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?

[sue]

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.

What makes you think so?

[theleftone]

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.

What makes you think so?

I'm inclined to agree with Cephus, though I'd be hard pressed to support it with solid evidence. In this case, paranoia works for me though.

[Wyvern]

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.

What makes you think so?

I'm inclined to agree with Cephus, though I'd be hard pressed to support it with solid evidence. In this case, paranoia works for me though.

Hollywood tried to do just that for a short time about seven years ago it was called DIVX, the only thing that remains from that fiasco are the codecs.

[Cephus]

Hollywood tried to do just that for a short time about seven years ago it was called DIVX, the only thing that remains from that fiasco are the codecs.

Yes they did, but what killed DIVX was the fact that there was already a competing technology out there. If it was "take it or leave it", DIVX would have succeeded because there would have been no alternative. The movie industry has been looking at DIVX-like systems where you'd be required to pay each and every time you watched a movie and I have no doubt that if they could make it work, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Cephus]

Oh, and for those who don't know, the MPAA failed completely with their attempted takedown of Pirate's Bay. It's back in full operation. Can't wait to see all the whining this brings, especially after the major back-patting session they had afterwards.

[Cephus]

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.

Because it's become an unfortunate detriment to creativity. Come up with one good idea in your life and you can retire and make money until the day you die. It's not like making something physical, where you have to continue to create and innovate to profit, an idea carries no requirement to actually do anything else.

[sue]

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?

In our capitalistic society, I have a hard time applying the idea that the desire to make a profit on non-necessity items is is wrong. Music and commercial music aren't necessities (and as it stands now I rent movies, so they're effectively pay-per-use anyway).

I do object to the idea of making books a pay-per-use item because that would hamper education, especially education among poor people. I'd be writing my legislators on that one for sure.

[theleftone]

Because it's become an unfortunate detriment to creativity.

Indeed. It drives me nuts that dead authors are still bankrolling 70 years after dying. That's just insane and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. I could even accept life copyrights for individuals, and maybe (maybe) 50 years for corporations. But what we have today is insane. Not to mention the continue war against the granted freedoms in copyright law.

[Cephus]

Indeed. It drives me nuts that dead authors are still bankrolling 70 years after dying. That's just insane and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. I could even accept life copyrights for individuals, and maybe (maybe) 50 years for corporations. But what we have today is insane. Not to mention the continue war against the granted freedoms in copyright law.

I don't mind copyrights, but let's keep them sane. As it stands right now, you hum a song and some guy in a suit wants to get paid for it. Just wait until the RIAA wants people to pay royalties because you've got a song running through your head.

The problem between physical property and intellectual property is that the creator of physical property has to keep making products to get paid. The creator of intellectual property doesn't have to do anything, they just have to sit back and wait for the checks to roll in. There are far too many people who are resting on the laurels of what they did 30 years ago, they're pulling a residual paycheck every month and they don't have to actually DO anything else. That's what I object to.