Webster's NewWorld Dictionary, 2nd College Edition: steal: 1. to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner.
Cambridge International Dictionary of English
steal:
to take (something) without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it
The boys were charged with stealing bikes from a house in Summerhill Rd. [T]
The number of cars which are stolen every year has risen considerably. [T]
She came home to find she'd had her TV and video stolen (=someone had stolen them). [T]
When the book was published we found that the author had stolen several of our ideas. [T]
The firm is now accusing a small band of its former employees of stealing trade secrets. [T]
They were so hungry they had to steal in order to eat. [I]
He has been convicted of stealing. [I]
Will you now admit that the word 'steal' can be accurately used to describe the misappropriation of something other than physical property; and, to wit, copyrighted digital music?
The **AA wants to cast the discussion in terms of "stealing", knowing it is inaccurate, because the gut reaction is based on the assumption that the owner no longer posesses the stolen object(s). Their arguments would (rightly) carry much less weight if they were properly couched in terms of "illegal copying" or "copyright infringement."
Yes, both are wrong, but using accurate terms is important in putting the debate in its proper perspective. IMHO, "stealing" is a far graver offense than "illegal copying."
Okay, I see the bone of contention here: you think that 'copyright infringement' is a much less serious offense than theft. I disagree; I believe that they are essentially equivalent, since their practical outcomes are the same (in this instance,) and hence I have no problem equating the two.
For example, whether you download Britney's latest album, or you steal one from the distributor, the upshot is the same: you now have something for which you have not paid. The worth of the physical item is negligible; it is the content that holds the value. Whether it's called stealing or 'illegal copying' is irrelevant outside of the legal arena.
Your distinction between copyright infringement and theft is technically accurate; but it is a distinction without a difference. Nobody has argued that the labels have been deprived of tangible goods. We are discussing the moral and ethical ramifications of music traders illegally obtaining something that they do not have a right to, not whether the labels are losing physical assets.
In this context, I believe that it is useful and fair to refer to the trader's activity as stealing, even though it is not precisely accurate.
Look, if it is so cheap and easy to create and distribute music without the labels, then why don't we see anything coming out of any other channels? If you are right, then why are artists still signing contracts with the labels, if they have an alternative that will both make them more free, and make them more money to boot? Until we see a robust alternative (legal) distribution channel, your argument carries no weight.
Well, we're playing word games here. Of course you could say "To obtain CD, I am FORCED to pay for it," or, for that matter, "for me to make money, my boss forces me to work." You can shoehorn the word 'force' into any scenario wherein you want something, but to get it you have to give something else in return. But as long we're not talking about necessities, you can't equate it with the force that the government threatens or uses to compel us to pay taxes, for instance.
The difference is that in buying a CD, you make a choice to voluntarily enter an agreement wherein you give something of value (money) to get something of greater value to you (N'Sync's Greatest Hits) in return. If you feel that what you are getting is worth less than what you are giving up, you have the right to not enter the agreement in the first place. You have a choice, and that's why using the word 'force' here is meaningless hyperbole.
I agree, however, that the RIAA should not be given the rights proposed in this bill.
That word, you keep using it, I don't think it means what you think it means.
That's some of the most convoluted logic I have ever encountered. Words mean things, my friend, and the word 'force' most certainly does not mean what you are trying to make it mean.
In the sense that you are illegally obtaining for free something that you would otherwise have had to pay for, it is stealing. Perhaps not in the precise legal definition, but close enough in discussing the moral and ethical ramifications.
And the companies do create something; they fund the creation and distribution of music. Whether or not there are better models to bring this about is not the issue.
I agree with you that this bill goes too far in giving the RIAA unprecendented power; I am no fan of the RIAA or its business practices. But the suggestion that it is justifiable to steal (or violate copyright, whatever) nonessential goods because you disagree with the RIAA's business model is simply indefensible.
I will not defend them for price fixing; nor will I suggest that they are not greedy bastards. As far as lobbying goes, I posit that this is a major flaw in our (US) democratic process; and the problem lies with the politicians, not the lobbyists.
What I am saying is that the "They aren't playing fair, neither should we" mentality is childish and immoral in the case of nonessential goods. If you don't like their prices, don't buy their products, plain and simple. Take your ball and go home. Nobody is FORCING you to play their game.
This common misinterpretation of the Robin Hood story is often trotted out to justify all sorts of
bad behavior. The misconception is in the idea that the story suggests it is inherently just to 'take from the rich to give to the poor.' This is not so; the story of Robin Hood deals specifically with a corrupt government which taxed, under threat of force, its citizens into poverty. Robin Hood and his merry band's mission was to take from the government and give back to the citizens, to whom the money belonged in the first place.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that it is morally justifiable to steal from someone simply because you think their asking price is too high. This position is indefensible.
Perhaps you should read the article. Galileo's leaning tower experiment is the second one listed.
Geesh. When you're doing the condescension bit, it helps to have your facts straight.
VW has a turbo diesel that gets around that mileage (42 city/ 49 highway), in both the Golf TDI & Jetta TDI, I think. I'm surprised that the hybrid doesn't do any better than that.
Slashdot Mirror
As you can see, my prefered method is just to be right. (Your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.)
steal: 1. to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner.
Cambridge International Dictionary of English
steal : to take (something) without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it
- The boys were charged with stealing bikes from a house in Summerhill Rd. [T]
- The number of cars which are stolen every year has risen considerably. [T]
- She came home to find she'd had her TV and video stolen (=someone had stolen them). [T]
- When the book was published we found that the author had stolen several of our ideas. [T]
- The firm is now accusing a small band of its former employees of stealing trade secrets. [T]
- They were so hungry they had to steal in order to eat. [I]
- He has been convicted of stealing. [I]
Will you now admit that the word 'steal' can be accurately used to describe the misappropriation of something other than physical property; and, to wit, copyrighted digital music?Yes, both are wrong, but using accurate terms is important in putting the debate in its proper perspective. IMHO, "stealing" is a far graver offense than "illegal copying."
Okay, I see the bone of contention here: you think that 'copyright infringement' is a much less serious offense than theft. I disagree; I believe that they are essentially equivalent, since their practical outcomes are the same (in this instance,) and hence I have no problem equating the two.
For example, whether you download Britney's latest album, or you steal one from the distributor, the upshot is the same: you now have something for which you have not paid. The worth of the physical item is negligible; it is the content that holds the value. Whether it's called stealing or 'illegal copying' is irrelevant outside of the legal arena.
Your distinction between copyright infringement and theft is technically accurate; but it is a distinction without a difference. Nobody has argued that the labels have been deprived of tangible goods. We are discussing the moral and ethical ramifications of music traders illegally obtaining something that they do not have a right to, not whether the labels are losing physical assets. In this context, I believe that it is useful and fair to refer to the trader's activity as stealing, even though it is not precisely accurate.
Look, if it is so cheap and easy to create and distribute music without the labels, then why don't we see anything coming out of any other channels? If you are right, then why are artists still signing contracts with the labels, if they have an alternative that will both make them more free, and make them more money to boot? Until we see a robust alternative (legal) distribution channel, your argument carries no weight.
The difference is that in buying a CD, you make a choice to voluntarily enter an agreement wherein you give something of value (money) to get something of greater value to you (N'Sync's Greatest Hits) in return. If you feel that what you are getting is worth less than what you are giving up, you have the right to not enter the agreement in the first place. You have a choice, and that's why using the word 'force' here is meaningless hyperbole.
I agree, however, that the RIAA should not be given the rights proposed in this bill.
I'm sorry if I've offended you; I was only trying to have a reasonable discussion.
Perhaps, in the future, you should not share controversial views if you want to avoid having them challenged.
That's some of the most convoluted logic I have ever encountered. Words mean things, my friend, and the word 'force' most certainly does not mean what you are trying to make it mean.
And the companies do create something; they fund the creation and distribution of music. Whether or not there are better models to bring this about is not the issue.
I agree with you that this bill goes too far in giving the RIAA unprecendented power; I am no fan of the RIAA or its business practices. But the suggestion that it is justifiable to steal (or violate copyright, whatever) nonessential goods because you disagree with the RIAA's business model is simply indefensible.
Explain the FORCE they are exerting upon you.
I will not defend them for price fixing; nor will I suggest that they are not greedy bastards. As far as lobbying goes, I posit that this is a major flaw in our (US) democratic process; and the problem lies with the politicians, not the lobbyists.
What I am saying is that the "They aren't playing fair, neither should we" mentality is childish and immoral in the case of nonessential goods. If you don't like their prices, don't buy their products, plain and simple. Take your ball and go home. Nobody is FORCING you to play their game.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that it is morally justifiable to steal from someone simply because you think their asking price is too high. This position is indefensible.
Perhaps you should read the article. Galileo's leaning tower experiment is the second one listed. Geesh. When you're doing the condescension bit, it helps to have your facts straight.
VW has a turbo diesel that gets around that mileage (42 city/ 49 highway), in both the Golf TDI & Jetta TDI, I think. I'm surprised that the hybrid doesn't do any better than that.
Did anyone else get the impression that these answers only corresponded to the questions in a shallow, 'keyword' kind of way?