Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[jgaiser]

I know I'm going to be sorry, but here's an interesting article from Techdirt on copyright and it's legal metaphors:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...medium=twitter

What is it about copyright that doesn't work in the digital society? Why do millions of people think it's OK to break the law when it comes to file sharing in particular? Sociology of law researcher Stefan Larsson from Lund University believes that legal metaphors and old-fashioned mindsets contribute to the confusion and widening gaps between legislation and the prevailing norms.

Our language is made up of metaphors, even in our legal texts. Stefan Larsson has studied what consequences this has when digital phenomena, such as file sharing and downloading, are limited by descriptions intended for an analogue world.

[HarryT]

Do you think that fewer people would break the law if the law called if "theft" instead of using "cozy" words like "File Sharing", that make it sound like it's a good thing to do?

I'm guessing that the language is a product of the polarized positions on copyright infringement, rather than copyright infringement being a product of the language used.

There seems to be a tendency for content producers (authors, publishers, etc.) to use words like 'intellectual property', 'piracy', and 'theft' to describe the actions of others. None of those terms are terribly accurate, but they tend to use them because copyright infringement represents a potential loss of revenue to them. On the other hand, you have copyright infringers describing their actions as 'file sharing' and 'fair use'. Neither term are entirely accurate either, but they benefit from copyright infringement so they use more positive terms to describe their actions.

[monkeyluis]

The latest twit episode, from twit.tv made some good points about how content producers need to stop treating digital content the way we treat physical content. Go check it out for more detail. But it was an interesting discussion.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that fewer people would break the law if the law called if "theft" instead of using "cozy" words like "File Sharing", that make it sound like it's a good thing to do?

I've known a lot of thieves that like to "borrow" things. One guy borrowed some books from me about 20 years ago. I'm thinking I should upgrade that to theft.

The use of different words to describe actions or insitutions can redefine and modify thought processes. This is common in political activites.

Regardles, the action is still the same.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that fewer people would break the law if the law called if "theft" instead of using "cozy" words like "File Sharing", that make it sound like it's a good thing to do?

The Law is all about the precise use of legal words. I don't think that they want to go down this slippery slope. Copyright infringement is exactly what it is, and is likely what people consider they are doing when they copy. Deliberately lying to them about the offence is unlikely to set them on the straight and narrow road. I think, instead, it would help them feel less guilty when they consider that they're copying stuff from liars and corruptors.

[Ken Maltby]

Ah... the age old question;
"Which came first the Etymologist or the common use of the word?"

Then there is one of my old favorites "The Languages of Pao" by Jack Vance, based
on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis/Linguistic Relativity and honoring Mario Pei. (Which
would say that "yes, words matter")

Luck;
Ken

[HappyMartin]

It cuts both ways in this theft copyright piracy debate.

When we purchase an ebook it is not really a purchase but a license to use the text in certain ways defined in the license agreement. I have no issue with this but as long as that is the defined "purchase" terms it makes it difficult to ascribe the full meaning of theft to the act of illegally acquiring the text under question.

What I am try to say is that with the sale being devalued by the license then the theft must be devalued by it as well. What was offered was less than a sale then what was taken must also be less than the theft would normally be. You cannot have it both ways.

Having said that I would not personally pirate/steal a book.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The Law is all about the precise use of legal words. I don't think that they want to go down this slippery slope. Copyright infringement is exactly what it is, and is likely what people consider they are doing when they copy. Deliberately lying to them about the offence is unlikely to set them on the straight and narrow road. I think, instead, it would help them feel less guilty when they consider that they're copying stuff from liars and corruptors.

It's theft in my jurisdiction. Which is why many courts have used the terms "theft" or "stealing" to describe certain types of what were probably charged as copyright infringement.

"Theft" or "stealing" are very accurate terms to describe taking someone's property without their permission and distributing it to thousands of others, most of whom are anonymous, in such a manner that the owner of the property loses the ability to make money from his or her creation.

This is not "sharing." "Sharing" implies is giving someone something that you own and have the right to give away. Like sharing a sandwich, your toys, or the cookies your mom made you for lunch.

Anonymously posting a cracked copy of a video game where thousands or millions of people can download it for free is not "sharing."

[xg4bx]

i simply have a hard time seeing a collection of 1s and 0s as a "thing".

shoplifting a paperback? yea thats theft. downloading intangible code? try as i might i cant see it as theft.

[Ntsimp]

When you steal something from someone, they don't have it anymore. When you copy someone else's information, they still have it.
I'm not defending copyright infringement, just pointing out one way that it's different from theft.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It's theft in my jurisdiction. Which is why many courts have used the terms "theft" or "stealing" to describe certain types of what were probably charged as copyright infringement.

"Theft" or "stealing" are very accurate terms to describe taking someone's property without their permission and distributing it to thousands of others, most of whom are anonymous, in such a manner that the owner of the property loses the ability to make money from his or her creation.

This is not "sharing." "Sharing" implies is giving someone something that you own and have the right to give away. Like sharing a sandwich, your toys, or the cookies your mom made you for lunch.

Anonymously posting a cracked copy of a video game where thousands or millions of people can download it for free is not "sharing."

I don't think I agree with any of your definitions. I don't see that "theft" has anything to do with distribution, or with anything else that happens to the goods afterwards. Does it matter what an ipod thief does with the ipod after stealing it? If they don't share it, does the charge get lighter? If you want to play with words, I can say that when someone downloads a copy of a file from, say, BitTorrent, that person has the full permission of the person who put the file up. The downloader hasn't stolen anything from the person they are dealing with. There is no theft, just sharing between the torrent clients. There is of course copyright infringement going on. The penalty for theft is also much lighter than it is for copyright infringement in many cases. Shouldn't the "thief" be charged with stealing a $10 book if the charge is "theft"?

The action is already illegal as copyright infringement. I have a bad taste in my mouth when I see some trying to also apply charges for a different crime to it, as well. It strikes me as unjust and so will backfire in the long run.

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It's theft in my jurisdiction.

I doubt this very much.

Which is why many courts have used the terms "theft" or "stealing" to describe certain types of what were probably charged as copyright infringement.

Judges sometimes conflate "theft" and "infringement" in their judicial opinions, but doing so doesn't consequently make copyright infringement prosecutable under criminal codes for theft.

"Theft" or "stealing" are very accurate terms to describe taking someone's property without their permission

Yes, they are. However, unauthorized reproduction is not theft of property. It's a violation, i.e. infringement, of someone else's exclusive legal authority. The rights-holder can sue for damages in civil court.

"Sharing" implies is giving someone something that you own and have the right to give away

Well, actually, it's possible to share nearly anything, whether the "thing" is rightfully yours or wrongfully obtained. However, I agree that "file sharing" is usually a euphemism for copyright infringement, keeping in mind that lawful, non-infringing file sharing also occurs.

[Elfwreck]

I see we have our monthly copyright law debate thread.

1) Copyright infringement is not "theft."

2) That doesn't mean it's legal or ethical; just that the proper label of the crime or tort involved is not "theft."

3) Part of the reason for "theft" not being the right label, is that "theft" means you *no longer have* whatever is stolen.

4) Another part is that theft has penalties equivalent to what was stolen + reasonable penalty fee; stealing a CD = ~hundred dollar fine; unauthorized copying of a CD = up to $150,000 fine.

5) None of this is going to convince anyone who's been involved in these arguments before; we do this to either discover new phrasings for what we already believe, or give newcomers to the debate an idea of the range of issues involved.

6) Copyright law is seriously broken, and has been since the first computers went online. There is absolutely no way for individuals to enforce copyrights of their noncommercial works. (If, for example, I wanted to say, "I do not grant permission for my posts to be copied to AOL's servers," I have no way to enforce that, even thought I didn't post on AOL's servers.)

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Theft is not an accurate term at all. And it doesn't need to be in order for piracy to be bad. You can't just stick any old negative-sounded word in there and claim it's equivalent.

A person pirating a book is not doing anything close to theft. They are essentially generating a copy of a work of unknown original, acquired in an unknown way. Nothing has been taken from anyone. Files are replicating. No one has lost any property due to piracy.

Have they lost revenue? Possibly. However, this new copy is not directly responsible for that. The person who originally obtained the file and then used it for copyright infringement is the true responsible party.

This does not mean a pirate is not doing something unethical. They may or may not be - depending on whether they understand what piracy is. I didn't, when I first pirated a song when I was 13. I don't believe that what I did was unethical, because I didn't understand that I was generating a copy that may reduce the value of an artist's work. Lack of knowledge impairs judgment.

I do understand that now. And I don't pirate now. It's not because I think piracy is "theft." It's because in the cantankerous world of the emerging internet business model, artists are suffering in part because of piracy. An individual pirate probably isn't directly responsible for that, but they are contributing to it.

I think DRM and artificial price inflation worsens piracy. And I avoid giving money to entities that perpetuate those things. But this reflects my disagreement with their license terms. It doesn't give me license to pirate. They gave me the terms, and I decided they were not acceptable. That doesn't give me permission to go around them.

I don't think piracy is necessarily as bad as theft. But it is certainly copyright infringement and it has a turbulent effect on an already turbulent industry.

It is uncertain at this point what role piracy might play if license agreements were less insane. They might actually help sales. They might have no effect. Or they may continue to harm sales. There's a valid argument for all of these possibilities.

But until such a time as I know which one it turns out to be, I disagree with piracy. It isn't theft. It's another beast entirely, for which we currently have no accurate name. But whatever it is, I feel it currently has a degrading effect on artists making a living. And I don't know what effect it would have in an environment that's more fair to consumers.

This article brings up the great point that we are constantly making the futile attempt to equate digital products with physical ones. This simply doesn't work because of the replication factor - a factor which exists for legal content as much as illegal content.

But it's also clear that the current model, which I'd define as a fear psychosis on the part of companies, is harmful to consumers and feeds piracy.

We need something else. We need better language, and a new model.