Cutting Prices is the only way to stop piracy

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Come again? I certainly don't consider accuracy in expression "unsophisticated". And, yes, "theft" is very clearly defined to only apply to tangible goods. Once you steal something the original owner no longer has it.

If we are talking about ebooks and the like it's "copyright violation". It's not my fault that it doesn't sound quite as catchy. ...

AH, but it is your fault if you fail to see the equivalence and the outdated laws and practices that are being perpetuated by not recognizing the acts as what they are when everything has changed.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by kennyc

... but it is your fault if you fail to see the equivalence ...

Well, I don't consider them equivalent, for starters, and do find merit in keeping a distinction. (And, yes, my legal training may account for that, at least partially.)

... and the outdated laws and practices that are being perpetuated by not recognizing the acts as what they are when everything has changed.

You know, your congressman is just an email away. Until then we better deal with what laws we have on the books.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Come again? I certainly don't consider accuracy in expression "unsophisticated". And, yes, "theft" is very clearly defined to only apply to tangible goods. Once you steal something the original owner no longer has it.

If we are talking about ebooks and the like it's "copyright violation". It's not my fault that it doesn't sound quite as catchy. (I have an idea, why don't we call it "mindrape"? You're making use of an author's "intellectual property" without his consent, after all.)

"Mindrape" is TM and (c) Mr Ploppy 2010. Please pay me $6billion for this unauthorised use.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

"Mindrape" is TM and (c) Mr Ploppy 2010. Please pay me $6billion for this unauthorised use.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Come again? I certainly don't consider accuracy in expression "unsophisticated". And, yes, "theft" is very clearly defined to only apply to tangible goods. Once you steal something the original owner no longer has it.

No. That's not true at all.

35-41-1-23

Sec. 23. (a) "Property" means anything of value. The term includes:
(1) a gain or advantage or anything that might reasonably be regarded as such by the beneficiary;
(2) real property, personal property, money, labor, and services;
(3) intangibles;
(4) commercial instruments;
(5) written instruments concerning labor, services, or property;
(6) written instruments otherwise of value to the owner, such as a public record, deed, will, credit card, or letter of credit;
(7) a signature to a written instrument;
(8) extension of credit;
(9) trade secrets;
(10) contract rights, choses-in-action, and other interests in or claims to wealth;
(11) electricity, gas, oil, and water;
(12) captured or domestic animals, birds, and fish;
(13) food and drink; and
(14) human remains.
(b) Property is that "of another person" if the other person has a possessory or proprietary interest in it, even if an accused person also has an interest in that property.

35-43-4-2

Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No. That's not true at all.

35-41-1-23

Sec. 23. (a) "Property" means anything of value. The term includes:
(1) a gain or advantage or anything that might reasonably be regarded as such by the beneficiary;
(2) real property, personal property, money, labor, and services;
(3) intangibles;
(4) commercial instruments;
(5) written instruments concerning labor, services, or property;
(6) written instruments otherwise of value to the owner, such as a public record, deed, will, credit card, or letter of credit;
(7) a signature to a written instrument;
(8) extension of credit;
(9) trade secrets;
(10) contract rights, choses-in-action, and other interests in or claims to wealth;
(11) electricity, gas, oil, and water;
(12) captured or domestic animals, birds, and fish;
(13) food and drink; and
(14) human remains.
(b) Property is that "of another person" if the other person has a possessory or proprietary interest in it, even if an accused person also has an interest in that property.

35-43-4-2

Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.

I personally see no contradiction. While copyright might indeed be a property, violating itstill is not theft . Since you still have your copyright - it was not taken from you. You can still sell your movie rights et cetera. You can use it and it still have the same value.

[rogue_librarian]

[Only tangible goods can be "stolen]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No. That's not true at all.

It is in most jurisdictions; one of the landmark cases is Oxford vs. Moss. It's certainly used that way in legal circles.

35-41-1-23

That seems to be the Indiana Criminal Code? Regardless of their definition (didn't read too closely) I can quote at least a dozen other codes that use the traditional one. Legal scholars usually do.

Calling violations of copyright "theft" is only marginally better than "piracy".

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by dmikov

I personally see no contradiction. While copyright might indeed be a property, violating itstill is not theft . Since you still have your copyright - it was not taken from you. You can still sell your movie rights et cetera. You can use it and it still have the same value.

How can it have the same value? If you steal one square of my milk chocolate bar I can still eat what's left of it, but it's a diminished bar of chocolate. In the same way if you break my copyright (if I had copyrighted anything, that is) it simply cannot have the same value. To say it does is just ludicrous. The amount that it has been diminished may be almost infinitesimally small, but it is not zero.

I'm all for changing copyright laws by the way, but not by spouting logical fallacies.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

If you steal one square of my milk chocolate bar I can still eat what's left of it, but it's a diminished bar of chocolate. In the same way if you break my copyright (if I had copyrighted anything, that is) it simply cannot have the same value.

It can, actually. Let me give you a trivial example: you're a musician and sell CDs. I buy one.

Now I make a copy for a friend of mine (and, just for the sake of argument here, let's assume this is violating your copyright). You don't know about this copying of mine. Are you seriously going to suggest that your copyright has now decreased in value?

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Calling violations of copyright "theft" is only marginally better than "piracy".

US Supreme Court Justice Breyer wrote in his concurring opinion:

In any event, the evidence now available does not, in my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for change. To say this is not to doubt the basic need to protect copyrighted material from infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital role that copyright plays in advancing the “useful Arts.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. No one disputes that “reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius.” United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (criminal copyright infringement); § 1961(1)(B) (copyright infringement can be a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); § 1956(c)(7)(D) (money laundering includes the receipt of proceeds from copyright infringement).

MGM v Grokster 2005 [bold mine]

[rogue_librarian]

Note how he compares it to theft, calling it an "unlawful taking" (and just as bad, we presume. Nobody said a deliberate, perhaps commercial violation of somebody else's copyright was a trivial thing) without actually calling it "theft".

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by Fbone

US Supreme Court Justice Breyer wrote in his concurring opinion:

MGM v Grokster 2005 [bold mine]

I don't think that portion of the judgment is binding though. Regardless, I think that it's fairly reasonable to make the following statements:

• Some people currently refer to copyright infringement as theft.
• In some legal judgments, copyright infringement is considered theft.
• In the future, theft may or may not become a universally accepted term for copyright infringement.
• In the future, theft may or may not become a legal term for copyright infringement.

Any opinions that want to declare that copyright infringement definitively is or isn't theft, (or ought to be, or ought not to be theft) based on the historical meaning or current usage of the word cannot be proven, and rely upon particular linguistic theories. If one applies a different theory, the results will change.

For everyone else, it's more important to consider why certain people advocate words like theft or piracy to describe copyright infringement. They want to apply the same emotional connotations of the existing words to a problem that most people don't care much about.

That's why music groups have pushed so hard lately to get copyright infringement labelled as theft. It works reasonably well in some contexts, like illegal downloading, but in others, like illegal public performance, which can even include playing music you've purchased at a house party, it doesn't.

We definitely need a word though to describe obtaining copyrighted works without ownership or license, separate from copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is too broad, and specific offences should have specific words. I'm not overly fond of theft, but right now it's the most prevalent term.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

[Only tangible goods can be "stolen]

There's "theft of service" as well — phone phreaking, using a cloned cable modem, bypassing an electric/gas meter, not paying a prostitute, that sort of thing. That would probably fit if you classed writing a book as providing a service.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

It can, actually. Let me give you a trivial example: you're a musician and sell CDs. I buy one.

Now I make a copy for a friend of mine (and, just for the sake of argument here, let's assume this is violating your copyright). You don't know about this copying of mine. Are you seriously going to suggest that your copyright has now decreased in value?

This would never have been re-released if it wasn't for unauthorised mp3 blogs creating a demand for it:

http://www.lavidaesunmus.com/prestas...id_product=619

So the question would be did those unauthorised copies increase or decrease the value of his copyright?

The original sells for £130 upwards on Ebay, I suppose you could make a case that it might devalue that slightly.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

We definitely need a word though to describe obtaining copyrighted works without ownership or license, separate from copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is too broad, and specific offences should have specific words. I'm not overly fond of theft, but right now it's the most prevalent term.

"Unauthorised content consumption"

Or "Un-Con" if it really needs to be one word.