[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

You may not have directly deprived them of a physical object or money, but you may have prevented a potential sale. You may have devalued their work. You may have transmitted their intellectual property against their wishes.

EDIT:
It doesn't matter if the book is out of print - the author may be trying to get the book back in print, etc. The author may not want the book to be distributed further. It should be the author's choice, shouldn't it?

It should be the author's choice. (In general theory, anyway. I'd sometimes quibble over particulars, especially in cases where the author wrote with intentions of copyright lasting 28 or 56 years, and copyright was posthumously extended to 95 years.)

That doesn't make it *theft*.

If I break into the author's house and destroy the files on his computer, I may have done a great deal of damage to his career, but that doesn't mean I've "stolen" anything.

If I tell everyone the author is a lying bastard and they shouldn't buy his books because he uses the money to buy drugs and then beats his wife, that's slander, not theft. It's still illegal, but it's illegal for different reasons.

I'm not saying "filesharing is okay." I'm saying it's not theft, and calling it by the wrong label both adds to the confusions and allows those who infringe on copyrights to feel justified, because a lot of those trying to stop them don't understand what they're doing.

The fact that "copyright infringement" doesn't carry the emotional impact of "stealing" is something the ones who want to stop filesharing have to deal with. Exaggerating the name of the illegal activity for effect isn't working to stop it.

Not calling it stealing is simply splitting hairs or moving the goalposts. Whatever you call copyright infringment it amounts to the same thing - depriving a creator of control over his creation.

But "depriving a creator control over his creation" is not against the law. Stealing is. And copyright infringement is. And slander is.

But going to his publisher, and offering them a huge bundle of money to delay printing of his book for an extra year or two, is not against the law, and if he's already signed a contract with them, there may be nothing he can do about that.

Writing a scathing review, using quotes from his book, that convinces people not to buy the book, is also depriving him control over his creation, just as much as writing an unauthorized sequel does. He still controls the original content, but because of what I've done with it, he may not have as many sales as he otherwise would. One of these is legal, and one is not.

Neither is "theft."

Do you consider diminishing someone's ability to earn a living from their creative endeavors to be hurting them? How about diminishing a creator's control over their own creative work?

There are lots of very legal ways for me to diminish someone's ability to earn a living from their creative endeavors. I can write insulting reviews. I can protest sales of their books or movies. I can write academic papers denouncing it as tripe. I can tell people I know that the author is an arrogant jerk. I can threaten the publisher with a lawsuit, depending on the content of the book. I can announce that the book is not appropriate for children, and convince librarians not to buy it.

And so on.

All of these hurt the author. But they are not theft, and they're not illegal.

I don't see the term 'stealing' as problematic. It seems a waste of time to split hairs over it. It may not be a 100% accurate depiction of the nuances of digital copyright infringement, but that is analgous to stealing if not stealing in a traditional sense. It has largely the same effect on the owner of the IP (or perhaps different but equal effects).

Why not just call it all "badcrime" and leave it at that? Insisting on the correct name for an illegal activity isn't hairsplitting.

Copyright infringement is a lot more complex than stealing. It's not taking money or content from anyone... it's taking control of content, and potential money, and it's possible it does no harm whatsoever (in various specific cases; in others, there's no question it does economic harm).

We don't call arson, murder "because destroying someone's house is like killing his livelihood; that makes it murder." We don't call embezzlement, rape "because stealing a company's money is violating its essential self." We certainly don't call driving-without-insurance (a crime in my state) "theft" because it "steals money from the insurance companies that have a right to it."

If I send out two dozen copies of an an ebook I made because it doesn't exist (in copyright, w/no permission), and those recipients like it so much they all rush out and buy a copy of the hardcover, plus sign up for the next book by the author... then I haven't caused the author any economic damage.I've still committed copyright infringement.

For some casual conversations, blurring the exact laws being discussed is reasonable for brevity. In this forum, plenty of people are aware of the nuances of copyright laws (in several countries), and there's no excuse for sloppy language.

People who say "I'm going to call it theft regardless of what the law calls it" are saying "my emotional reaction is more important than legal facts." I find this a vastly unconvincing argument, and tend to ignore any supporting details those people offer--because obviously, they're not trying to be rational or persuasive; they're pushing propaganda.

If they meant to be persuasive, they'd stick to facts that are the same for everyone.