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?

[McCulloch]

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

As I understand it, the media tax was imposed to compensate copyright holders for loss of income due to the widespread illegal copying. I am not sure how the ethics of such a thing work.

[theleftone]

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

As I understand it, the media tax was imposed to compensate copyright holders for loss of income due to the widespread illegal copying. I am not sure how the ethics of such a thing work.

This is what I understand about it as well, and agree on the ethics question thereof. I do see a hint of assumed guilt in the tax though, and object to such an idea. Of course, I am looking at it from an American context where, in theory, we are innocent until proven guilty. I am not sure how the justice system works in the Great White North.

[McCulloch]

I am not sure how the justice system works in the Great White North.

I think that justice is like sausage. We all like to see it made but none of us really want to know how.

[Cephus]

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.

Only if you would have actually paid for a copy otherwise. If you would not, under any circumstances, have paid for it, then it's really irrelevant whether you have a copy or not. The copyright owner isn't getting any money off of you either way.

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.

That would be true if people were stealing CDs, but they're not. They're making electronic copies of digital data, the same as the age-old practice of taping songs off the radio. The recording industry cannot objectively demonstrate that they've lost a penny because they cannot demonstrate that these individuals, if digital copies were unavailable, would have run down to their local store and bought a CD.

[McCulloch]

Only if you would have actually paid for a copy otherwise. If you would not, under any circumstances, have paid for it, then it's really irrelevant whether you have a copy or not. The copyright owner isn't getting any money off of you either way.

I don't think that intent is relevent with regard to law or ethics here. If you would use copyrighted material, you should, under the law, pay for it. If you don't wish to pay for it, then under the law, your right to use it is very limited.

[theleftone]

Only if you would have actually paid for a copy otherwise. If you would not, under any circumstances, have paid for it, then it's really irrelevant whether you have a copy or not. The copyright owner isn't getting any money off of you either way.

I don't think that intent is relevent with regard to law or ethics here. If you would use copyrighted material, you should, under the law, pay for it. If you don't wish to pay for it, then under the law, your right to use it is very limited.

If we hold firmly to this idea, it would be necessary to close down all libraries. So, obviously, "use" is not necessarily the issue here.

Perhaps retaining a copy? What do you think about downloading a copy, using it one time, and then deleting it? For example, if one were to download a book, read it, and then delete it. This would be the equivalent exchange as if it had been checked out at the library. The counter-argument that the author was paid in the case of the library, but not in the downloading doesn't work. The reason is that someone, somewhere back down the download line paid for it.

It gets more confusing with libraries offering "electronic books" for check out now as well. Heck, my local library even checks out digital movies over the Internet. Not sure how that works though, because the software's Windows based and I use a real operating system (OS X).

[McCulloch]

Perhaps retaining a copy? What do you think about downloading a copy, using it one time, and then deleting it? For example, if one were to download a book, read it, and then delete it. This would be the equivalent exchange as if it had been checked out at the library. The counter-argument that the author was paid in the case of the library, but not in the downloading doesn't work. The reason is that someone, somewhere back down the download line paid for it.

It gets more confusing with libraries offering "electronic books" for check out now as well. Heck, my local library even checks out digital movies over the Internet. Not sure how that works though, because the software's Windows based and I use a real operating system (OS X).

The technology has raced ahead of the legal and ethical structures. If I buy a book, the copyright holder gets his bit. If I then sell that book, second hand, the copyright holder gets nothing more. But I no longer can read the book. So perhaps you are right, it is the retention of the material that is important.

[Cephus]

I don't think that intent is relevent with regard to law or ethics here. If you would use copyrighted material, you should, under the law, pay for it. If you don't wish to pay for it, then under the law, your right to use it is very limited.

We're not talking about rights or ethics here, I was answering the question that assumed that using IP without paying for it was inherently theft, which it isn't. I think we've gotten to a point where intellectual property is more important than real property and, IMO, that's wrong.

[Cephus]

The technology has raced ahead of the legal and ethical structures. If I buy a book, the copyright holder gets his bit. If I then sell that book, second hand, the copyright holder gets nothing more. But I no longer can read the book. So perhaps you are right, it is the retention of the material that is important.

You are precisely right. The recording industries (film and audio) are trying to apply 50 year old legislation to modern day situations and it just doesn't work. Why do you think they've been opposed to every major piece of technology in the past 30+ years? It isn't because it's bad, it's because it represents a threat to their power base. They are inflexible, they are set in their ways, but unfortunately, they're also rich enough to buy off politicians and get their way.

The problem is that the old system has never really worked that well. There's no clear basis for charging per use. In your above example, what if you lend the book to a friend? Does the author get money? What if you lend the book to 500 friends? What if you check the book out of the library, and while you have it, your whole family reads it?

Those are the kinds of things that the greedy industries are trying to go after. They want you to pay for a song each and every time you listen to it. They want you to pay for a movie every time you watch it, or a book every time you read it. You'll no longer be able to buy anything, you're just renting the physical form and paying for the content every time you touch the physical form.

Anyone think that's right?

[sue]

I don't think that intent is relevent with regard to law or ethics here. If you would use copyrighted material, you should, under the law, pay for it. If you don't wish to pay for it, then under the law, your right to use it is very limited.

We're not talking about rights or ethics here, I was answering the question that assumed that using IP without paying for it was inherently theft, which it isn't. I think we've gotten to a point where intellectual property is more important than real property and, IMO, that's wrong.

OK, I can see where it may not be inherently theft. There is a gray area that's been pointed out in this thread. But I am curious as to why you think it's wrong that intellectual property is more important than real property.

I see it like this: intellectual property has had deadly significance ever since humans started waging war.