The point of the GPL is to respect the owner's wishes. The point of copyright is to enforce the owner's wish. The point that file sharers make is the hell with the owner's wishes. Nope same fish.
Piracy is like printing your own money and depositing it in the bank.
So piracy is like the bank testing the money you attempted to deposit and calling the treasury department, and you wind up in "pounding in the ass" prison. Damn I prefer being sued...;)
If a producer wants customers, the burden is on the producer to price their products at a level that people are willing to pay.
What you say is true up to a point. The customer can always choose to do without, and wait for it to go on clearance sale. Theft or copyright infringement is not a valid option.
What I'm about to say doesn't reflect badly on you (unless you decide it does), but you did bring up the point about value and price:
I find that the music price argument generally rings hollow. Most people I have observed making this statement just spent $5 for coffee that will soon turn to piss, yet couldn't bear with spending $0.99 or even $0.75 for a song that would last a lot longer.
It always baffles me when people say they can't find even slightly obscure music until I remember that I live in an awesome culture bubble; I grew up with both a very good new music and excellent used music store right in town, and could double or triple both numbers by driving an extra 10-15 minutes to the nearest (very small) city.
Sadly, I recently drove past a music store of my youth that had all the obscure LPs - The name is the same except for the part that said "records" now says "coffee", and I didn't see any mention of music or any music playing (other than radio).
If you weren't planning to buy it, why would you want a copy of it? If you wanted to have the item, then you actually desired to obtain it thus ethically obligated to purchase the item. Assuming that depriving the street vendors is somehow ethical because (1) You really didn't want it, but you're an apparent cleptomanic and (2) you left the original item with the vendor so he continues to have a chance to sale it. Unfortunately, if everyone had the same ethics as you then he would never make a sale. Oh yea I forgot, depriving income somehow escapes the ethical delima yet the mythical right to posess everything is always assumed in these arguments.
Oh you you didn't mention a street vendor. So you found it on the street! But why did you feel compelled to leave the original? If you took the physical form with you then you would be more PC correct by picking up someone else's litter. (Well the GP mentioned a music store).
Somehow the easy concept of respecting the wishes of the owner/creator is always ignored. I mean you used the word ethics right?
I'm not saying the current copyright situation isn't fucked up. Just look on both sides. On one side you have the cartel performing draconian feats to maintain its control, and the other side believes that copyright should not really exist except of course if it benefits them...
Example: All software needs to be free, Music sharing is ok because it is really not theft in the physical sense, and fuck Tivo for violating the spirit of the GPL. This is what a stereotypical slashdotter believes, while (as a wiseman from sesame street once said) one of the three is not like the other, one of the three just does not belong.
Now if twisting logic and using lawyer speak to convince yourself that you are not doing anything wrong makes you feel better, then no amount of reasoning will make you change your mind. We humans are greedy creatures so I expect no less. Just don't expect that your logic to hold true outside the realm of your personal space.
The iPhone must already must be a success. Otherwise, why would their be so much effort to distribute so much FUD?
Why would I not be able to check my corporate email with an iPhone? According to Apple it will have the Safari web browser built-in, and I could browse the web. I could even check my email using the corporate outlook website (which BTW is one of the only ways to check mail away from the office). And I don't have to ask permission on what device or web browser to use to access the website.
People must be envious of Apple users lately. I can't go a day without reading an article here on slashdot that was spawned out of obvious envy for the platform. I can't blame them since nothing generate page hits like a good old-fashion holy war. Oh and don't get me started on how many "I'm not buying an iPhone" comments that are being posted (even more as I type this comment!).
So you're not buying an iPhone... I don't care. I'm not running out to buy one either, but I'm sure there are people who are and more power to them. Now if I was really into IPods, I might consider purchasing an IPOD with 8GB it would put me back $250, and to buy a new unlocked phone with bluetooth is $250.. or I can get a iPhone for the same cost (of course I would have a stupid 2 year contract). Sure it's a flimsy argument, but who am I to tell other people how to spend their money. Personally, I think the iPhone is a fine product in its own right, and probably worth every penny. At least more likely than any of the $999 and higher mobile PC spawned from Sony or (gasp) Microsoft's Origami project.
Besides I wasted similar amounts of time and money on a Zaurus, Palm Pilot, PSP, and other gadgets that I thought would be fun to have around. I don't remember anyone being as vocal about not buying any of them. Hell, the Zaurus was recommended solely on the premise that it ran Linux.
Amusingly, this is not necessarily true. The cell phone's 'multirole' function also includes a data connection to the internet. This gives it some interesting flexibility that a TomTom does not have, especially with regard to things like traffic updates or use with other applications. That's not to say that TomTom doesn't have its plus sides, but "better performer" is a judgement solely left up to the beholder.
You obviously don't get around much;)
A co-worker friend of mine brought his brand new GPS phone from Verizon with him on our recent trip to New Mexico. During some off-time, we decided to take a road trip around New Mexico. The navigational system was totally useless. If you were not on Verizon's network, you had no navigation available (not even GPS coordinates or heading). Being in New Mexico, We had no navigation available. This is despite the fact that we still had phone service on someone else's network.
Anyone who seriously believes that a GPS phone is anything remotely useful as a Garmin or TomTom is delusional at best...
And as the parent poster, I must admit I'm saying this on a Dell 9100 XP Pro getting ready to buy *drool* one of the new Macbook Pro's, and I run Solaris for my servers. *sigh* All u*x desktops, other than Apple, look way to clunky to me.
Man you got me all confused. First you post something that argues against Apple, and now you drooling for one...
Should any OS be a Linux fan's nightmare? Why should we care? I recently switch to Mac OS X and I have no complaints... Oh maybe that is what you mean, an OS that is feature complete (joke. Well... a little joke... OK maybe it's too close to the truth..). I did switch when I bought my MacBook Pro and am currently happy with my choice.
My point is that I still use Linux for work and I do contribute to the OSS effort when my employer allows, and I don't think Linux has many outside threats. I do think it has some internal ones, but they seem to be fading away.
I don't care if you use Linux, Windows, Mac OS, etc., but I am amused to see people with no lives that do care what other people use.
1)... 2)...
FUD. Others on this thread have already done a decent job countering those...
Linux shall set you free, Apple will only drag you into Job's reality distortion field.
It looks like someone is in a distortion field, and this time I don't thinks it belongs to Jobs...
Seriously, stop drinking the bong water. Lighten up a little, and stop trying to get "street cred" by mouthing off nonsense.
By piracy I mean counterfeit goods, not the sharing of files between friends.
While copying something instead of buying it is basically theft, it should continued to be treated as a civil offense and not a criminal offense. I'll even say that most small distributions among a small number (let's say less than 10) of personal friends should be left alone.
BC/Universal general counsel Rick Cotton suggests that society wastes entirely too much money policing crimes like burglary, fraud, and bank-robbing, when it should be doing something about piracy instead. 'Our law enforcement resources are seriously misaligned,' Cotton said. 'If you add up all the various kinds of property crimes in this country, everything from theft, to fraud, to burglary, bank-robbing, all of it, it costs the country $16 billion a year. But intellectual property crime runs to hundreds of billions [of dollars] a year.'
Let's not confuse crimes like burglary and bank-robbing which places innocent victims in danger, with file sharing which has no public safety issues that I know about.
I will say that piracy should be a crime, but I think our law enforcement has too much on their plate with keeping us safe than worry about who's stupid enough to copy a movie like "Next".
First of all, Excellent Post! I pretty much agree with everything you said. I just have one minor nit-pick:
If you're live-broadcasting an event, the NCAA is likely to get its feathers ruffled, and not allow you to do it. This is not the government...
While it is true that the NCAA is not the government, many of its members are state government owned entities. Most of these events (especially in the SEC) are played on state property and using state resources (electricity, labor, etc.). Granted all expenses are paid by the licensing fees and ticket sales, and I do believe it is to the tax payer's benefit to have these restrictions enforced to guarrantee a return in the state's investment.
Basically, my only gripe is that we start thinking of state institutions as private enterprises which they are not. Otherwise, good post.
One last thing, It is a shame that the NCAA can't work with the local press over blog access. College baseball coverage is hard to come by outside of championship games...
I think the ultimate goal of these "laptops for poor third world children" is not education, but to provide access to western ideas with the hope that the next generation will become more westernized than the previous one. Education is gravy...
According to the most recent Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS), the U.S. aluminum industry consumed about 727 trillion Btu of energy in 1994 (including electricity losses). This amount represents slightly less than 1% of domestic energy use and 2-3% of all U.S. manufacturing energy use.
Not to mention, Alcoa states (http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/environment/climat e_change/climate_overview.asp)
Primarily. The cost of developers and system administrators. You can do away with the overwhelming majority of both.
Why would you need developers to run the applications that a typical office use? I can see if it was some vertical software solution, but that would be in-house anyway. Most wordprocessors and spreadsheets come ready to install and use.
At my workplace most of our effort is in network security and availability, Web applications would actually make their job even more critical (no network, no work).
First of all, people are not property so property laws shouldn't apply. Secondly, if property laws did apply, the courts would use the strongest law, so why would they charge someone of "theft of life" when murder has a stronger and more appropriate penalty? Besided who said that murder can't be defined as "theft of life"?
Sorry I hit submit instead of preview... Let me continue:
Continuing on the thread of appropriate punishment, just because a crime can be classified as something else, doesn't mean the prosecutor will use it. Sometimes the prosecution will use a lesser crime when circumstances warrant it. Eg. Manslaughter instead of murder.
One could say that even though Copyright Infringement can be considered theft, they have a more appropriate charge of "copyright infringment."
Furthermore, EVEN if we would take your premise as true, and consider it 'theft of revenue', than still one would have to prove that revenue was lost because of the copying. After all, it's fully possible that someone copies something, that he otherwise would never have bought. If he never would have bought it, the company can not claim they lost any revenue because of his copying. You can not convict someone of 'potential thievery'.
I just want to make sure I understand your argument. It shouldn't be considered theft, if the thief was not going to purchase it anyway. hmmm.. sounds flawed.
I can hear it now, "Your honor my client should be found innocent due to the fact that he would never have purchased the item legally anyway!"... ROTFL good one!
But would he have had an additional sale if that copy hadn't been made? After all, it's quite possible that Stan would not have bought the song if he had to pay for it. So, even when accepting your premise (which is debatable on itself), it is far from certain that it is actual theft.
So is shoplifting not theft because the shoplifter would not have purchased the item anyway? (By the way, my premise seems to be accepted practice, so it would be your premise that is debatable. If you want to use semantics, use them correctly )
That's subjective semantic interpretation of what constitutes theft. One could as wel say murder is 'theft of life'. The courts don't condemn you for theft though, but for murder in that case. The same is true for copyright-infringement and all your other examples.
First of all, people are not property so property laws shouldn't apply. Secondly, if property laws did apply, the courts would use the strongest law, so why would they charge someone of "theft of life" when murder has a stronger and more appropriate penalty? Besided who said that murder can't be defined as "theft of life"?
hmmm... so pretty much anything illegal sounds like theft if you try hard enough. After all, pretty much anything illegal boils down to harming others by depriving them of some object, right, or state of being or mind. And 'depriving someone of something' sounds a lot like 'theft'.
Just because someone doesn't want to be thought of as a thief, doesn't make him not one...
Merriam-Webster dictionary states:
Theft - Etymology: Middle English thief the, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property 2 obsolete : something stolen 3 : a stolen base in baseball
So you (and others) gravitate to the 1.a. definition, while the 1.b. definition still applies. When you copy copyrighted material without the copyholder's permission then you commit copyright infringement which is unlawful so by definitition it is theft. In this case, there is no requirement that the rightful owner is deprived use.
Calling it 'theft' erases the notion of fair use from the discussion. Another crucial difference is that making a copy doesn't actually take the original away. Stealing a book, and copying a book are different.
As for comparing kidnapping and murder to theft. Well last time I checked, people are not property. Not to mention, when multiple charges can be brought against a suspect, they usually pick the strongest penalty...
Actually, it is pretty easy. A patent troll is a company that licenses patents to other companies, but do not produce any products themselves.
Evidently it not that easy since you missed that a large number of patents are issued to companies or individuals who aren't capable of producing the product themselves but rather license the right to other manufacturers.
Maybe a more appropriate definition of a patent troll is an entity that aquires a patent with no intent to distribute or license the right to produce goods from the patent, but rather with the sole purpose of extorting other companies who actually produce a product to satisfy a perceived need caused by the inactivity of the patent holder.
I was thinking about copyrights the other day and how "stealing" is not the right word. When a car is stolen, it is not there anymore, when money is stolen is cannot be accessed anymore.
But when a file is "stolen" it is not taken away from the owner. It remains. How could a car be stolen if it's still in your driveway?
So I tried very hard to imagine a way that something could be stolen, while still leaving the original item intact and I realized that genes might be a good example.
How about this as another example:
There are two guys named Stan and Gene. Gene makes 5 copies of Stan's $100 bill. Now Stan still has posession of the real $100 bill, and can still spend it as he sees fit. So where's the theft? I mean Stan still has $100 to spend. So nothing bad happened from Gene's actions... unless...
There are third parties involved like the government that backs the value of the $100 bill, or the retailer who accepted the counterfeit $100 bill, and the bank won't accept it for deposit. So in this case something has been stolen. The government unknowingly absorbed the cost of the fake money, or the retailer who is left with no merchandise and no money. So I guess we can safely assume there was some sort of theft involved.
So let's look at the issue in the way more applicable to slashdot:
Gene has the new MP3 file from Jack's band. Jack isn't able to tour (maybe he only sings part-time, or maybe he is a studio artist), and his only source of revenue is the sale of the MP3 file. Now Gene gives a copy to Stan, and since Gene retains use of the MP3 file nobody was harmed. Well.. maybe Jack now he has two listeners but no additional sale.
Now let's step into fantasy land where all the copyleftist dreams come true (a nice place actually), Jack becomes famous due to the exponential growth of listeners despite the lack of revenue from the MP3 sale so he is able to make money performing concerts and pursue his dream full time...
So performing artists have some alternate revenue stream that can naturally offset the losses due to copyright infringment, is it still theft?? Well yea, because he didn't choose to distribute his songs for free, despite the theft resulting in his ultimate success.
Well how about software?
Nancy creates a program that helps create widgets for small manufacturers and license a copy to Stan. Stan shows Gene the program, and Gene makes a copy of it. Stan still has use of the program so he didn't lose anything. But Gene gain use for a program that he didn't purchase, and Nancy didn't get any revenue even though Gene is benefitting from her work. Now let's say Gene (who hasn't paid a dime for the program) has no problem with distributing this software to a few thousand of his associates. Gene still has use of the program, so he didn't lose anything, but Nancy can't sale the program due to lack of demand caused by everyone getting a free copy. Is this theft? Yes. And unless Nancy can learn to perform in public, she will never recoup her losses due to copyright infringment (theft of service).
So how about we just call it THAT, mkay? Call it what it is.
Theft of revenue...
You could say that you are stealing the use of copyrighted material, since you didn't lawfully fulfill your obligations due to copyright.
hmmm... sounds like theft.
When you make a digital copy of something, I am sure the person who allowed you to copy it is not a victim of theft. However, the copyright owner who didn't receive any revenue from your unauthorized use is a victim.
It's not "leftist bullshit" and it's not based on the "NO HARM NO FOUL" principle. Copyright is not about the GPL or any other free software license. It's about what others can and can not do with creative works.
Ok I am trying to see your point... So you are saying it's not leftist bullshit, because it is not just stealing someone else's work. But then you say:
Now, with copyright, you need to ask the permission of the copyright holder if you want to distribute their work, make money from it, use it in a work of your own, sometimes just even use it. In a society without copyright, this would all change.
So it is about using someone else's work as your own, rather than producing your own work? You're passionate about your belief, maybe I need to read your comment further...
Imagine 1) never having to pay for a school textbook anymore
So instead of publishing a text book under creative commons, let's just copy the current ones without the publisher's permission (leech). I agree textbooks are too expensive, but I blame the schools just as much as the publishers.
2) never being in fear because you feel the RIAA might come a knocking at your door
So your saying that with copyrights, you live in fear that after leeching music files from friends that you may get caught and sued? Maybe you should listen to independent artists that distribute their songs for free.
3) using whatever picture you had access to for whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted
So you are saying photographers should work for free, and you should be allowed to leech their work?
4) various other freedoms that would not be possible under a copyrighted society.
What freedoms? Being able to devalue someone else's sweat equity? hmmm..
Honestly, I think you were trying to provide a counter-point to my parent comment but all I see is things that I've already said. You took offense to me using the word "Leftist Bullshit" but you haven't told why the leftist position is more than anarchy and looting of other peoples work. Maybe some are just to transfixed about sharing files, they just don't care about the wishes of the creator of the file. Sounds pretty selfish to me.
I worry more about corporations who use patents to stifle competition, then I do about RIAA going after people for swapping song files. Go figure...
Slashdot Mirror
The point of the GPL is to respect the owner's wishes. The point of copyright is to enforce the owner's wish. The point that file sharers make is the hell with the owner's wishes. Nope same fish.
So piracy is like the bank testing the money you attempted to deposit and calling the treasury department, and you wind up in "pounding in the ass" prison. Damn I prefer being sued... ;)
Wow that was some insightful bullshit! Oh wait - it was just bullshit, my bad.
Why the -1 score? I thought he was being funny... he (or she) made me laugh.
What you say is true up to a point. The customer can always choose to do without, and wait for it to go on clearance sale. Theft or copyright infringement is not a valid option.
What I'm about to say doesn't reflect badly on you (unless you decide it does), but you did bring up the point about value and price:
I find that the music price argument generally rings hollow. Most people I have observed making this statement just spent $5 for coffee that will soon turn to piss, yet couldn't bear with spending $0.99 or even $0.75 for a song that would last a lot longer.
Sadly, I recently drove past a music store of my youth that had all the obscure LPs - The name is the same except for the part that said "records" now says "coffee", and I didn't see any mention of music or any music playing (other than radio).
If you weren't planning to buy it, why would you want a copy of it? If you wanted to have the item, then you actually desired to obtain it thus ethically obligated to purchase the item. Assuming that depriving the street vendors is somehow ethical because (1) You really didn't want it, but you're an apparent cleptomanic and (2) you left the original item with the vendor so he continues to have a chance to sale it. Unfortunately, if everyone had the same ethics as you then he would never make a sale. Oh yea I forgot, depriving income somehow escapes the ethical delima yet the mythical right to posess everything is always assumed in these arguments.
Oh you you didn't mention a street vendor. So you found it on the street! But why did you feel compelled to leave the original? If you took the physical form with you then you would be more PC correct by picking up someone else's litter. (Well the GP mentioned a music store).
Somehow the easy concept of respecting the wishes of the owner/creator is always ignored. I mean you used the word ethics right?
I'm not saying the current copyright situation isn't fucked up. Just look on both sides. On one side you have the cartel performing draconian feats to maintain its control, and the other side believes that copyright should not really exist except of course if it benefits them...
Example: All software needs to be free, Music sharing is ok because it is really not theft in the physical sense, and fuck Tivo for violating the spirit of the GPL. This is what a stereotypical slashdotter believes, while (as a wiseman from sesame street once said) one of the three is not like the other, one of the three just does not belong.
Now if twisting logic and using lawyer speak to convince yourself that you are not doing anything wrong makes you feel better, then no amount of reasoning will make you change your mind. We humans are greedy creatures so I expect no less. Just don't expect that your logic to hold true outside the realm of your personal space.
The iPhone must already must be a success. Otherwise, why would their be so much effort to distribute so much FUD?
Why would I not be able to check my corporate email with an iPhone? According to Apple it will have the Safari web browser built-in, and I could browse the web. I could even check my email using the corporate outlook website (which BTW is one of the only ways to check mail away from the office). And I don't have to ask permission on what device or web browser to use to access the website.
People must be envious of Apple users lately. I can't go a day without reading an article here on slashdot that was spawned out of obvious envy for the platform. I can't blame them since nothing generate page hits like a good old-fashion holy war. Oh and don't get me started on how many "I'm not buying an iPhone" comments that are being posted (even more as I type this comment!).
So you're not buying an iPhone... I don't care. I'm not running out to buy one either, but I'm sure there are people who are and more power to them. Now if I was really into IPods, I might consider purchasing an IPOD with 8GB it would put me back $250, and to buy a new unlocked phone with bluetooth is $250.. or I can get a iPhone for the same cost (of course I would have a stupid 2 year contract). Sure it's a flimsy argument, but who am I to tell other people how to spend their money. Personally, I think the iPhone is a fine product in its own right, and probably worth every penny. At least more likely than any of the $999 and higher mobile PC spawned from Sony or (gasp) Microsoft's Origami project.
Besides I wasted similar amounts of time and money on a Zaurus, Palm Pilot, PSP, and other gadgets that I thought would be fun to have around. I don't remember anyone being as vocal about not buying any of them. Hell, the Zaurus was recommended solely on the premise that it ran Linux.
You obviously don't get around much ;)
A co-worker friend of mine brought his brand new GPS phone from Verizon with him on our recent trip to New Mexico. During some off-time, we decided to take a road trip around New Mexico. The navigational system was totally useless. If you were not on Verizon's network, you had no navigation available (not even GPS coordinates or heading). Being in New Mexico, We had no navigation available. This is despite the fact that we still had phone service on someone else's network.
Anyone who seriously believes that a GPS phone is anything remotely useful as a Garmin or TomTom is delusional at best...
Man you got me all confused. First you post something that argues against Apple, and now you drooling for one...
Maybe I need another cup of coffee. Peace.
Should any OS be a Linux fan's nightmare? Why should we care? I recently switch to Mac OS X and I have no complaints... Oh maybe that is what you mean, an OS that is feature complete (joke. Well... a little joke... OK maybe it's too close to the truth..). I did switch when I bought my MacBook Pro and am currently happy with my choice.
My point is that I still use Linux for work and I do contribute to the OSS effort when my employer allows, and I don't think Linux has many outside threats. I do think it has some internal ones, but they seem to be fading away.
I don't care if you use Linux, Windows, Mac OS, etc., but I am amused to see people with no lives that do care what other people use.
FUD. Others on this thread have already done a decent job countering those...
It looks like someone is in a distortion field, and this time I don't thinks it belongs to Jobs...
Seriously, stop drinking the bong water. Lighten up a little, and stop trying to get "street cred" by mouthing off nonsense.
By piracy I mean counterfeit goods, not the sharing of files between friends.
While copying something instead of buying it is basically theft, it should continued to be treated as a civil offense and not a criminal offense. I'll even say that most small distributions among a small number (let's say less than 10) of personal friends should be left alone.
Let's not confuse crimes like burglary and bank-robbing which places innocent victims in danger, with file sharing which has no public safety issues that I know about.
I will say that piracy should be a crime, but I think our law enforcement has too much on their plate with keeping us safe than worry about who's stupid enough to copy a movie like "Next".
First of all, Excellent Post! I pretty much agree with everything you said. I just have one minor nit-pick:
While it is true that the NCAA is not the government, many of its members are state government owned entities. Most of these events (especially in the SEC) are played on state property and using state resources (electricity, labor, etc.). Granted all expenses are paid by the licensing fees and ticket sales, and I do believe it is to the tax payer's benefit to have these restrictions enforced to guarrantee a return in the state's investment.
Basically, my only gripe is that we start thinking of state institutions as private enterprises which they are not. Otherwise, good post.
One last thing, It is a shame that the NCAA can't work with the local press over blog access. College baseball coverage is hard to come by outside of championship games...
I think the ultimate goal of these "laptops for poor third world children" is not education, but to provide access to western ideas with the hope that the next generation will become more westernized than the previous one. Education is gravy...
Well it will take additional energy to recycle aluminum, so how is this a closed system?
Here is an interesting quote (from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/iab/aluminum/page 2.html):
Not to mention, Alcoa states (http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/environment/climat e_change/climate_overview.asp)
Why would you need developers to run the applications that a typical office use? I can see if it was some vertical software solution, but that would be in-house anyway. Most wordprocessors and spreadsheets come ready to install and use.
At my workplace most of our effort is in network security and availability, Web applications would actually make their job even more critical (no network, no work).
Sorry I hit submit instead of preview... Let me continue:
Continuing on the thread of appropriate punishment, just because a crime can be classified as something else, doesn't mean the prosecutor will use it. Sometimes the prosecution will use a lesser crime when circumstances warrant it. Eg. Manslaughter instead of murder.
One could say that even though Copyright Infringement can be considered theft, they have a more appropriate charge of "copyright infringment."
I just want to make sure I understand your argument. It shouldn't be considered theft, if the thief was not going to purchase it anyway. hmmm.. sounds flawed.
I can hear it now, "Your honor my client should be found innocent due to the fact that he would never have purchased the item legally anyway!"... ROTFL good one!
So is shoplifting not theft because the shoplifter would not have purchased the item anyway? (By the way, my premise seems to be accepted practice, so it would be your premise that is debatable. If you want to use semantics, use them correctly )
First of all, people are not property so property laws shouldn't apply. Secondly, if property laws did apply, the courts would use the strongest law, so why would they charge someone of "theft of life" when murder has a stronger and more appropriate penalty? Besided who said that murder can't be defined as "theft of life"?
Just because someone doesn't want to be thought of as a thief, doesn't make him not one...
Merriam-Webster dictionary states:
Theft - Etymology: Middle English thief the, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property 2 obsolete : something stolen 3 : a stolen base in baseball
So you (and others) gravitate to the 1.a. definition, while the 1.b. definition still applies. When you copy copyrighted material without the copyholder's permission then you commit copyright infringement which is unlawful so by definitition it is theft. In this case, there is no requirement that the rightful owner is deprived use.
Fair use is not the wholesale copying of material. Here's a link.. read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
As for comparing kidnapping and murder to theft. Well last time I checked, people are not property. Not to mention, when multiple charges can be brought against a suspect, they usually pick the strongest penalty...
Evidently it not that easy since you missed that a large number of patents are issued to companies or individuals who aren't capable of producing the product themselves but rather license the right to other manufacturers.
Maybe a more appropriate definition of a patent troll is an entity that aquires a patent with no intent to distribute or license the right to produce goods from the patent, but rather with the sole purpose of extorting other companies who actually produce a product to satisfy a perceived need caused by the inactivity of the patent holder.
How about this as another example:
There are two guys named Stan and Gene. Gene makes 5 copies of Stan's $100 bill. Now Stan still has posession of the real $100 bill, and can still spend it as he sees fit. So where's the theft? I mean Stan still has $100 to spend. So nothing bad happened from Gene's actions... unless...
There are third parties involved like the government that backs the value of the $100 bill, or the retailer who accepted the counterfeit $100 bill, and the bank won't accept it for deposit. So in this case something has been stolen. The government unknowingly absorbed the cost of the fake money, or the retailer who is left with no merchandise and no money. So I guess we can safely assume there was some sort of theft involved.
So let's look at the issue in the way more applicable to slashdot:
Gene has the new MP3 file from Jack's band. Jack isn't able to tour (maybe he only sings part-time, or maybe he is a studio artist), and his only source of revenue is the sale of the MP3 file. Now Gene gives a copy to Stan, and since Gene retains use of the MP3 file nobody was harmed. Well.. maybe Jack now he has two listeners but no additional sale.
Now let's step into fantasy land where all the copyleftist dreams come true (a nice place actually), Jack becomes famous due to the exponential growth of listeners despite the lack of revenue from the MP3 sale so he is able to make money performing concerts and pursue his dream full time...
So performing artists have some alternate revenue stream that can naturally offset the losses due to copyright infringment, is it still theft?? Well yea, because he didn't choose to distribute his songs for free, despite the theft resulting in his ultimate success.
Well how about software?
Nancy creates a program that helps create widgets for small manufacturers and license a copy to Stan. Stan shows Gene the program, and Gene makes a copy of it. Stan still has use of the program so he didn't lose anything. But Gene gain use for a program that he didn't purchase, and Nancy didn't get any revenue even though Gene is benefitting from her work. Now let's say Gene (who hasn't paid a dime for the program) has no problem with distributing this software to a few thousand of his associates. Gene still has use of the program, so he didn't lose anything, but Nancy can't sale the program due to lack of demand caused by everyone getting a free copy. Is this theft? Yes. And unless Nancy can learn to perform in public, she will never recoup her losses due to copyright infringment (theft of service).
So how about we just call it THAT, mkay? Call it what it is.
Theft of revenue...
You could say that you are stealing the use of copyrighted material, since you didn't lawfully fulfill your obligations due to copyright.
hmmm... sounds like theft.
When you make a digital copy of something, I am sure the person who allowed you to copy it is not a victim of theft. However, the copyright owner who didn't receive any revenue from your unauthorized use is a victim.
Ok I am trying to see your point... So you are saying it's not leftist bullshit, because it is not just stealing someone else's work. But then you say:
So it is about using someone else's work as your own, rather than producing your own work? You're passionate about your belief, maybe I need to read your comment further...
So instead of publishing a text book under creative commons, let's just copy the current ones without the publisher's permission (leech). I agree textbooks are too expensive, but I blame the schools just as much as the publishers.
So your saying that with copyrights, you live in fear that after leeching music files from friends that you may get caught and sued? Maybe you should listen to independent artists that distribute their songs for free.
So you are saying photographers should work for free, and you should be allowed to leech their work?
What freedoms? Being able to devalue someone else's sweat equity? hmmm..
Honestly, I think you were trying to provide a counter-point to my parent comment but all I see is things that I've already said. You took offense to me using the word "Leftist Bullshit" but you haven't told why the leftist position is more than anarchy and looting of other peoples work. Maybe some are just to transfixed about sharing files, they just don't care about the wishes of the creator of the file. Sounds pretty selfish to me.
I worry more about corporations who use patents to stifle competition, then I do about RIAA going after people for swapping song files. Go figure...