DRM poll: How do you deal with it.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I think what's clear is that we're both wasting our time.

Since you can't or won't state why intellectual property should be considered morally different than physical property?

--
Bill

[Lemurion]

Downloading copyrighted materials without the legal right to do so is a violation of copyright, and therefore illegal.

Some number of such downloads are by people who would otherwise have bought a copy of said material and count as a "lost sale" and a loss of income to the rights holder.

Some number of such downloads are by people who would not otherwise have bought a copy of said material and should not count as a "lost sale" or loss of income to the rights holder.

Some number of such downloads are by people who later go on to purchase a copy of said material they would not otherwise have bought and should count as a "gained sale" and gain of income to the rights holder.

No one knows the exact proportions and the numbers undoubtedly vary both by time and by which specific material is being considered. I believe we'll never get exact numbers, and I don't trust anyone who says they have exact and generally applicable numbers.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Since you can't or won't state why intellectual property should be considered morally different than physical property?

--
Bill

There are two questions at play here:

1) Are intellectual and physical property rights morally different?
2) Is copyright infringement morally equivalent or equal to theft?

My problem with automatically equating copyright infringement with theft is that theft has two consequences: First the unauthorized user gains the use of the stolen property; and second the owner loses said use. This is not the case with copyright infringement.

If we're in school and I photocopy your history notes, you still have them and can still study for the test on Friday. If I steal your copy you no longer have them and you can't study for the test on Friday.

I see preventing you from benefiting from your labor as being morally worse than taking advantage of your labor for my own benefit; and therefore see copyright infringement as being less than theft.

[HappyMartin]

So if I download a movie illegally that is not theft as I have not deprived anyone of anything since the maker of the movie still has the movie. If I then make DVD copies of the movie and give them away that then cannot be theft either since the maker of the movie still has the movie. If I sell the movies at the traffic lights that is also then not theft. By this odd argument the person who made the movie still has it and the money I made from the movie they never had anyway so I did not take it from them. Personally I think this is an exceedingly weak and self serving argument.

I do not see that it is theft only when you deprive a person the use of something physical. If I take a photo it is my photo, that seems obvious. If you take it, even a copy of it, and use it without my permission then you have stolen my rights as the owner and creator of the photo to control it use. Theft for me is taking that which is not offered.

I think all these attempts to prove that copyright violation is not theft and we all have a right to this stuff is just a mad misunderstanding of human rights. We all think we have the right to what ever we desire no matter the consequences to others or the environment. So I want a book that is not legally available? Well then I will have to get it by other means, it is my right. Rubbish. You cant always get what you want, get over it. We do not have a right to get everything we want. Good grief

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

There are two questions at play here:

1) Are intellectual and physical property rights morally different?
2) Is copyright infringement morally equivalent or equal to theft?

My problem with automatically equating copyright infringement with theft is that theft has two consequences: First the unauthorized user gains the use of the stolen property; and second the owner loses said use. This is not the case with copyright infringement.

If we're in school and I photocopy your history notes, you still have them and can still study for the test on Friday. If I steal your copy you no longer have them and you can't study for the test on Friday.

I see preventing you from benefiting from your labor as being morally worse than taking advantage of your labor for my own benefit; and therefore see copyright infringement as being less than theft.

I see your point, but I must respectfully disagree on a couple of points.

1. Generally borrowing something without permission would also be considered theft.

2. History notes are not creative works; they are a representation of the materials that were presented in class. That being said, you assume that said notes have no value beyond their intrinsic value in helping you pass a test. However, lets assume for the moment, that I am the best note taker in the class. Lots of other students have asked to copy my notes, and I being a good capitalist decide that I should profit from my labor, therefore I decide to sell the notes.

Now you steal my notes, thus depriving me of at least one sale, and potentially (if you also see the profit potential) many more. Thus you have in fact reduced (perhaps significantly) the monetary value of my notes. The end effect is the same as removing the money from my wallet.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Downloading copyrighted materials without the legal right to do so is a violation of copyright, and therefore illegal.

Some number of such downloads are by people who would otherwise have bought a copy of said material and count as a "lost sale" and a loss of income to the rights holder.

Which is the crux of the matter.

Some number of such downloads are by people who would not otherwise have bought a copy of said material and should not count as a "lost sale" or loss of income to the rights holder.

I agree that it is should not directly count as a lost sale, however it is unauthorized use of someone else's property. Further, the same argument would not hold water if it was applied to physical property.

Some number of such downloads are by people who later go on to purchase a copy of said material they would not otherwise have bought and should count as a "gained sale" and gain of income to the rights holder.

Which is totally irrelevant to the situation. If I steal something and then later for some reason send payment for it, it doesn't make me less guilty of theft; the most it can be claimed is that I have made restitution for my wrong.

Further of course, I would say this is less likely with books than it is with other sorts of media. When music is downloaded, if someone likes a song, they will listen to it quite a few times. If someone likes a book, they might read it again in a year or two. Therefore there is less immediate incentive to pay for the work.

No one knows the exact proportions and the numbers undoubtedly vary both by time and by which specific material is being considered. I believe we'll never get exact numbers, and I don't trust anyone who says they have exact and generally applicable numbers.

I agree we will never get exact numbers. However, with respect none of the arguments in any way changes the moral equation. Harm is done to the author, the fact that an offsetting benefit is produced by others (who also violated the author's right) does not justify the harm done.

--
Bill

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Which is totally irrelevant to the situation. If I steal something and then later for some reason send payment for it, it doesn't make me less guilty of theft; the most it can be claimed is that I have made restitution for my wrong.

Yes, I do think that's rather a silly argument. Rather like saying "Fred stole a Ford car from his local dealership and liked it so much that he later went back to the dealer and bought a Ford, so his original theft wasn't really a crime, was it?" .

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

I think all these attempts to prove that copyright violation is not theft and we all have a right to this stuff is just a mad misunderstanding of human rights. We all think we have the right to what ever we desire no matter the consequences to others or the environment. So I want a book that is not legally available? Well then I will have to get it by other means, it is my right. Rubbish. You cant always get what you want, get over it. We do not have a right to get everything we want. Good grief

There are other things you morally should not do than theft so of course the argument is not that just because it morally is not equivalent to theft then you can do it.

The discussion here was about what should be legal and illegal in the sense that the laws codifies the moral we have agreed upon.

And if the question is to follow the laws you will not be able to read the laws about theft to see if you are allowed to download something or not.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

There are other things you morally should not do than theft so of course the argument is not that just because it morally is not equivalent to theft then you can do it.

The discussion here was about what should be legal and illegal in the sense that the laws codifies the moral we have agreed upon.

And if the question is to follow the laws you will not be able to read the laws about theft to see if you are allowed to download something or not.

Actually, on my part the discussion has been both about the legal issues at stake (i.e. copyright infringement) and the moral issues (which I regard as stealing the work of another person without payment).

As for your final point, that is silly; laws by their very definition are part of the public record. They are not copyright protected in the same sense that a creative work is.

The point here ultimately is that person A does work, person B derives value from that work without person A's permission. Call it whatever you want, it is just plain wrong in pretty much any rigorously argued ethical system you care to mention.

--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

As for your final point, that is silly; laws by their very definition are part of the public record. They are not copyright protected in the same sense that a creative work is.

Read what I wrote again, you misunderstood it.

The point here ultimately is that person A does work, person B derives value from that work without person A's permission. Call it whatever you want, it is just plain wrong in pretty much any rigorously argued ethical system you care to mention.

And that is not true. How many ethical systems do you now about except right based systems?

And it is not true in right based systems either.

(True for all possible situations that is).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

So if I download a movie illegally that is not theft as I have not deprived anyone of anything since the maker of the movie still has the movie. If I then make DVD copies of the movie and give them away that then cannot be theft either since the maker of the movie still has the movie. If I sell the movies at the traffic lights that is also then not theft. By this odd argument the person who made the movie still has it and the money I made from the movie they never had anyway so I did not take it from them. Personally I think this is an exceedingly weak and self serving argument.

None of that is legally theft. You'll be charged with criminal copyright infringement for selling them, which has stronger penalties than civil copyright infringement, but it's still not theft. You have illegally violated the maker of the movie's exclusive distribution rights, but you have not stolen anything from anybody.

I think all these attempts to prove that copyright violation is not theft and we all have a right to this stuff is just a mad misunderstanding of human rights.

I don't think anybody in here is saying that copyright violations should not be illegal or that we have a right to download stuff. They're just saying that calling it "theft" is incorrect and very misleading. It just adds to the existing confusion that exists in many peoples minds about what copyright infringement actually is. Yes it is illegal, but it has nothing to do with breaking the laws against "theft" or "stealing". We're talking about an entirely different set of laws here. In most cases (except for your example above about selling copies), civil laws. There is a huge difference between breaking criminal laws and breaking civil ones.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

Read what I wrote again, you misunderstood it.

As far as I can tell, your final point was that no one would be able to read the laws that were passed because they would not be allowed to download them. No offense, I am sure you English is way better than my Swedish, but your English is not that easy to follow.

And that is not true. How many ethical systems do you now about except right based systems?

And it is not true in right based systems either.

(True for all possible situations that is).[/QUOTE]

Now this is an area where confusion is based on the terms.. right as in right and wrong or right as in the rights of man?

That being said, I am at least aware of most of the major ethical systems. Certainly I was aware enough of utilitarianism to show that even under a utilitarian ethic, profiting from another man's work without paying for it is wrong.

Too many people will take the most cursory glance at an ethical system and then apply it as they see fit without examining it closely. For example, too many people now interpret hedonism to be the personal pursuit of pleasure; and while that might be true for some schools of hedonism, it ignores the fact that some pursuits, while immediately gratifying, reduce the opportunity for or total amount of pleasure one is able to experience in one's life (thus to a certain extent, a line of utilitarian reasoning must be fallen back on). It also neglects the fact that certain hedonistic schools of ethics argued that pleasure should be maximized for as many people as possible (so in other words taking pleasure at the expense of another would not be ethical).

The funny thing though, is that most self indulgent ethical systems don't really tend to last through the centuries. Most people today are far more likely to look to the Socratics for ethical thought than to the Hedonists. Sure there are other more modern interpretations that mimic hedonism to some extent, but they almost always temper their ideas with the concept of enlightened self interest.

--
Bill

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

So if I download a movie illegally that is not theft as I have not deprived anyone of anything since the maker of the movie still has the movie. If I then make DVD copies of the movie and give them away that then cannot be theft either since the maker of the movie still has the movie. If I sell the movies at the traffic lights that is also then not theft. By this odd argument the person who made the movie still has it and the money I made from the movie they never had anyway so I did not take it from them. Personally I think this is an exceedingly weak and self serving argument.

I do not see that it is theft only when you deprive a person the use of something physical. If I take a photo it is my photo, that seems obvious. If you take it, even a copy of it, and use it without my permission then you have stolen my rights as the owner and creator of the photo to control it use. Theft for me is taking that which is not offered.

I think all these attempts to prove that copyright violation is not theft and we all have a right to this stuff is just a mad misunderstanding of human rights. We all think we have the right to what ever we desire no matter the consequences to others or the environment. So I want a book that is not legally available? Well then I will have to get it by other means, it is my right. Rubbish. You cant always get what you want, get over it. We do not have a right to get everything we want. Good grief

Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft. This does not make copyright infringement good, it simply makes it a different infraction. Assault is not theft; that doesn't make it either acceptable or legal.

As to your DVD counter-example: making an infringing copy of your movie and then converting it to a DVD which is then sold is not the same as theft. It's criminal copyright infringement. You have lost your exclusivity, but you can still make your own DVDs and sell them. You may not be able to beat the pirate's prices but you have not lost the ability to do anything with your movie that you had before.

However there is something that theft and copyright infringement do have in common, and that is that there are different degrees. Downloading a copy of a book, movie or song for personal use is the equivalent of petty theft, where wholesale production and distribution of DVDs or CDs is more like grand larceny. When it comes to theft, those extremes are treated differently; with copyright infringement we see industry groups trying to equate the equivalent of petty theft with grand larceny.

I don't live in a black and white world-- different things can be wrong or immoral in different ways. We make distinctions in the morality and severity of crimes based on both intention and loss.

Just because copyright infringement is both wrong and illegal does not make it the same as theft, and I believe that trying to apply the laws that deal with theft to copyright infringement across the board is not going to work. We need to have laws and policies that treat copyright infringement as copyright infringement and deal with it based on what it is before we can really make headway on the problem.

Not everyone who says copyright infringement is not theft is trying to use that statement as a justification for copyright infringement. Some are defining terms.

It's no different than the oft-repeated statement that you cannot backlight Eink. Just because you cannot backlight it does not mean you cannot light it, but if you do try backlighting it won't work.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by tompe

And if the question is to follow the laws you will not be able to read the laws about theft to see if you are allowed to download something or not.

What tompe is saying is that if you want to share a file but are unsure if it's OK, then reading the laws on theft will do you no good because they have nothing to do with sharing files. What you need to do is read the laws on copyright.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

1. Generally borrowing something without permission would also be considered theft.

Borrowing something without permission has nothing to do with copyright violation.

Now you steal my notes, thus depriving me of at least one sale, and potentially (if you also see the profit potential) many more. Thus you have in fact reduced (perhaps significantly) the monetary value of my notes. The end effect is the same as removing the money from my wallet.

This is an excellent example of why using the wrong terms is just confusing you. They did not steal your notes, they photocopied them. You still have the notes and can sell them if you want to. Yes, the person photocopying your notes has deprived you of a potential sale, but it was money that you never had in the first place and may never have gotten anyway. That is absolutely not taking money from your wallet. Removing money from your wallet is stealing something that you already have.

The reason that people on here are objecting to throwing the terms 'theft" and "stealing" around when talking about copyright infringement is because it causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of the real issue. You are a perfect example of that.