You are stealing the exclusivity of the license to distribute. As in, you are removing (permanently) the ability to moderate distribution of copyrighted material from the copyright holder.
Absolute nonsense! The ability to physically control copying of the work is lost as soon as the creator sells the first copy. From then on, the copyright holder NEVER has the "ability to moderate distribution" in any physical sense. Your argument that rampant copying is taking the exclusive license to copy away is absurd. The exclusive right to copy still lies with the copyright holder. That right is granted by the copyright office. Unauthorized copying does not affect that right in any way whatsoever. It diminishes the benefit of that right, but the right remains.
Hypothetical situation: You write a blisteringly genius hypothesis on a math formula that consists of 25 characters. I watch over your shoulder, and hire a girl to come over to distract you so I can take the math formula.
I take the math formula -- did I steal anything?
I'd like to see you convince anyone that YOU came up with the solution. Mathematical proofs don't come down to a simple 25 character formula. There's usually fifty pages explaining why the formula is correct. Furthermore, one cannot own a mathematical proof any more than one can own the Pythagorean Theorem! Your hypothetical situation is ridiculous and totally inapplicable.
We know the Earth's climate has changed many times before human beings even existed. However, it is true you may be able to point to scientists who are not convinced the current Client Change we are experiencing is caused by human activity. Well, that's how science works. Some physicists dispute that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. The important point here is the vast majority of scientists believe Global Warming is happening right now. Only a fool would not act on this because a minority of scientists (some with very dubious political/business connections) take a different view.
There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate. Rebuttal?
I had my identity stolen about 8 years ago. It suuuuuked!...My lesson learned: shread everything.
My solution to identity theft protection is to maintain a mediocre credit history. That way, if my identity is hijacked, they can't do anything with it!
And what's wrong with just screwing around and hoping something comes out?
Nothing. I just wish we didn't have to hear about it until something actually does come out. What we've got here is a dude with a pile of sticky CDs and no actual conclusions. [yawn].
Do yourself a favor.
Go get a copy of Pet Sounds. Listen to it. Better yet, listen to it, particulary to the music rather than the lyrics. Especially track 8 -- God Only Knows.
I'm listening to it right now [cough}kazaa{/cough]. To me it sounds like all their other stuff. Simplistic vocal harmonizations, occasionally sung in rounds, with a weak keyboard, drum kit, and some sort of mouth-popping noise as background music. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be impressed by. I certainly can't see how this stuff could be the inspiration for Sgt. Pepper's. Maybe it's just me. I'm not impressed by the Beatles either. My preferences run towards classical compositions by dead guys. Just bor stodgy and old, I guess.
OK, so "stealing" may be a bit wrong. Let me think of another metaphor. So I trespass onto your real property. Though that's not stealing, it's still trespassing. Is copyright infringement anything like trespassing?
Yes, in fact, trespass is a closer analogy than theft. But "music trespassing" doesn't have the same outrage-inducing, PR spinning, lynch-mob-rousing sound to it that "music theft" does, so I doubt we'll see the RIAA switching to it anytime soon.
you might even throw brian wilson and the beach boys in there too. without the rivalry, the bealtes wouldn't have gotten to where they did, and paul claims brian wilson as one of his major influences and pet sounds as one of his favorite albums.
Yargh...the Beach Boys? The freakin' Beach Boys? How could anyone possibly draw any inspiration from what is essentially a barbershop quartet with drums and guitars? Crom, just listen to the dreck that is ANY of the beach boys songs and the only thing missing is the striped shirts and handlebar mustaches!
Distributing copyrighted material is stealing the license to do so. So, in a meta sense, you are stealing.
No, unauthorized copying of copyrighted works is not stealing in any sense. The exclusive license to authorize copies lies with the copyright holder. Making a copy without permission doesn't change that. If I make one copy, two copies, a thousand copies even, the copyright stays assigned to the original holder. Now, if I managed to fraudulently get the copyright changed into my name, then that would be stealing. Duplication without legal authorization doesn't deprive anyone of property (sales that "could have been" aren't property, by the way) so they simply cannot be called stealing. No amount of word games, such as adding spurious prefixes like meta- or para- or the like, will ever make the words "theft" or "stealing" applicable to copyright infringement.
In other words, copyrighted works aren't property, but the copyrights themselves are, and taking those rights without permission could in a way be thought of as stealing.
No, it can't. If you copy a work I hold the copyright to without my permission you aren't taking the right to copy away. I still have the work registered in my name with the US copyright office. If you managed to fraudulently get the copyright put into your name instead of mine, that would be taking my right to copy away which would indeed be stealing. But that's not the case here, is it? We're talking about unauthorized duplication. Copy it once illegally, copy it twice, copy it a thousand times, and the copyright is still assigned to me. All you have done is infringe upon that copyright. Again, not a property crime, so therefor not stealing. You can try to analogize it or wordplay it any way you want, it will never be stealing because there's no property loss.
You conveniently left out, via the "...", the part where it says "for a limited time".
So did Congress and the Supreme Court. Point?
Touche. While I agree that congress and SCOTUS totally blew chunks there, my point lay elsewhere. What I was trying to get at was that the notion copyright is in itself a means of treating non-tangible works as if they were property. What copyright does is give the creator exclusive license to authorize copying, and it is that license which can be owned. The license is in fact property, which can be owned, sold, rented, etc. The work itself, however, is not property; rather, it becomes a cultural artifact as soon as the creator lets it be heard/read/seen.
Sorry, you are breaking a law. Whether or not you agree with that law doesn't mean you arne't doing it. I disagree with not being able to shoot people in the kneecap for being stupid, but it doesn't mean it is right if I do it.
I'm not argunig that it's right, nor that it isn't a crime. Only that it's not, specifically, the crime of theft. Theft is a property crime, copyright infringement is a different crime altogether.
When the discussion centers common cultural artifacts, maybe I'll give this argument some thought.
If you've heard a song on the radio, or seen a book in the store it is a cultural artifact. The only way to keep it from becoming a cultural artifact is for the creator to never allow anyone else to ever see or hear it. BTW, an "artifact" is just something created that exists-- it doesn't imply great value, if that's what you're thinking. Priceless ancient atrifacts are priceless because they're ancient. The term has become somewhat skewed in many people's minds, it seems.
Funny how the dictionary says that property doesn't have to be tangible.
Funny that o"property", in this sense, is defined as something which can be owned (latin: "proprius" - to own) and that ownership is defined as "the right to exclusive possession". One cannot possess a story, a song, or other such intangible creation. One can, however possess the copyright to said works. It is copyright law that allows such intangibles to enter the market as if they were property, by giving the creator exclusive license to grant license to copy them. It is, in fact, the license which has the status of property, not the work itself.
And you are stealing that monopoly. And it isn't the creator, it is whoever is designated as the copyright holder. You are stealing their copyright title.
Absolutely incorrect. If I were to copy a song off CD, the copyright holder still holds the copyright. By copying the song I have taken possession of nothing from the copyright holder. It would indeed be stealing if I were to unlawfully take possession of the copyright, but that's not what I'm doing, is it? No, the crime I have committed is copyright infringement. The copyright holder still has the exclusive right to license no matter how many copies I make illegally.
It's really very important to understand that property law and copyright law are two totally unrelated things.
But taking them when you aren't allowed to is both morally and legally wrong.
Cripes, man, I never said it was legal and right to infringe upon copyrights! It's also illegal to jaywalk or to shoot somebody, but whether it's jaywalking/murder or property theft/copyright infringement, the two crimes are not the same. As for morality, well that's not an absolute. Morality is simply the overall societal code of conduct. Such things change over time and the laws must change to reflect this. Witness such things as slavery, sodomy, and heresy against the catholic church.
Try the copyright clause. Patent and copyright law "secure[s]... to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries."
You conveniently left out, via the "...", the part where it says "for a limited time". Copyrights are a concession granted to content creators so that they may make a living off their work. The copyright clause doesn't grant the creators works the status of "property", it merely allows the creators to utilize them as if they were property. It's a middle ground struck because of the fact that such created works aren't property.
I propose a new word, that is easier than "Copyright Infringement" and as catchy as "theft" and "stealing"..."e-theft"... "iTheft"... "USTOLE"
Nah, those alternates are no good. They don't effectively differentiate that act of unauthorized copying from that of property theft because they're just minor modifications of the words "theft" and "stole"-- words which imply property crime. You might as well rename it "Filthy-evil-copy-robbing-from-babies-and-grandmas ". "Copyright Infringement" is a complicated term because the whole notion of copyrights is a convoluted balancing act between content creators deserving remuneration and the public's right to freely exchange and expand upon common cultural artifacts. "Theft" and "stealing" are so simple because property rights are based on posession of physical items-- a car, a collection of stamps, a piece of land, etc. Copyright holders don't actual own their creations-- they are part of our cultural environment as soon as they are made publicly available. What copyright is meant to do is give the creator a limited monopoly on the distribution of copies, thus giving them a means of paying the rent. It's really very important to understand that property law and copyright law are two totally unrelated things.
It's hard to argue that they lost thousands and thousands of dollars because a little 12-year old in the projects downloaded some songs
Yeah, it's cases like this that really expose the absurdity of the RIAA trying to equate "intellectual property" with real property and claim billions of dollars in "losses". They can't rationally suggest that this 12 year old kid would have plopped down anywhere near the multi-thousand dollar retail cost of all that music if she hadn't been able to get it free via P2P.
Trespassing, breaking and entering, theft, etc. are all WRONG, regardless of legality
This isn't the issue. While what you say above is certainly a reasonable conclusion, it completely misses the point. The real question is "does typing URLs into a web browser rise to the level of trespassing". It most CERTAINLY doesn't meet the standards of "theft", as the NY Times was not deprived of property by Mr. Lamo's actions (though they may have incurred costs as a result, but that not a property crime). It's a very murky area of the law here, with no firm precedent.
To use the park analogy (see above), this is like the NY Times opening a nice grassy park with playgrounds and benches-- with a fenced off area where the maintenance crew works. Is what Mr.Lamo did equivalent to standing on a park bench next to the fence, looking over and saying "hey! I could jump in there and steal those rakes!"? Or is it more like he actually jumped the fence and trespassed, but stole nothing? The only difference there is in one case he jumped over, in the other he just looked. Is poking around via port 80 more like looking, or more like entering? There's no definitive case law on this kind of stuff yet. It's just not all as simple as you seem to think it is. Until the court weighs in on it, anyone declaring unequivocably that what he did was legal or illegal is just blowing smoke.
If you sit down with a bunch of wood and nails, you could end up with a birdhouse.
If you sit down with a computer and gcc, you could end up with software.
My question is, from the standpoint of commerce, during the copyright term, what is the difference?
The difference is obvious:
-If I take your birdhouse, you are left with no birdhouse, and I have a birdhouse I didn't pay for. That's theft.
-If I copy the software you wrote without permission, I have software I didn't pay you for, but you still have your software. That's copyright infringement.
The first case deprives you of real property, while the second deprives you of nothing. Arguing that you've lost a potential sale of your software to me is as legally spurious a claim as saying that I would have paid for that birdhouse if I hadn't stolen it! You can't claim damages based on an event that might have happened. This is why copyright law and property law are dealt with via totally seperate areas of the law. They simply aren't the same thing. I'm not saying either are legal, by any means; only that they are not directly comparable. Copyright law exists only because the government wishes to encourage the production of such works so as to enrich the public domain. People who make their living selling their right-to-copy are doing so only at the sufferance of the government, and the government may amend the extent of their right to copy an all sorts of ways. Property rights, on the other hand, are the basic rights of all people. Basic rights theory says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Copyrights are a limitation on personal freedom (e.g. my freedom to sing a song in public without paying ASCAP) that are granted to individuals only because the public domain will eventually be enriched when those copyrights expire. To put it bluntly, we the people are doing content creators a favor by allowing them copyrights, whereas the prohibition on stealing your birdhouse is based on our essential liberties as human beings. See the distinction?
And by law copyright infringement is ILLEGAL. What don't you understand about that?
I'm not arguing that it's legal to infringe upon copyrights, only that attempts to frame such infringement as "theft" lend strength to attempts to extend copyrights in perpetuity.
Whether it can be equated to theft or not is irrelevant to the debate
[sigh]....It is quite relevant. See my post here.
And believe me, I'm as tired of having to weigh in on this over and over as you are. I will, however, continue to do so as I see it as a very important aspect of the debate.
So, in what way is that form of copyright infringement any different morally from theft?
This isn't an issue of morality, it's an issue of law. Some people think killing an animal is as morally wrong as killing a person, but we don't send people to jail for life for running over a cat.
But both theft and copyright infringement are still illegal, correct?
Certainly, but equating theft with copyright infringement lends strength to the industry's attempts to extend copyrights in perpetuity. According to the constitution, copyrights are for a limited time. Property rights never expire. This is the distinction I want to be clear.
It seems that whenever someone says "stealing mp3's," someone else jumps out and says "It's not 'stealing!'"
Notice they don't deny that it's wrong, or that it's taking something without paying for it, or acquiring something they didn't earn and don't deserve - they just want some props for picking up on a ridiculously trivial legal technicality.
Argh. It's not a "trivial legal technicality". It's the crux of the greater copyright battle. Copyrights are, as stated in the freakin' constitution, suposed to be a monopoly on the right to copy a work for a limited time. Attempts to frame copyright infringement in terms of "theft" and "stealing" are an effort to justify the perpetual extension of copyright. Ownership rights to real property do not expire. Copyrights do expire (or they SHOULD, at least). Equating copyright with property right lends legitimacy to the perpetual extension of copyrights, which I think is wrong. Look, I'm sick of the whole back-and-forth of this argument too, but I see it as an important distinction. Accepting the "theft" word in debate on the issue would be like accepting the term "filthy vicious foreigners" as legitimate in a debate about immigration. The words people use are important. As long as people spout the "copying=theft" line, I'm going to continue to correct them because they're wrong and I think it's an important issue. I'm sorry it bothers you.
So then what is the practical difference between having exclusive rights to distribute something and actually owning it? This really ammuses me, because there is no practical difference.
There is a practical difference. "Ownership" is the legal right to posession of a physical object- a car, a box of nails, a plot of land. You cannot take physical posession of a song, a story, or an idea. That's why we have copyright and patent law in the first place! The recasting of unauthorized copying into "theft" or "stealing" are attempts to subvert the stated intent of copyright law: monopoly on copying for a limited time. It's in the damned US Constitution, for crying out loud! The power to exercise this limited monopoly is a protection granted by the government to enrich the public domain, whereas the right to own property is a basic right. The two are totally unrelated, despite efforts to equivocate "intellectual property" with "real property". The term "intellectual property" was concoted in the mid 19th century as a propaganda tool by copyright holders to get further extensions in copyrights! In short, whether you find it amusing or not, the two are not the same thing.
It's theft. It's sad that it took the RIAA prosecuting people to wake up the mass market to the facts even after years of telling people it was theft.
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT THEFT. "Theft" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was lawfully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal. You can argue that it's "as bad as theft" all day if you want and I won't care, but claiming copyright infringement is the same as theft is moronic. This stuff is all defined by law, and by law copyright infringement is NOT THEFT. What don't you understand about that?
despite what some people here might like to think, it is stealing.
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING. "Stealing" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was laefully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal.
Ignorace of the law has never been a defense. It is the responsibility of each citizen (in pretty much any country) to determine whether a course of action is legal or not.
Re-read the parent post. He's not arguing the "ignorance of the law" angle. He's arguing "ignorance of the status of the MP3". Say I download a song titled "MC Chuck-A-Luck-gimme dat baby.mp3" under the assumption that it's been released for free download by MC ChuckALuck, the copyright owner, because he's released a lot of songs that way. But, uh-oh! "gimme dat baby" is the first track off his new album, and somebody else ripped it from CD. Am I to be expected to somehow know this? Or am I not supposed to download anything without a signed permission slip from the copyright holder, my mother, and a priest/rabbi? Passing counterfeit money is a crime too, but no one who does it unknowingly is ever punished, because they didn't know it was counterfeit. Claiming "ignorance of the law" would be saying "I thought passing counterfeit money was legal". Same with MP3's, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
Absolute nonsense! The ability to physically control copying of the work is lost as soon as the creator sells the first copy. From then on, the copyright holder NEVER has the "ability to moderate distribution" in any physical sense. Your argument that rampant copying is taking the exclusive license to copy away is absurd. The exclusive right to copy still lies with the copyright holder. That right is granted by the copyright office. Unauthorized copying does not affect that right in any way whatsoever. It diminishes the benefit of that right, but the right remains.
Hypothetical situation: You write a blisteringly genius hypothesis on a math formula that consists of 25 characters. I watch over your shoulder, and hire a girl to come over to distract you so I can take the math formula. I take the math formula -- did I steal anything?
I'd like to see you convince anyone that YOU came up with the solution. Mathematical proofs don't come down to a simple 25 character formula. There's usually fifty pages explaining why the formula is correct. Furthermore, one cannot own a mathematical proof any more than one can own the Pythagorean Theorem! Your hypothetical situation is ridiculous and totally inapplicable.
There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate. Rebuttal?
My solution to identity theft protection is to maintain a mediocre credit history. That way, if my identity is hijacked, they can't do anything with it!
Nothing. I just wish we didn't have to hear about it until something actually does come out. What we've got here is a dude with a pile of sticky CDs and no actual conclusions. [yawn].
Can't be for call centers. How do the mindless drones take down my credit card info when they can't see?
I'm listening to it right now [cough}kazaa{/cough]. To me it sounds like all their other stuff. Simplistic vocal harmonizations, occasionally sung in rounds, with a weak keyboard, drum kit, and some sort of mouth-popping noise as background music. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be impressed by. I certainly can't see how this stuff could be the inspiration for Sgt. Pepper's. Maybe it's just me. I'm not impressed by the Beatles either. My preferences run towards classical compositions by dead guys. Just bor stodgy and old, I guess.
Yes, in fact, trespass is a closer analogy than theft. But "music trespassing" doesn't have the same outrage-inducing, PR spinning, lynch-mob-rousing sound to it that "music theft" does, so I doubt we'll see the RIAA switching to it anytime soon.
Dude, Carl Sagan was a TOTAL shitheel. I admire some of the man's work, but as a person he sure was a pompous, arrogant, self-important jerk.
Yargh...the Beach Boys? The freakin' Beach Boys? How could anyone possibly draw any inspiration from what is essentially a barbershop quartet with drums and guitars? Crom, just listen to the dreck that is ANY of the beach boys songs and the only thing missing is the striped shirts and handlebar mustaches!
No, unauthorized copying of copyrighted works is not stealing in any sense. The exclusive license to authorize copies lies with the copyright holder. Making a copy without permission doesn't change that. If I make one copy, two copies, a thousand copies even, the copyright stays assigned to the original holder. Now, if I managed to fraudulently get the copyright changed into my name, then that would be stealing. Duplication without legal authorization doesn't deprive anyone of property (sales that "could have been" aren't property, by the way) so they simply cannot be called stealing. No amount of word games, such as adding spurious prefixes like meta- or para- or the like, will ever make the words "theft" or "stealing" applicable to copyright infringement.
No, it can't. If you copy a work I hold the copyright to without my permission you aren't taking the right to copy away. I still have the work registered in my name with the US copyright office. If you managed to fraudulently get the copyright put into your name instead of mine, that would be taking my right to copy away which would indeed be stealing. But that's not the case here, is it? We're talking about unauthorized duplication. Copy it once illegally, copy it twice, copy it a thousand times, and the copyright is still assigned to me. All you have done is infringe upon that copyright. Again, not a property crime, so therefor not stealing. You can try to analogize it or wordplay it any way you want, it will never be stealing because there's no property loss.
So did Congress and the Supreme Court. Point?
Touche. While I agree that congress and SCOTUS totally blew chunks there, my point lay elsewhere. What I was trying to get at was that the notion copyright is in itself a means of treating non-tangible works as if they were property. What copyright does is give the creator exclusive license to authorize copying, and it is that license which can be owned. The license is in fact property, which can be owned, sold, rented, etc. The work itself, however, is not property; rather, it becomes a cultural artifact as soon as the creator lets it be heard/read/seen.
I'm not argunig that it's right, nor that it isn't a crime. Only that it's not, specifically, the crime of theft. Theft is a property crime, copyright infringement is a different crime altogether.
When the discussion centers common cultural artifacts, maybe I'll give this argument some thought.
If you've heard a song on the radio, or seen a book in the store it is a cultural artifact. The only way to keep it from becoming a cultural artifact is for the creator to never allow anyone else to ever see or hear it. BTW, an "artifact" is just something created that exists-- it doesn't imply great value, if that's what you're thinking. Priceless ancient atrifacts are priceless because they're ancient. The term has become somewhat skewed in many people's minds, it seems.
Funny how the dictionary says that property doesn't have to be tangible.
Funny that o"property", in this sense, is defined as something which can be owned (latin: "proprius" - to own) and that ownership is defined as "the right to exclusive possession". One cannot possess a story, a song, or other such intangible creation. One can, however possess the copyright to said works. It is copyright law that allows such intangibles to enter the market as if they were property, by giving the creator exclusive license to grant license to copy them. It is, in fact, the license which has the status of property, not the work itself.
And you are stealing that monopoly. And it isn't the creator, it is whoever is designated as the copyright holder. You are stealing their copyright title.
Absolutely incorrect. If I were to copy a song off CD, the copyright holder still holds the copyright. By copying the song I have taken possession of nothing from the copyright holder. It would indeed be stealing if I were to unlawfully take possession of the copyright, but that's not what I'm doing, is it? No, the crime I have committed is copyright infringement. The copyright holder still has the exclusive right to license no matter how many copies I make illegally.
It's really very important to understand that property law and copyright law are two totally unrelated things.
But taking them when you aren't allowed to is both morally and legally wrong.
Cripes, man, I never said it was legal and right to infringe upon copyrights! It's also illegal to jaywalk or to shoot somebody, but whether it's jaywalking/murder or property theft/copyright infringement, the two crimes are not the same. As for morality, well that's not an absolute. Morality is simply the overall societal code of conduct. Such things change over time and the laws must change to reflect this. Witness such things as slavery, sodomy, and heresy against the catholic church.
You conveniently left out, via the "...", the part where it says "for a limited time". Copyrights are a concession granted to content creators so that they may make a living off their work. The copyright clause doesn't grant the creators works the status of "property", it merely allows the creators to utilize them as if they were property. It's a middle ground struck because of the fact that such created works aren't property.
Nah, those alternates are no good. They don't effectively differentiate that act of unauthorized copying from that of property theft because they're just minor modifications of the words "theft" and "stole"-- words which imply property crime. You might as well rename it "Filthy-evil-copy-robbing-from-babies-and-grandmas ". "Copyright Infringement" is a complicated term because the whole notion of copyrights is a convoluted balancing act between content creators deserving remuneration and the public's right to freely exchange and expand upon common cultural artifacts. "Theft" and "stealing" are so simple because property rights are based on posession of physical items-- a car, a collection of stamps, a piece of land, etc. Copyright holders don't actual own their creations-- they are part of our cultural environment as soon as they are made publicly available. What copyright is meant to do is give the creator a limited monopoly on the distribution of copies, thus giving them a means of paying the rent. It's really very important to understand that property law and copyright law are two totally unrelated things.
Yeah, it's cases like this that really expose the absurdity of the RIAA trying to equate "intellectual property" with real property and claim billions of dollars in "losses". They can't rationally suggest that this 12 year old kid would have plopped down anywhere near the multi-thousand dollar retail cost of all that music if she hadn't been able to get it free via P2P.
This isn't the issue. While what you say above is certainly a reasonable conclusion, it completely misses the point. The real question is "does typing URLs into a web browser rise to the level of trespassing". It most CERTAINLY doesn't meet the standards of "theft", as the NY Times was not deprived of property by Mr. Lamo's actions (though they may have incurred costs as a result, but that not a property crime). It's a very murky area of the law here, with no firm precedent.
To use the park analogy (see above), this is like the NY Times opening a nice grassy park with playgrounds and benches-- with a fenced off area where the maintenance crew works. Is what Mr.Lamo did equivalent to standing on a park bench next to the fence, looking over and saying "hey! I could jump in there and steal those rakes!"? Or is it more like he actually jumped the fence and trespassed, but stole nothing? The only difference there is in one case he jumped over, in the other he just looked. Is poking around via port 80 more like looking, or more like entering? There's no definitive case law on this kind of stuff yet. It's just not all as simple as you seem to think it is. Until the court weighs in on it, anyone declaring unequivocably that what he did was legal or illegal is just blowing smoke.
If you sit down with a computer and gcc, you could end up with software.
My question is, from the standpoint of commerce, during the copyright term, what is the difference?
The difference is obvious:
-If I take your birdhouse, you are left with no birdhouse, and I have a birdhouse I didn't pay for. That's theft.
-If I copy the software you wrote without permission, I have software I didn't pay you for, but you still have your software. That's copyright infringement.
The first case deprives you of real property, while the second deprives you of nothing. Arguing that you've lost a potential sale of your software to me is as legally spurious a claim as saying that I would have paid for that birdhouse if I hadn't stolen it! You can't claim damages based on an event that might have happened. This is why copyright law and property law are dealt with via totally seperate areas of the law. They simply aren't the same thing. I'm not saying either are legal, by any means; only that they are not directly comparable. Copyright law exists only because the government wishes to encourage the production of such works so as to enrich the public domain. People who make their living selling their right-to-copy are doing so only at the sufferance of the government, and the government may amend the extent of their right to copy an all sorts of ways. Property rights, on the other hand, are the basic rights of all people. Basic rights theory says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Copyrights are a limitation on personal freedom (e.g. my freedom to sing a song in public without paying ASCAP) that are granted to individuals only because the public domain will eventually be enriched when those copyrights expire. To put it bluntly, we the people are doing content creators a favor by allowing them copyrights, whereas the prohibition on stealing your birdhouse is based on our essential liberties as human beings. See the distinction?
I'm not arguing that it's legal to infringe upon copyrights, only that attempts to frame such infringement as "theft" lend strength to attempts to extend copyrights in perpetuity.
Whether it can be equated to theft or not is irrelevant to the debate
[sigh]....It is quite relevant. See my post here.
And believe me, I'm as tired of having to weigh in on this over and over as you are. I will, however, continue to do so as I see it as a very important aspect of the debate.
So, in what way is that form of copyright infringement any different morally from theft?
This isn't an issue of morality, it's an issue of law. Some people think killing an animal is as morally wrong as killing a person, but we don't send people to jail for life for running over a cat.
Certainly, but equating theft with copyright infringement lends strength to the industry's attempts to extend copyrights in perpetuity. According to the constitution, copyrights are for a limited time. Property rights never expire. This is the distinction I want to be clear.
Argh. It's not a "trivial legal technicality". It's the crux of the greater copyright battle. Copyrights are, as stated in the freakin' constitution, suposed to be a monopoly on the right to copy a work for a limited time. Attempts to frame copyright infringement in terms of "theft" and "stealing" are an effort to justify the perpetual extension of copyright. Ownership rights to real property do not expire. Copyrights do expire (or they SHOULD, at least). Equating copyright with property right lends legitimacy to the perpetual extension of copyrights, which I think is wrong. Look, I'm sick of the whole back-and-forth of this argument too, but I see it as an important distinction. Accepting the "theft" word in debate on the issue would be like accepting the term "filthy vicious foreigners" as legitimate in a debate about immigration. The words people use are important. As long as people spout the "copying=theft" line, I'm going to continue to correct them because they're wrong and I think it's an important issue. I'm sorry it bothers you.
There is a practical difference. "Ownership" is the legal right to posession of a physical object- a car, a box of nails, a plot of land. You cannot take physical posession of a song, a story, or an idea. That's why we have copyright and patent law in the first place! The recasting of unauthorized copying into "theft" or "stealing" are attempts to subvert the stated intent of copyright law: monopoly on copying for a limited time. It's in the damned US Constitution, for crying out loud! The power to exercise this limited monopoly is a protection granted by the government to enrich the public domain, whereas the right to own property is a basic right. The two are totally unrelated, despite efforts to equivocate "intellectual property" with "real property". The term "intellectual property" was concoted in the mid 19th century as a propaganda tool by copyright holders to get further extensions in copyrights! In short, whether you find it amusing or not, the two are not the same thing.
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT THEFT. "Theft" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was lawfully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal. You can argue that it's "as bad as theft" all day if you want and I won't care, but claiming copyright infringement is the same as theft is moronic. This stuff is all defined by law, and by law copyright infringement is NOT THEFT. What don't you understand about that?
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING. "Stealing" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was laefully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal.
Re-read the parent post. He's not arguing the "ignorance of the law" angle. He's arguing "ignorance of the status of the MP3". Say I download a song titled "MC Chuck-A-Luck-gimme dat baby.mp3" under the assumption that it's been released for free download by MC ChuckALuck, the copyright owner, because he's released a lot of songs that way. But, uh-oh! "gimme dat baby" is the first track off his new album, and somebody else ripped it from CD. Am I to be expected to somehow know this? Or am I not supposed to download anything without a signed permission slip from the copyright holder, my mother, and a priest/rabbi? Passing counterfeit money is a crime too, but no one who does it unknowingly is ever punished, because they didn't know it was counterfeit. Claiming "ignorance of the law" would be saying "I thought passing counterfeit money was legal". Same with MP3's, yes?