Copyright Infringment

[theleftone]

Disclaimer: I understand the debate section is mostly focused on religion, but I didn't see anything in particular which would forbid such a debate as I am about to propose. If the mods/admins feel it's outside the bounds of this forum, then please feel free to lock/remove the thread. Now, back to the show.

In recent news, a popular torrent web site called The Pirate Bay was shutdown via a raid by Swedish police. Reading through the comments on Digg, I kept seeing people label copyright infringement as theft, stealing, piracy, and so forth. I object to this terminology. It is my belief that copyright infringement is not theft.

My arguments for this rest on two basic premises. The first is the fundamental nature of "information" is different from that of physical property. Hence, the general concepts of property do not apply. The second is that copyright infringement is victimless. When copyright infringement occurs, the copyright owner still retains "possession" of his or her work. They have not lost their right to sell and/or distribute.

So, to open up the floor for debate:

Do you believe copyright infringement is theft? Why?

[kiwimac]

In a former existence I was a librarian. I do not believe information can be stolen. Anything published is IMO free for public use so long as it is sourced.

Kiwimac

[Wyvern]

Do you believe copyright infringement is theft? Why?

In a certain way it is, in that in a real sense nothing is truly being stolen but at the same time money is being withheld which would otherwise have been paid in order to obtain rights of ownership.
I think officials use the term theft because they think it is easier for people to get their heads around the concept that way. Also because people would probably scoff at it being called illegal possession, which is what all this really amounts to.
Another problem is that it is seen by most that if anyone is actually being "stolen" from it is only the rich that it is happening to. And to be honest who really cares if some rich person makes twenty million or only sixteen million.
For as long as there has been recordable media there has been this kind of thing happening albeit on a low level. Then the internet came along and some people got the idea to expand media sharing on a massive level, Napster being the most famous by far. With the possibility of downloading literally thousands of songs and now movies also in a relatively short time, until the media companies could come up with an answer to this new media they had pretty much no choice but to try to use the existing laws to stop the loss of income.

So I guess in short copyright infringement is not theft but it is illegal possession. After all when you buy a movie or a cd, it grants you very limited rights as to its use. In effect you own the actual media but not whats on it, that you lease with a one time payment for as long as you own the copy that you have bought.

[Cephus]

Do you believe copyright infringement is theft? Why?

Absolutely not. In order to steal something, the owner must lose the ability to use that thing. If you infringe on copyright, the owner still has the ability to use it, they haven't demonstrably lost anything. Therefore, it cannot be theft.

That said, the whole MPAA/RIAA terror tactic just isn't working. Sure, they might shut down a few sites, but more pop up every day and the technology keeps improving. Soon, there will be no way to stop it and no way to track the people doing it. What are they going to do then, shut down the entire Internet?

The problem is that the entire copyright and intellectual property system is broken and has been for years. It's just made worse by the fact that you can easily get anything you want online and they're freaking out about it. The fact is that the only people who benefit by the system being the way it is are the big conglomerates who have built their empires on being in control and they don't like the fact that today, people don't necessarily need them. Unfortunately, they're the ones with all the money and the ability to buy political favor, which they do with great abandon, even violating the law as they see fit.

[sue]

Do you believe copyright infringement is theft? Why?

Absolutely not. In order to steal something, the owner must lose the ability to use that thing. If you infringe on copyright, the owner still has the ability to use it, they haven't demonstrably lost anything. Therefore, it cannot be theft.

If the commodity you're selling is a "service", it still can be stolen. Say I'm a taxi driver and my ride refuses to pay me. That's still theft even though I can pick up a paying customer at the next corner.

So I would say that copyright infringement is theft.

[McCulloch]

Copyright protection is a useful economic concept. Without copyright protection, the economic incentive to produce original material is diminished.

Is it theft to violate it? Yes. If under the law you are obliged to pay for the use of published material and you use that material without paying for it, it is theft. Not of the material but of the fee you should have payed.

[Cephus]

If the commodity you're selling is a "service", it still can be stolen. Say I'm a taxi driver and my ride refuses to pay me. That's still theft even though I can pick up a paying customer at the next corner.

So I would say that copyright infringement is theft.

Wrong. During the time that you are in the driver's cab, you have cost him the ability to sell his services to someone else, so if you do not pay him for the time that you have cost him, then indeed you are guilty of theft.

That's not true for copyright infringement. If you make a copy of a song, you have in no way stopped the legal owner from selling that song to a dozen other people. Or a million other people. You haven't harmed their ability to do business in the least.

[Wyvern]

That's not true for copyright infringement. If you make a copy of a song, you have in no way stopped the legal owner from selling that song to a dozen other people. Or a million other people. You haven't harmed their ability to do business in the least.

If you make a copy of something that you would otherwise have to pay for what you have taken is the money that you should have provided for obtaining a copy.
This wasn't a problem until literally millions of people started doing it, so now you have millions of people that have their product but have not paid for it. Having a product of some kind but not paying for it without it being a gift is usually called theft.

[theleftone]

There is a fundamental difference between information (e.g., music, books, poems, etc.) and the material world (e.g., physical objects or time). It is this fundamental difference which I believe makes "theft" of information an impossibility. Theft, in this case, is referring to the taking of another's possessions, hence depriving them of their usage.

Dealing with physical objects, this is fairly straight forward. If I take your car then you are deprived of using it. Dealing with time is a little more complex, but I think most can see Cephus' point above as an example. Information on the other hand, is a different animal. When you share information with me, you have in no way been deprived of your usage of this information. And even if I could forcibly "copy" information from you, you still have this information at your disposal for usage. I cannot remove that information from you. It's there in your brain. You can still use it. Hence, seeing how one cannot be deprived of their usage of the information it is not accurate to call it theft (or piracy, or stealing, etc.).

[rant: on]
I believe the Founding Fathers were well aware that information is fundamentally different. They realized the importance of the creation and dissemination of information. This is why in the Constitution they made a provision to encourage the creation of information for the benefit of society (Article I, Section 8). The whole purpose of copyright law was that the author was given exclusive rights for a limited period of time to distribution the information. The end goal is that such information would then enter the public domain in a reasonable timeframe and "promote the sciences and the arts."

This is certainly not what copyright law has become. It has become a tool of the corporation and individuals to support their greed. This is why companies like Disney continue to lobby Congress for extensions to the time period of copyright.

I find it rather asinine that an individual has a copyright for life + 70 years. Once the author's dead, their copyright is still in effect for 70 more years. People argue, "What about the family?" Yeah, so what about them? They can get off their lazy butts and create new information just like papa or mama did.
[/rant: off]

Back to the subject, another important point about copyright is that the author does not "own" their information. The information belongs to society the minute he or she opens his or her mouth to share it. The author only retains the copyright, which is his or hers for an exclusive period of time.

That said, I think the question "is copyright infringement theft" is a simple question when one truly takes time to consider the nature and difference of information compared to material possessions. The question whether its ethical or not, or whether certain actions may or may not be copyright infringement are not.

Is copyright infringement ethical? I would say no. It's illegal. Hence, I believe we have an ethical obligation to follow the law (in most cases).

[INSERT: I am not a lawyer disclaimer.]

Is uploading copyright information without permission when not for archival or educational use to be consider copyright infringement? I would say highly likely, but it's not settled in the courts yet.

Is downloading? I would say this is even weaker, and to my knowledge has not been challenged.

Is it theft? Absolutely not.

[theleftone]

McCulloch,

I am curious your opinion on the "media tax" you Canucks pay. Would you say this justifies the free copying of information?