are lost, and new jobs designing, building, shipping, and maintaining the machines are made.

I never understand people’s obtuseness when their thinking stops dead at the “oh no jobs are lost!” point.

Ryan says:

Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

You don’t seem to understand the point of an economy – which is the reduction of scarcity via trade and specialization. Ideally, none of us would have jobs or work and we wouldn’t need them because we’d have infinite resources.

In this case, we no longer need people to make cars – we can reallocate their labor toward other endeavors that are scarce, and thus enrich ourselves in that area. If it didn’t matter that we actually needed that labor, that jobs are to be desired in and of itself(the broken window fallacy) then we could just pay everybody in the country to go out in the grass and start digging ditches.

Ryan says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Just hold on a second...seriously..

And your point is…what? If it’s 1% of the economy, that’s one thing, but 4% is another thing entirely and the principles of economics don’t apply? What about all the candlemakers and buggy whip makers and carriage makers and carriage drivers and cobblestone layers and farmers and blacksmiths and watch makers and…. that were employed in jobs that no longer exist?

Or going the other way, we have 9% unemployment that could all be put to work on something we don’t need – digging ditches. That’s way more than 4%, and by your logic we should do so?

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Just hold on a second...seriously..

Oh, I shan’t give up my dear friends.

In the video, when the character steals the bike from his buddy, it rhymes he now must “take the bus”. So, when he copies the bike for himself and his buddy, they both no longer have to take the bus.

So by copying the bike, they cheated their local transportation authority out of bus fair (also known as a lost sale).

Count it, and goodnight. If that’s not enough proof for you, I’m sure nothing will be.

Sneeje (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Just hold on a second...seriously..

How are you still missing the point that the bus is no longer needed? You keep coming up with examples and arbitrarily bounding the “system” to exclude relevant factors and consequences. In that example, the funds for the bus transportation system would likely shift over time to support bicycle transportation.

And by the way, that “lost sale” was never guaranteed. Whether or not I copied the bike is only marginally related to whether or not I would have taken the bus instead.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..

f there all of a sudden existed a machine that could copy cars (or other very large expensive pieces machinery) with a click of a button, we wouldn’t have an automotive industry – it would crumble. An entire neighborhood would simply chip in to buy a nice $30,000 car, then just copy it 50 times (freely) so everyone can have one. How nice!

Here’s what I got out of that thought experiment:

If such a device existed, it would be completely unethical not to use it.

If you were to make the “car copier” illegal, you would be depriving the world of a universal good solely to protect one now-unnecessary industry’s profits. How could anyone possibly think this would be a good idea?

Well, unless you don’t want anyone to drive, of course.

So, let’s say instead of cars, it was food. Say we could actually invent one of those Star Trek food replicators. Without a doubt, that device would drive farmers and grocers out of business forever. But so what? Nobody would starve again! In what possible universe would this be a bad thing?

As far as the $20 bill argument: Not really relevant, since money is not a “good.” And the Federal Reserve does print more money, in fact, just to ‘generate’ sales of goods that otherwise wouldn’t have happened.

Anonymous Coward says:

sadly the video is very misleading because it misses the important first step, did the owner give you permission to make a copy? when you have something in your possession that you dont have the rights to have there is only one way you could have gotten it, though illegal means. stealing, taking, making a copy, it all comes down to the same thing you have something you shouldnt have. the video is a joke.

Ryan says:

Re: Re:

Do you get permission for the air you breathe? If that air was previously breathed in by someone else, then they have made a change to the composition of that air – do you ask for permission to use the item that they have shaped?

Not to mention, almost NO copy is made without permission. Perhaps you were sold the CD/DVD, in which case you have been given the artifact that you are making a copy of. Or maybe you torrented it, which was only possible because somebody else put that copy online for that purpose. How often does somebody break into somebody else’s house to scan their media, which nobody would argue should be allowed?

RD says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Did you pay for the CD? Yes
Did you enter into a legal user agreement when you bought the CD? Yes”

ONLY if you recognize that this only represents the Right of First Sale, and not some industry-invented, legally unenforceable EULA that is known to the purchaser only AFTER purchase, and then cannot be returned for either disagreement with the EULA, or dissatisfaction with the product.

NAMELESS.ONE says:

@5 @12 @17 @18 @20

because we need less lawyers , more innovation and more sane terms for copyright law 150 year copyright does not do society any good
NOR does canada’s 50 year terms

if your terms were sane as in 15 or less years at least you could try and make the argument that your NOT actually promoting greed and laziness

@12
how is this issue complicated
TERMS ore so long they are causign the piracy problem because no one can afford to and now won’t pay for cause the so called industry instead of adpating to a cheaper model ( NOTE I DID NOT SAY FREE) and gave all the piracy press it coudl handle there by advertising there was away to get it freely undermined themselves ON PURPOSE.

YOU see again if the terms are greatly reduced you’d see a lot more rich people want that in the 15 year zone stuff and other peopel can get older you increase penatlies then for in those 15 years and LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE

even michael geist is a lawyer who effectively being on the other side on the issue is still profiting off it buy being paid to talk about it and what not.
ALL THIS waste a money and resources when in 2025 if some stupid asteroid gets pulled a tiny bit by the earths grvity were all gonna die in 2036
DONT ya think thats an example of some shit we could be thinking aobut rather then some labels ability to build 5 more yachts, and some actors grand kids to keep gouging us on royalties?

not complex the lawyers and propagandists what you to think its complex

ITS NOT
when democracy fails the people take the law into there own hands this is what happened the usa with lobbying and bribe money kept up pressure on public domain until as ill say its what around the 1800’s now?

@17 ya know dark what you need as a people and what you did was two different things. THERE was no truth and logic to what you did in iraq. WHERE are the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION YOU NEVER FOUND?
how many lost there lives so you can suck out some oil.
all while bin laden trucked around Afghanistan and you couldn’t catch em…..YUP GOOD JOB.

@18 but is it will to give up a right if you are forced to by economics or lobbying ( bribing of your laws and rules )
i think not.

@20 were anti p2p today aren’t we, you seem to think anyhting i said was confusing i showed it to 5 kids aged about 18 they seem to understand …HOW old are you?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: @5 @12 @17 @18 @20

“ya know dark what you need as a people and what you did was two different things.”

Sweet Jesus, what the hell is WRONG with you? You keep arguing, but you AGREE with me!!! I’m ANTI-war, you imbecile…

“were anti p2p today aren’t we”

Where? Seriously, show me where I was anti-p2p, anti-filesharing, pro-copyright, or anything else. WHERE???!! I’ve made my own creative work free for anyone to download for themselves in my link! Explain to me how I am against the message Nina was trying to send….

NAMELESS.ONE says:

@36

ACTA will make parts companies making parts for your car illegal thus driving up the cost of repairing a car dramatically
this is what i think many really mean

its a bit more then just a few cdrs
and what right does Warner have to keep selling the same cdr that costs 5 cents to make for 29.95
and what right do they have to sell it for the life of the company plus 95 years ( life of author plus 95 years )
how long will Warner exist there fore when they buy your rights are they as a corporation buying the right to say they created it , i again argue yes thats what copyright is about
the creators right to maker a little buck to keep creating.

WARNER DOESN’T create however so they should get the rights reduced
GREATLY
I will argue that if the author of the work wanted ot keep it fine he can have his term of 15 years and get paid if he can.

THE power of a label in past was its ability to AID in distribution but ya know ( oh i love the shift key does it BOTHER YOU ) with the net and ability of massive gathering of social networks ( your terms ) we do not need them.

mere kids made the largest gatherings of these places.
what if terms every where dropped to 15 years tomorrow or less.
POOR executives need to get work at MacDonald’s now…..
get a grip all, i’ve seen that words are not always enough.
THE USA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY NOR REPUBLIC
YOUR COUNTRY IS A PLUTOCRACY

NAMELESS.ONE says:

@42 @darkTHICKHELMET

no its not illegal
im making 1000 copies of something right now im gonna go through them around benches everywhere OH WAIT i live in Canada……

your 2nd point is gibberish slow down take a deep breathe and try again , insert another quarter after the beep/////

haha dark you easy to get going aren’t you
boy seems to me you should take a day off and chill
and you said it your self in #20 that due to previous comment someone thought you were anti p2p
I know your not just having some fun with it, you seem to try and toss jabs my way ….right back at ya

the reason you saw bombs going off is cause the conditioning of the american people has been most of this century been shoot first ask questions later , your a minority thinker seriously i do agree what you needed and like i said and you didnt read what you got and what you need were two differant things, all perpetuated BY GREED
GREED
GREED
repeat after me
GREED
GREED

they wanted that damn oil plain and simple

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: @42 @darkTHICKHELMET

Agree to disagree, then.

On a side note, I am not positive that NAMELESS.ONE’s (seemingly) random caps and returns, when combined with all his other posts printed in Arial font 20pt. on 8.5″x11″ paper on a 9 by 9 square won’t show us the face of Jesus when viewed from a distance. We’ll have to wait until he’s done with his masterpiece before we can truly judge.

It could happen.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 @42 @darkTHICKHELMET

“I am not positive that NAMELESS.ONE’s (seemingly) random caps and returns, when combined with all his other posts printed in Arial font 20pt. on 8.5″x11″ paper on a 9 by 9 square won’t show us the face of Jesus when viewed from a distance.”

Jesus? You mean that guy that runs the awesome Mexican restaurant down the street from me? Why would anyone want to gaze at him?

crocoPuffs (user link) says:

Nice try, rookie!

You blissfully ignore two items.

1) The intent of the creator. If the intent of the creator is to sell their goods, when you obtain a copy that you did not purchase, you have broken the creator’s intent and stolen money from them that they would have otherwise obtained.

2) Bicycles cannot be copied. But let’s say they could. Let’s say we have a replicator that can copy any physical item. Would it be fair to Schwin to copy your friend’s bike instead of purchasing one? What about your local baker? instead of buying five cookies, you buy one and make 4 copies. Does that seem like you’re not stealing money from the baker’s till?

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Nice try, rookie!

The intent of the creator.

you have broken the creator’s intent and stolen money from them that they would have otherwise obtained.

You have huge cajones, my friend. It’s not stealing. See above.

Would it be fair to Schwin to copy your friend’s bike instead of purchasing one?

Fair to them? Yes. Did they lose any materials when it was copied? No. Did they lose any electricity? No. Did they have extra labor costs? No.

They lost nothing.

What about your local baker? instead of buying five cookies, you buy one and make 4 copies.

Dammit to hell. You’re a troll and I didn’t even realize it! Shame on me!! Well, I’m balls deep now anyway, might as well finish: You do know that if I know how to make a cookie that a baker sells, I can make it at home. In fact, if I buy one, I can taste it to figure out what’s in it, and then “copy” it all I want. That, thank pete, is legal. Do you feel bad when you make a dinner at home instead of going to a local Red Lobster?

Thanks for playing.

greg.fenton (profile) says:

Re: Nice try, rookie!

1) Sale and use of the VCR went completely against the intent of the movie industry. How would that have worked out of them today if they didn’t have their tape and DVD sales? Sales of both of blockbusters and many movie flops actually make profits from home sales today.

2) When I buy from Domino’s, am I not stealing from Pizza Hut? When I buy from Schwin, am I not stealing from Ford?

Darryl says:

Whats in word

Spin it however you want to justify you’re criminal acts.

What is ‘theft’ ?

Theft is taking possesion of something you do no have a right to have.

That would include copying something from the internet, that you want. Like a song or a movie, or a program.

Taking a copy of something, would mean that in some if not most cases would deny the rightfull owner of that product a sale.

So there is loss, and theft.

It’s nice to try to justify you’re actions, to make out what you are doing is sort of above the law. But at the present time, it is the law and societies moral codes that you are breaking.

And it is THEFT, it’s a nasty word that is true. But it’s the right word in this situation.

You’ve taken possesion of something that is not rightly yours, the fact that it’s a ‘copy’ of the original does not mean a thing. You have taken something that you do not have the right to own.

It’s the same as identity theft, sure you do not take anything physically from the person you steal from. (apart from their identity). But that data that you copies can and is used to do real physical damage to that person.

That applies if you steal a song or a video (by copying it), sooner or later the rightfull owner will experience damage from it.

And yes, if there was a machine that could clone 10,000 identical cars, then the auto industry would collapse overnight.

Mabey they would transform into something else, but then it’s not the auto industry anymore. Sure, they might go into selling stamps, until someone sees a profit to be gained by stealing off them. And the CRIMINALS WIN..

So if you want to justify criminal activity, go for it. But dont expect much support for you actions. As the bottom line, no matter how you spin it.. It’s CRIMINAL THEFT.

The unlawfull taking of something you do not have the right to take. (the right to copy is included, therefore “copyright”)… Get it ??? good.. 🙂

greg.fenton (profile) says:

Re: Whats in word

1. You cannot say that my having a copy of something denies a sale. Why would I pay a sum of money for something that costs NOTHING for me to have?

2. My not having it stops that “rightful owner” the opportunity to sell me something that I am willing to pay for, something scarce, something that actually costs something to produce?

3. How is an ordering of bits on my hard drive not “rightfully mine”?

4. Are you suggesting that if something comes along that makes an existing system no longer valid, that we should ignore that new thing? We should prop up an outmodded system simply because it has existed during our lifetime up to this point? Should we have propped up the slave industry? Should we have blocked the recording industry since it took away from the performance industry? Should we block the VCR since it will destroy the cinema industry? Should we have blocked the auto industry since it will destroy the buggy and buggy whip industries (2 industries destroyed by the existence of just 1!!) ?

RD says:

Re: Whats in word

“Theft is taking possesion of something you do no have a right to have.”

Yes. Taking POSSESSION OF SOMETHING. You TAKE that item FROM someone. They no longer have it. Otherwise, you would NOT have possession of it. Also(2), your narrow definition would preclude library loans of any item.

“That would include copying something from the internet, that you want. Like a song or a movie, or a program.”

Nope. Copying is not taking. Try again.

“Taking a copy of something, would mean that in some if not most cases would deny the rightfull owner of that product a sale.

So there is loss, and theft.”

Yes. And they are not necessarily the same thing. They CERTAINLY are not from a legal standpoint.

“It’s nice to try to justify you’re actions, to make out what you are doing is sort of above the law. But at the present time, it is the law and societies moral codes that you are breaking.”

Yes. And there already is a law. Its called “Copyright infringement.” You might want to look it up and become familiar with its tenents.

“And it is THEFT, it’s a nasty word that is true. But it’s the right word in this situation.”

Wrong again. Theft != infringement/copy. Look it up. IT has a different legal standing. It has a different definition.

“You’ve taken possesion of something that is not rightly yours, the fact that it’s a ‘copy’ of the original does not mean a thing. You have taken something that you do not have the right to own.”

Attempt #2: Copyright infringement is different from “stealing.” Whether there is “loss” or not is a different matter. The SUPREME COURT has even upheld this view. Maybe you should look into it more.

“It’s the same as identity theft, sure you do not take anything physically from the person you steal from. (apart from their identity). But that data that you copies can and is used to do real physical damage to that person.

That applies if you steal a song or a video (by copying it), sooner or later the rightfull owner will experience damage from it.”

Please show examples of this. Because it is CERTAINLY NOT happening in the music and movie industries, which are making MORE money THAN EVER IN HISTORY. Please. Educate us.

“And yes, if there was a machine that could clone 10,000 identical cars, then the auto industry would collapse overnight.”

And rightly so. Maybe they should look into doing something else then? Change with the times. Maybe they could sell accessories or service or training or some other thing that CANT be copied so easily. Better yet, if they are SO all-fired concerned about copying, maybe DONT MAKE YOUR STUFF AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

“Mabey they would transform into something else, but then it’s not the auto industry anymore. Sure, they might go into selling stamps, until someone sees a profit to be gained by stealing off them. And the CRIMINALS WIN..

So if you want to justify criminal activity, go for it. But dont expect much support for you actions. As the bottom line, no matter how you spin it.. It’s CRIMINAL THEFT.”

For the 3rd time, please educate yourself and read what copyright and infringement ARE.

“The unlawfull taking of something you do not have the right to take. (the right to copy is included, therefore “copyright”)… Get it ??? good.. :)”

This last paragraph makes even LESS sense than all of the above.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Whats in word

Theft is taking possesion of something you do no have a right to have.

No it is not. Theft is depriving someone else of something.

The thing that makes theft wrong (and criminal) is not that the thief gains something. It’s that he has done harm to another person by taking that thing away from them.

If he gains something from someone, without depriving that person of anything, then he is not stealing, even if he gains it without the other person’s permission.

On the contrary, copyright is closer to “stealing” than infringement is. You’re depriving someone else of something, when it would not harm you if they gained it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Copying is theft if you make 500,000 copies and sell them at 1/10th what it would cost to purchase the original from a retailer. If I write a book and spend my time, effort, and money to get it published, I don’t want some schmuck taking it down to the local Kinko’s and underselling me on the street or ebay. Media that is copied without permission (digital, physical, or otherwise) is theft – plain and simple. The concept of “build it and they will come” is great for a baseball flick but struggling artists will remain struggling artists and end up like scores of others when their time in the sun is over. I’ve heard too many stories about (still) popular musicians who are nearly broke because they lost the rights or were cheated out the rights to their music. Copying without permission or remuneration is no different.

greg.fenton (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You are setting up a strawman argument. Who is this magical individual that is going to go down to Kinko’s and knock off your book? Who is the customer that is going to trust that individual’s copy and give them money, while knowing that the originator is not getting any remuneration?

Digital media that is copied is simply a mouse click. It isn’t theft, as nothing is removed from the “owner”.

To claim that a crime has been committed, you must show what is missing. The claim that a sale is missing is a fraudulent claim as it is unprovable. And the counter argument to the “sale is lost” argument is “an opportunity to sell has been created”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You obviously never studied law.

Industrial espionage is illegal and is classified as theft of property although no physical object has to be stolen. To claim that some “thing” has to be shown as missing is no argument that illegal activity has not taken place.

Plain and simple, it is illegal to go into a movie theater with a camcorder and then proceed to sell copies of that movie on a street corner. You are receiving money for the copy you sell and reducing the need/demand/desire for the buyer to go to the theater and generate revenue for the creator/publisher/distributor. The same holds true for books, CDs, DVDs, or any other copyrighted material.

If no harm has ever been done by violating someone’s copyright, then the law would have fizzled out long ago.

greg.fenton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Please, having studied the law as you have, post a URL showing the legal definition of theft where the “owner” is not deprived of something. And don’t point to the wikipedia article on industrial espionage…that won’t prove your legal prowess to any degree.

Are you, the one who studied law, trying to tell me that there are no laws on the books today, even enforced today, that are ridiculously outdated?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Plain and simple, it is illegal to go into a movie theater with a camcorder and then proceed to sell copies of that movie on a street corner. You are receiving money for the copy you sell and reducing the need/demand/desire for the buyer to go to the theater and generate revenue for the creator/publisher/distributor. The same holds true for books, CDs, DVDs, or any other copyrighted material.”

Congratulations…you still haven’t described any theft.

Anonymous Coward says:

Fascinated by all the yatter.

If you can figure out ‘how’ to copy: that is, if you have spent the time and energy to learn to ‘make’ something, then your ‘copy’ isn’t theft, it’s re-invention.

However, if you take my idea and just copy it and claim it as your own, you are a f***ing thief and deserve way more bad things to happen to you than I can bother to describe.

If I make my living from selling copies of things that I have made from my ideas, and you copy them and sell them so that I lose part of my market (especially if you give away My Ideas for free or things made from My Ideas) you are a thief.

This is nothing like baking cookies.

I have the right to share my ideas and my products, but it should be my choice, not yours.

Sorry you Aholes: you just don’t get the concept of intellectual property, perhaps because you have no intellect?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“However, if you take my idea and just copy it and claim it as your own, you are a f***ing thief and deserve way more bad things to happen to you than I can bother to describe.”

Claiming you created something you didn’t is plagiarism, not theft. So making such a claim makes you a liar, not a thief.

greg.fenton (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I have not yet seen anyone say that it is OK to make a copy of music or a film without the creator’s permission. Same goes for software.

What we are saying is that copying is not stealing. It is infringement.

It is wrong to infringe.

However, many of us are trying to point out to creators of all digital goods that there are alternatives to using copyright as a basis for your business models. In many cases, those alternatives will make you Way More Money. It also means that you don’t need to see a large group of your fans (and/or those considering becoming fans) as “thieves”.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I have not yet seen anyone say that it is OK to make a copy of music or a film without the creator’s permission. Same goes for software. “

Does this make me the first then? It is OK to make a copy of music or a film without the creator’s permission. Same goes for software.

But quote this comment and YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!

weneedhelp (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

If I have the only known something of whatever, and someone copies it; Doesn’t that devalue it? Now there are 2, 4, 8 16, etc. Of course, if its value is extremely low then the point may be moot, but in the instance of something of great value; Wouldn’t that be true?

Say you could copy the Mona Lisa EXACTLY, and could not tell the difference from the original, then 100 people do the same…You see where I am going?

I usually agree with most of what is said here, but this one really made me think, and I thank you for that.

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: I dont agree with this one

Technology giveth and technology taketh away.

Take away the tech and how many would know about Lisa Moaning?

What is it worth when you have buying pool of two and you are hungry and it is all you have to trade for food?

If it is worth so much and you wish to retain that value. Keep it! Otherwise, put it on the market and watch the laws of economics take over.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: Re: I dont agree with this one ERR!

“Take away the tech and how many would know about Lisa Moaning?”

As many as could hear her?

Gee I guess no one knew about her until the interwebnets came about huh?

How many? Millions.

“What is it worth when you have buying pool of two and you are hungry and it is all you have to trade for food?”
Huh? Speak English much?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I dont agree with this one

“If I have the only known something of whatever, and someone copies it; Doesn’t that devalue it?”

No, the fact that digital goods are by nature easy to replicate(IE in abundance) already devalued the “something of whatever”

Your way is of creating “value” through monopoly.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: Re: I dont agree with this one

Im not talking about any one format or digital. Its hypothetical, in general.

If I have one of something, and you take that something, and duplicate it, then yes its value is diminished.

Now if i had 1 of a thousand of something and copied it; Does that diminish it’s value?

Just because its easy to replicate does not mean its in abundance. Where did you find the logic for that?
Lets apply that to digital; if I have one copy of something I created; ONE COPY; just because its easy to copy, there is no abundance of it.

Just because it is easy to replicate has no relevance, nor if it were difficult.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one

If I have one of something, and you take that something, and duplicate it, then yes its value is diminished.

Price != Value.

Air is pretty valuable, to me anyway, but I don’t– and wouldn’t– buy air from you. Something’s cost can be low and it’s value high.

Just because its easy to replicate does not mean its in abundance. Where did you find the logic for that?

Um.. what? No, I guess not. But being able to cheaply and easily replicate something makes it easy to create an abundance of it, doesn’t it? Where was *your* logic on that?

Record Labels sell music at $20/album because the government granted monopoly they have on the music allows them to set whatever price they want. This was fine for decades because it was very costly to ship CDs all over the planet, and it was very costly to record and produce music. Now, with the internet and powerful personal computers, it is not nearly as costly to produce music, and the cost of “shipping” it is so low that 13 year old kids can and will do it for free from their own computers. As the saying goes, “If a kid in his basement with a computer can break your business, you need a new business.”

So, the obvious question is: “Why do we need the labels anymore?” The answer is: “In their current form, we don’t.”

hxa says:

Re: I dont agree with this one

> Doesn’t that devalue it?

No. The *price* goes down, the *value* stays the same. Is the painting any less colorful when there are thousands of copies? any less well composed? No, obviously not, because it doesn’t change.

This is partly why copying is good: we can get exactly the same thing, but at a much lower price. And that is also why copyright owners don’t like it — they cannot keep the price artificially high.

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: I dont agree with this one

“Is the painting any less colorful when there are thousands of copies? any less well composed? No, obviously not, because it doesn’t change.”

Are you serious? So instead of having the real Mona Lisa on display in the Louvre – it would be just as VALUABLE to art-lovers to go see a printed reproduction in Boston, or in any museum for that matter?

Forget having the real version with the inherent intricacies of oil relief painting, when you can just get a glossy reproduction?

Technology folks shouldn’t act like they know art, you just look foolish.

lux (profile) says:

Explain to me this

In the video, when the character steals the bike from his buddy, it rhymes he now must “take the bus”. So, when he copies the bike for himself and his buddy, they both no longer have to take the bus.

So by copying the bike, they cheated their local transportation authority out of bus fair (also known as a lost sale).

Count it, and goodnight. Feel free to rebut.

Anonymous Coward says:

The WANT to share is a deep fundamental truth of being human independent of any secondary motivation. Trying to curtail a natural instinct is simply never going to happen. You might as well make LOVE illegal. This is the deep seated truth behind what is happening and why people simply DO NOT feel file-sharing is inherently bad, and never will.

Unless you give the population of the planet a frontal lobectomy, or are in possession of some evil-scientist-mass-brain-washing-machine you will never succeed in teaching people otherwise. Ever.

Darryl says:

RE:

So when you copy trade secrets, what is the property that got stolen? Are you saying a secret is defined as property?

Interlectual property, which is just as real as any other property.

And the “price” and “value” argument is totally flawed.

Price and value are not really related, the value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it. You dont get to determine something’s value, unless you purchase that item.

And software, songs, movies are all physical objects.

And by stealing it, you deny the rightfull owner the income that would have been gained by the sale of that object.

By making illegal copies, you reduce the value of the material, you make lots of copies and people will not be willing to pay a fair market price for it, therefore it’s value has decreased.

So by reducing the value of the item, (and software and copyright IS property, as defined by the law).

It’s property theft,

So if you could clone 50 exact copies of the Mona Lisa, perfect copies so you could not tell the original from the copies. Then the value of the painting would go down.

Again, no matter how you spin it, or how much you live in a dream, fairy world. The law is the law, the law defines taking copyrighted as property theft. And it does not matter a hoot what you wish for or think. It’s the law, and it’s been the law for hundreds of years.

It’s theft, and it’s criminal. It’s NOT a victimless crime, but it certainly is a crime.

You deny the rightfull owner of the copyright, to exercise his rights over copying his product. Which is against the law.

You stealing property, you’re denying the rightfull owner of the copyright his fair return on his works. And all because you want something for nothing.

Sorry, but the real world does not work that way, and the sooner you guys start to actually think about what you are saying, that’s it’s ok to break the law, because you want too. With this wrong and lame arugment that somehow you not actually taking anything away. Is very immature, and it’s against the law.

So you dont have to take my word for it, and you can try to shoot me down all you like.

But until the law is changed, and that does not look like it’s going to happen. You have to abide by the existing laws.

And the existing laws define copyright THEFT, as well THEFT.

You people seem to think if you say something enough times it will come true. Hopefully one day you will work out that is not the case. And like everyone else you have to live by the existing laws.

I know you would love to legalise stealing, and try to justify you’re criminal activities as rightous, but when it all comes down to it. It’s just as much THEFT and holding up the local 7/11.

So keep repeating the same old lines over and over again, and one day it might come true. But it’s not going to be today, this year, or probably this milleniun.. So you’ll be waiting a very long time, before you particular brand of criminal activity is legalised. Good luck with that.

Sure it’s fun to make up you’re own rules as you go along, but fact is if you are a human, and expect to interact with the rest of the law abiding humans on the planet, you might want to consider the laws applies to ALL, YOU INCLUDED..

So stop being a CRIMINAL, and then you will be welcomed into society. Continue being a criminal and mabey you might end up paying dearly for you crimes. We can only hope so.

Perhaps you might want to read a bit about the law, instead of redefining it for your own greed and gains.

Because what you are doing it making it worse for everyone else who thinks abiding by the law is the right thing to do.

Where all you want to do is take anything you can, that you think is of some value (or you would not want it). But only if you are able to steal it, and not pay for the work and effort that went into it’s creation.

The ultimate extension of that, is that people simply wont create the material, because you’re theft makes it impossible to fund in the first place.

Not to mention all thing restrictions with DRM and so on, that are there BECAUSE you steal, and because you cant control you’re cleptoism. Therefore measures are put in place to try to counter the theft.

Just like banks have vaults, and doors have locks, they are there (and we pay for them) because some people are not honest and like to take things that are not theirs to take.

If no one stole thing they dont own, there would be no need for vaults, locks or DRM.

But because of you’re sticky fingers, and lack of morals, you consider breaking the law OK, and for me and most of the planet, it’s NOT OK to steal…

No matter how you spin it… Im sure you dont like being called a common theif, but that is what you are, and the prisions are full of ‘those’ kinds of people.

If you having trouble working out the law, and dont want to do even the minimum research, then consider I steal you credit card number, and I transfer all you money into my account.

I have not taken anything physical, after all it’s only some bits on a computer somewhere, and all ive done is transer those bits to my account. Nothing physical have moved anywhere. It’s still theft.

Just as much as if you were printing up you’re own money in you’re kitchen.

So stop being criminal, and start to obey the existing laws.
Like the rest of the planet does.

But using such a lame argument that it’s NOT theft, just shows a huge lack of understanding of the concept of ownership, and human rights.

And being a theif gives you a very bad reputation, as a theif and criminal. Dont expect many to trust that you are going to obey the laws, when you seem to think somehow you’re above the law.

It’s criminal and morally corrupt, and hopefully one day you’ll work that out..

But at least lets be honest about what you’re doing, cut to the chase and call it for what it is,,,, just THEFT…
Which is a CRIMINAL act, as defined by the law.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: RE:

Angry troll is angry!

And the existing laws define copyright THEFT, as well THEFT.

Except that they do not. Laws against infringement are completely different than laws against theft.

For example: Under Dowling v. United States, copies of copyrighted works cannot be considered “stolen property.”

And this is in regards to the commercial sale of counterfeit goods. Something that is much closer, ethically speaking, to “stealing” than filesharing could ever be.

Keep in mind that copyright infringement is in the same legal category as patent infringement. To this day, there is no such thing as criminal patent infringement.

You people seem to think if you say something enough times it will come true.

To “steal” from one of the Anonymous Cowards: “Those filthy black kettles will never be able to attain the deep, charcoal gloss of us pots.”

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: RE:

That’s because those “freetard parasites” actually know what they’re talking about.

Here’s an idea. If you hate the “freetards” so much, stop using the products they created. Don’t visit any website that uses Apache, PHP, Ruby, Java, or MySQL. Don’t use Firefox or Chrome. Don’t use Google or Yahoo. If you make MP3’s, stop using LAME.

Don’t use a Mac, for that matter, as its kernel is a rewrite of a BSD linux kernel.

Who is the “parasite” now?

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: RE:

I don’t know if you’re a troll or just ignorant, but the rest of this thread points out all the mistakes in your (very long and poorly formatted) comment. Go to the top of the page, click the “Threaded” button, and start reading. It will take a while, but I think it will be worth it for you.

After that, look up the difference between “Criminal” and “Civil” offenses.

Then, follow this link to an article on Truthiness which I believe describes why you have your thoughts on copyright infringement, since none of it is actually based on fact.

Think, don’t reflex.

Have a great weekend, Darryl. 🙂

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Sorry...

intelligence and common sense are two different creatures. I know many “intelligent” people with no common sense.

“Do you really think these people would understand this if you sat them down”
If explained correctly, yes, without a doubt. I teach them everyday how to attach to emails.

“insidious garbage” as is your reference to this, trying to dismiss people as conspiracy theorists. The concern with Chemtrails is; what is being done to experiment with weather control, and its effects on humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control

For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. Each system would shoot various chemicals into any threatening clouds to shrink rain drops before they reach the stadium.

“fighting in a war and only using pistols”
Its ok. Use what you will, there is no more moral high ground anymore.

Karl (profile) says:

RE:

All the things you mention were created with the intent to distribute freely.

Which makes them “freetards,” and (according to the OP) “parasites.”

If you call everyone who is against draconian copyrights a “parasite,” yet use and benefit from their work, then you are a hypocrite. That was my point.

Also, many of the above (e.g. Java) didn’t start out as open source, they became open source because it was a better business model. But never mind.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

“So, the obvious question is: “Why do we need the labels anymore?” The answer is: “In their current form, we don’t.””

In THIS example, I agree, we dont. But in the general hypothetical, not applying to any one industry or product, the line is not so clear.

“But being able to cheaply and easily replicate something makes it easy to create an abundance of it, doesn’t it?”

YES, but it doesn’t automatically happen. Someone has to act upon that. Now either its the creator themselves, or a third party. Does the third party have a right, or permission to do so?

Do you think you need permission?

“But being able to cheaply and easily replicate something makes it easy to create an abundance of it, doesn’t it? Where was *your* logic on that?”
Yes, correct; But because it CAN be done, means it SHOULD be done?

crocoPuffs (user link) says:

RE:

“If you call everyone who is against draconian copyrights a ‘parasite,’ yet use and benefit from their work, then you are a hypocrite.”

Not at all. By that logic you imply it’s impossible for a person to support both open source and copyright. Those are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist and people are free to choose which model they prefer to use when offering their work to the public. I’m not a hypocrite for simultaneously believing both concepts have merit.

You can be against copyright law, but you still have to follow it. You can’t just break laws at your choosing. Try to get them changed, fine. Offer your own work for free, fine. Take the work of others who have chosen to not offer for free, not fine.

“many of the above (e.g. Java) didn’t start out as open source”

Of course, but it doesn’t change my point. The owner of those properties made the decision to provide them freely, and so people use them freely.

Karl (profile) says:

RE:

By that logic you imply it’s impossible for a person to support both open source and copyright. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not – technically, an open source license is a copyright.

But people who advocate open source – or want to change copyright laws – should not be called “freetard parasites.”

And perhaps you didn’t. I don’t know if you’re the original poster.

You can be against copyright law, but you still have to follow it.

Pointing out that copyright infringement is not the same as theft, is not the same as advocating copyright infringement.

I may be opposed to counterfeiters, but that doesn’t mean that they should be punished for trafficking in stolen property or wire fraud.

crocoPuffs (user link) says:

RE:

The problem with the video is that it very strongly implies copying copyrighted material is ok. (dancing with media discs, anyone?)

The video says copying is not theft, which suggests the more generic: copying is not a crime. The video doesn’t even nod to the idea that copying can still be a crime, whether it is theft or not.

(no, I’m not the one who used the “freetard” phrase)

hxa says:

I dont agree with this one

> Forget having the real version with the inherent intricacies of oil relief painting, when you can just get a glossy reproduction?

Let us refer to the original comment:

> Say you could copy the Mona Lisa EXACTLY

Oh, that entirely invalidates your point above. I doubt anyone would trouble further with the rest of what you say.

> Are you serious?

Partly, but also partly just observing astroturfing/trollish commenting patterns . . .

The facts and the rationality are pretty much incontrovertibly on the side of information freedom — as anyone engaging honestly with the question will find. It must be only a matter of time before copyright is dead. In that light it is interesting and amusing to watch the corporate interests struggle, cynically, robotically, hopelessly.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

RE:

“Then the value of the painting would go down.”
You miss the point too. The price for said object is reduced, but its value, may still stay the same. There are ppl that may have been willing to spend more, because its value TO THEM, is still high, until they realize it can be obtained for a lot less. Then their perceived value changes due to an abundance of said object. Be it from duplications, from the creator, or the flooding of copies from a third party. All of which will decrease it VALUE, and PRICE.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

But in the general hypothetical, not applying to any one industry or product, the line is not so clear.

The line is very clear, the more general you do. Don’t want specifics? Here’s a heap of “general” for you.

Company A has purpose. Through technological advances, the purpose Company A has goes from being a complex and expensive endeavor to something that requires almost no skill and is effectively costless, to the point where anyone can serve Company A’s purpose with a common household item.

Now, some would have you believe that Company A should fight for laws that severely restrict or ban the household item that is rendering them obsolete. Others would say that the people who make Company A’s purpose obsolete are somehow stealing from Company A. Still others would say that Company A needs a new business model that makes them relevant in the face of this new business landscape.

Which do *you* suggest?

So, what am I describing? Company A sells ice, and the household tool that rendered them obsolete is the refrigerator.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

!= means “does not equal”

Also, if you recognize that value and cost are not the same thing, how can you say making more of something will lower its value?

I’m sure there are thousands of stuffed snowmen toys out there exactly like the one you have, does that make the one you have *less* valuable to you? Of course not.

However, if there were 57 Billion snowmen, you would be hard pressed to find someone to buy them for even $2. You probably couldn’t give them all away. (They would be everywhere!!)

So, it stands to reason that making copies of something does not reduce its value, but should reduce its cost. So, why doesn’t music, movies and ebooks, which can be recreated forever so that everyone in the world has a copy, still sell for $1.29?

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

Just hold on a second...seriously..

And You Missed it. If there was such a copying machine (lets call it a replicator *Smirk*) the automotive industry would crumble just like you said. AND THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING! now that expertise and manufacturing capability could move on to something that was not infinitively reproducible like boats or airplanes or whatever. Thereby increasing competition in that new market and reducing prices while increasing actual innovation. If sometime in the future somebody figures out how to convert your car replicator into a boat replicator then that is good to. Yes the boat building industry may shrink but NEW industries will be INNOVATED to pick up the slack. Again we are not dealing with a zero sum situation here.

Memyself says:

US Supreme Court Justice Breyer: “Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.”

Let’s be clear. “Theft” is just a word. Same with “copying”. If we are going to argue what meaning words hold in a legal context, than the interpretation of the law makers is the most relevant definition available. In this case, unlawful copying is a form of theft, regardless of popular internet opinion.

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

Just hold on a second...seriously..

Sometimes protecting free speech means protecting speech you don’t like, but I can’t even begin to process the amount of stupid you have spewed.

From My Post above:

“If there was such a copying machine (lets call it a replicator *Smirk*) the automotive industry would crumble just like you said. AND THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING! now that expertise and manufacturing capability could move on to something that was not infinitively reproducible like boats or airplanes or whatever. Thereby increasing competition in that new market and reducing prices while increasing actual innovation. If sometime in the future somebody figures out how to convert your car replicator into a boat replicator then that is good to. Yes the boat building industry may shrink but NEW industries will be INNOVATED to pick up the slack. Again we are not dealing with a zero sum situation here.”

lux (later down the thread): “You clearly do not have an understanding of how important the auto industry is to America. It may be outdated, it may be old, but we need it. All this tech-savvy, “learn to adapt”, “don’t prop up old business models” falls by the wayside when our nation is in a severe economic crisis.”

Actually you clearly do not have an understanding of how economics work. Failing companies die, smarter (possibly newer) companies fill the gaps. Jobs are always being created and destroyed, The idea that any company is “to big to fail” and that propping it up instead of letting it dissolve so that the free market can pick up the pieces and use them to build something new (and possibly better) is absurd on the face of it. I can not comprehend how sometimes the people with the most illogical arguments try to use logic as a defense.

As far as the the whole fallacy of lost sale goes, that has been destroyed on so many levels I am beginning to think it is becoming the Techdirt equivalent of Goodwin’s Law, If you break it out you have already lost.

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

“Because air is not a commodity or physical good.“

Oh WoW do you Fail..

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
“A commodity is some good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. It is fungible, i.e. the same no matter who produces it.”

So do you have different air than I do or do you believe that there is no demand for air? Try holding your breath for a few days before you make your decision.

As far as air not being a “physical good” then what is it? Metaphysical? It is made out of the same atoms as everything else. If the logic is that it is not physical because you can not see it then just take a drive to LA in the summer. You can cut it with a butter knife if you want.

lux (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

“‘Because air is not a commodity or physical good.’

Oh WoW do you Fail..

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
‘A commodity is some good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. It is fungible, i.e. the same no matter who produces it.'”

Now which marketplace does air fall into again? Last I checked AIR wasn’t a NYSE symbol, and being openly traded.

lux (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

>> Say you could copy the Mona Lisa EXACTLY

> Oh, that entirely invalidates your point above. I doubt anyone would trouble further with the rest of what you say.

You’re absolutely right, the value of a painting would not diminish if there were 10,000 exquisite replicas. They would be so unique and wanted for their obscure, esoteric nature…wait that’s not right. If you had any sense of high art, you’d know that the less of an item there is, the more valuable it becomes – the price also increases – but the two are distinct, but often correlated.

Take for instance, the original Dead Sea scrolls; these are understandably very valuable, and most would argue priceless. They give a glimpse into the religious past, a beautiful thing for some people (not myself). However, if there were a machine or a process that could replicate these indefinitely, the value would be diminished. It is simply supply vs demand – basic economics. If you flood the market with a previously scarce good (be it artificially created (mp3s) or real (dead sea srolls)) the value lessens.

> It must be only a matter of time before copyright is dead. In that light it is interesting and amusing to watch the corporate interests struggle, cynically, robotically, hopelessly

I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

Karl (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

If you had any sense of high art, you’d know that the less of an item there is, the more valuable it becomes

No, the less of an item there is, the more costly it becomes.

The value of the Mona Lisa is not in its scarcity, it’s in its beauty.

I could paint a painting tomorrow. It would be the only one in existence. Does that mean it is as valuable as the Mona Lisa? No. I’m not that good a painter.

Karl (profile) says:

Breyer

US Supreme Court Justice Breyer: “Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.”

He is a strange person to quote, since he wrote a paper called The Uneasy Case for Copyright, which argued against expanding copyright law.

Maybe he changed his mind after some idiot set up LimeWire wrong and allowed Breyer’s identity to be stolen.

Even so, he wrote one of the dissenting opinions in Eldred v. Ashcroft, where he opposed the extension of copyright terms:

This statute will cause serious expression-related harm. It will likely restrict traditional dissemination of copyrighted works. It will likely inhibit new forms of dissemination through the use of new technology. It threatens to interfere with efforts to preserve our Nation’s historical and cultural heritage and efforts to use that heritage, say, to educate our Nation’s children.

He’s not exactly on your side.

If we are going to argue what meaning words hold in a legal context, than the interpretation of the law makers is the most relevant definition available.

You’re right:

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

– from Dowling v. United States

Karl (profile) says:

Breyer

Incidentally, you would be wise to read Breyer’s entire opinion on the case, in which he makes several statements that agree with the ones here on Techdirt:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZC1.html

For instance:

Since copyright’s basic objective is creation and its revenue objectives but a means to that end, this is the underlying copyright question. See Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975) (“Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts”).

lux (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

“The value of the Mona Lisa is not in its scarcity, it’s in its beauty.

I could paint a painting tomorrow. It would be the only one in existence. Does that mean it is as valuable as the Mona Lisa? No. I’m not that good a painter.”

No, I completely agree, your painting would most likely not be as valuable, but this is getting into the philosophy of beauty which Kant writes extensively on, I suggest you check some of it out; there are really some good reads.

However, wouldn’t you at least agree that if there were a “magical copy machine” that could exactly replicate the Mona Lisa, and all of a sudden there were 1,000’s of them in museums all over the world – that this would somehow, even in the slightest way, take away from that certain something the Mona Lisa (used to) provide when you see her in the Louvre, that singular moment of awe that arises when you see something so beautiful – and so scarce – that it is almost sublime? Scarcity often equals value. There is not a lot of moon dust on planet earth, but I bet a gram of it is not cheap.

Memyself says:

I am well aware of where Breyer came down in his opinion regarding the Grokster case. In fact, I could point you to posts of mine on Techdirt where I explain this very fact. So please do not assume that I have neglected my research before posting. I am not simply echoing soundbytes. I do take the time and energy to explore the context of the statements I quote before posting.

You claim Breyer is not on my “side” because he argues that we cannot allow corporations to choke new distribution avenues simply because those avenues might be used for infringment? Where did I come down in favor of eliminating new distribution avenues? He’s not on my “side” because he argues against copyright extension? I happen to find copyright extension abhorrent and I favor reform. Thanks though, for assuming you know my stance on every aspect of copyright simply because I agree with Breyer that unlawful copying is synonymous with theft. I’m sorry I don’t fit the checklist of opinions one must hold and that I don’t adhere to a simplistic black and white world view. Actually, I’m not sorry about that. However, I am sorry to see you make such a sweeping assumption.

The problem here is that you are conflating Breyer’s position on technology that allows copying with copyright infringement itself. Copyright infringement IS a complicated issue. There are many form of infringement, and assigning the simple definition of theft to all forms of infringement would be limiting and confusing. However, assiging the defintion of theft to one aspect of infringment (unlawful copying) is another matter.

Breyer’s position here is quite clear. Twisting his words as if his opinions stand against each other serves no purpose.

Memyself says:

Breyer

I am well aware of where Breyer came down in his opinion regarding the Grokster case. In fact, I could point you to posts of mine on Techdirt where I explain this very fact. So please do not assume that I have neglected my research before posting. I am not simply echoing soundbytes. I do take the time and energy to explore the context of the statements I quote before posting.

You claim Breyer is not on my “side” because he argues that we cannot allow corporations to choke new distribution avenues simply because those avenues might be used for infringment? Where did I come down in favor of eliminating new distribution avenues? He’s not on my “side” because he argues against copyright extension? I happen to find copyright extension abhorrent and I favor reform. Thanks though, for assuming you know my stance on every aspect of copyright simply because I agree with Breyer that unlawful copying is synonymous with theft. I’m sorry I don’t fit the checklist of opinions one must hold and that I don’t adhere to a simplistic black and white world view. Actually, I’m not sorry about that. However, I am sorry to see you make such a sweeping assumption.

The problem here is that you are conflating Breyer’s position on technology that allows copying with copyright infringement itself. Copyright infringement IS a complicated issue. There are many form of infringement, and assigning the simple definition of theft to all forms of infringement would be limiting and confusing. However, assiging the defintion of theft to one aspect of infringment (unlawful copying) is another matter.

Breyer’s position here is quite clear. Twisting his words as if his opinions stand against each other serves no purpose.

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

Exactly Where in the definition of commodity does it say that to be a commodity it must be publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (or any other for that matter)?

You said “Because air is not a commodity or physical good” I disproved that statement.

Nobody was talking about the Commodities exchanges & futures exchanges (which is the ‘marketplace’ for commodities) of which the New York Stock Exchange is NOT a part.

You might however have been thinking of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) These markets respond to changes in supply and demand, so a commodity with near infinite supply has no price, however the vale of air is still very high because we need it to live. I Imagine if at some time in the future (as imagined in many Science Fiction Books & Movies) air does become a SCARCE Commodity it would become something to be traded, but until that time there is no need.

Nice Try. Next?

Karl (profile) says:

I dont agree with this one

if there were a “magical copy machine” that could exactly replicate the Mona Lisa, and all of a sudden there were 1,000’s of them in museums all over the world – that this would somehow, even in the slightest way, take away from that certain something the Mona Lisa (used to) provide when you see her in the Louvre(…)

It seems like you’re arguing that any widespread distribution “cheapens” the art. Whether by infringers, copyright holders, or even the artists themselves. So it doesn’t really apply to copyrighted material, which is by nature intended to be widely disseminated. Still, it’s an interesting topic.

By your argument, the Mona Lisa is valuable now, but it would be even more valuable if it wasn’t in a museum at all – if it was locked up in a private collection, or in the estate of da Vinci’s heirs. I think you see the problem here; that argument leads to culture hoarding, and was one of the things copyright law was supposed to counteract.

Even so, you have a point. I’ve known people in underground music scenes for decades. Many of the old-timers miss the “good old days,” when underground music was so obscure, you had to actively seek it out. Now that you can find whatever you want with a few mouse clicks, it doesn’t seem as rewarding. In this case, the value was not entirely in the music itself; it was the reward of finding something after a long search.

It was also in the notion that you were special because you found it. At some point in our lives, we’ve all said “I knew them back before they were popular.” As if this somehow made us superior.

So, it often leads to snobbery, and it puts less value on the artwork itself. Still, a good journey is a good journey. Even though the internet has helped music on the whole, it is a shame that it’s taken that journey away.

Incidentally – I’ve read Kant, and though I’m no scholar, I’m not sure he would entirely agree with you (I believe he thought aesthetic beauty was something akin to a “categorical imperative”). Maybe I’m wrong.

Here’s another work that’s apropos of this discussion: Mackey’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds.” Particularly the bit about tulip trading. It’s available online at Archive.org:
http://www.archive.org/details/extraordinarypop014178mbp

Hopefully that doesn’t cheapen its value…

Karl (profile) says:

Breyer

Sorry if I didn’t read all of your posts. I was just replying to the claim that Breyer said “unlawful copying is a form of theft.”

If you look closely, he did not say that infringement is theft. He said willful infringement is a property violation, similar to theft.

To back this up, he cited three laws. The first is the legal definition of criminal infringement – which is not the same as any legal definition of theft. (It also deals mostly with counterfeiting for profit; until 1997, non-commercial infringement was not against the law.)

The second is a law that includes criminal infringement in the laundry list of “racketeering activities.” But that doesn’t mean it’s theft, unless you also consider bribery to be theft, since that is also included. The third law is almost identical to the second, but deals with money laundering rather than racketeering.

None of those laws define infringement as equivalent to theft, larceny, or conversion. Though all can be criminal activities, they are otherwise very different.

If Breyer meant that infringement is synonymous with theft, he would be trying to overturn Dowling v. United States – which ruled that counterfeit material can not be considered “stolen property.” Clearly that’s not what Breyer was trying to do.

The only way one could commit “copyright theft” is by stealing the copyright itself, thus preventing the original owners from making copies themselves. The closest we have to that is a typical recording contract. (Though I would call this blackmail rather than theft.)

You and I may agree on many things, but on this particular point, you’re wrong.

Memyself says:

Breyer

It really does not matter what laws he cites in this regard. There are many forms of crime that are prosecuted under different laws despite being fundamentally similar. His words remain clear in that he was directly equating unlawful copying with “garden variety theft”.

Theft (garden variety) is defined (legally) as an “unlawful taking of property”. I don’t believe that Breyer is unaware of this or that he chose those words by accident. If theft is defined as “an unlawful taking of property” and unlawful copying is also “an unlawful taking of property” than the two acts are, according to him, synonymous in terms of action, intent and result. This is the most direct and obvious interpretation of what Breyer said. He made a direct comparison between copying and theft.

Occam’s razor. The simplest solution is usually the correct one. Looking for external mitigating statements serves little purpose other than to obfuscate. If you dig deep enough you can always find something to justify a viewpoint. That’s how it tends to go.

And you’re right, we do agree on many things. I’m prepared to accept that this is not one of them.

Karl (profile) says:

Breyer

If theft is defined as “an unlawful taking of property” and unlawful copying is also “an unlawful taking of property” than the two acts are, according to him, synonymous in terms of action, intent and result.

The problem is that unlawful copying is not “an unlawful taking of property.” Go ahead and read
U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506, which defines criminal infringement.

The word “property,” or its equivalent, never occurs. The word “taking,” or its equivalent, never occurs. Instead, it refers to “works” and “reproduction.”

Once again, this was decided in Dowling v. United States, the only Supreme Court case where this specific question was answered. The court decided that copyright infringement was not theft of goods. They stated this clearly and unequivocably. No case since – not Sony, not Grokster – has altered that ruling.

We can agree or disagree all we want, but it won’t change the law.

Whatever words Breyer chose, he did not change the law either. He clearly did not want to. I believe he meant both were “criminal,” and chose his words poorly, but I’m just guessing.

Karl (profile) says:

Breyer

Incidentally, if you’re wondering why Dowling v. United States is so important, here’s why.

Laws against copyright infringement are set by Congress, and Congress alone. Different states cannot have different copyright laws; that is unconstitutional.

In contrast, laws against theft are not federal laws, but state laws. Stealing the same object can get you different sentences depending on whether you stole in New York or Georgia. Laws about “first sale” also vary by state; some states have anti-UCITA bills, some do not.

The only time the federal government gets involved in theft cases is when they regard interstate trafficking of stolen goods. This is how the government tried to prosecute Dowling, and they were shot down. They were shot down precisely because copyright infringement is not theft.

Different laws, different histories, different language, different intents.

Memyself says:

Breyer

Again: Theft IS defined as an unlawful taking of property.

Again: According to Justice Breyer: “Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.”

Therefore his professional opinion as a Justice of the Supreme Court is that unlawful copying is an act that is synonymous in terms of action, intent and result to garden variety theft.

I will agree that the two acts are punished under a separate set of rules. But as I already stated: There are many forms of crime that are prosecuted under different laws despite being fundamentally similar. The fact remains clear, whether you agree with Breyer professional opinion or not, a Supreme Court Justice directly held the act of unlawful copying and the act of theft as synonymous.

Again: If we are going to argue what meaning words hold in a legal context, than the interpretation of the law makers is the most relevant definition available.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Breyer

You guys are doing a great job of sending lots of email to my inbox, so I figured I’d throw in my 2 cents.

I’d like to point out that, if you’d like to get technical, I can copy a file as much as I want. I can copy/paste a song on my hard drive over and over and over again. No one cares. Copying is not the problem. So saying such phrases as “illegal copying” and “copying is theft” is just wrong. I’m not stealing if I hit Ctrl+V on a Kanye song.

The issue is whether it is “stealing” to distribute those copies. Clearly this fails any sort of logic test. Since, as I said above, pressing Ctrl+V on a song doesn’t make me a thief, then to call it “stealing” when I give that new file away can’t be stealing, because you definition of stealing it “to take” and I did not, at any point, take anything.

I did, however, infringe one Kanye’s rights to copy. Hence, copyright infringement.

Scary when things make sense, amiright? 🙂

Memyself says:

Breyer

Well, I certainly agree that the re-distribution of materials protected by copyright isn’t theft. As you say, that’s copyright infringement. Which incidentally, is typically a more severe crime that is garden variety theft.

I also don’t think that lawful copying is theft. You own the material in question, there has to be an allowance for fair use. Time shifting is another instance of lawful copying.

Repeatedly duplicating a file on your own hard drive? Not theft.

However, downloading copies of DVD’s you don’t own? That’s unlawful copying. And in that regard I agree with Breyer. It’s synonymous in regards to intent with garden variety theft. It is still a circumvention of payment while acquiring product. It is still the act of unlawful acquisition.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Breyer

I’m still not convinced. (This may come as no surprise)

It is still a circumvention of payment while acquiring product.

That statement does not define theft. There are entire books written with the specific purpose of explaining how to get things that aren’t free for free. Are those books teaching people how to steal, or otherwise encouraging theft? Of course not.

Theft, as is stated above, requires you to take someone’s property. Copyrights are not property. That is in bold for a reason. A monopoly is not property anymore than a “free market” is property. It is a term to describe an economic state.

Also, when someone downloads a file, nothing is taken. One computer instructs another computer on how to arrange positive and negative charges on a hard drive disc. It’s easy to think “He took the file without permission.” but that’s because we think of files as actual things that can be dragged and dropped, cut and pasted, sent and received. When you *really* consider what happens during a file transfer, is quickly becomes clear that it is nothing close to “theft”. To say otherwise is just an attempt to at emotional weight to the subject.

Memyself says:

Breyer

I understand you feel that nothing is taken and that unlawful copying does not equate to theft. As I’ve been saying, a Justice of the Supreme Court (one notoriously supportive of copyright reform and emerging technologies) clearly disagrees:

Justice Breyer: “Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.”

Between your opinion and his opinion, which one holds more legal weight?

I understand you feel that assigning the term of theft to copying is an attempt to add emotional weight to the subject. Personally, I’ve been downloading television shows, movie, software, comics, books, music, ect for over ten years with regularity. I have a bank of hard drives set up through multiple media systems that allow me to access my content anywhere I want, including my iPhone through the 3G network. I’ve also been in prison for theft of physical objects. I take things so that I do not have to pay. And having illegally acquired both physical and non-phyical items with regularity, I am absolutely failing to see how the end result is different. In both cases I want something. I take it. I have it – and I didn’t have to pay.

So lets be clear. I am making no moral judgments. Nowhere am I adding emotional weight to this subject. But let me assure you, I have absolutely *really* considered this topic, and it seems to clearly be theft to me.

More relevant than my opinion or your opinion, it seems to be theft to Justice Breyer as well. And that was my initial point. Again: If we are going to argue what meaning words hold in a legal context, than the interpretation of the law makers is the most relevant definition available.

Federico (profile) says:

Patry on copying is not theft

Patry (2009) is a useful source to link when explaining that copying is not theft (preview works without registration):
https://archive.org/details/moralpanicscopy00patr/page/92

For the lazy you can also link a short summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright_infringement&oldid=948161637#%22Theft%22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Leave a Reply to lux Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
U.S. Leaders Should Heed Their Own Advice On Internet Filters
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...