Cutting Prices is the only way to stop piracy

[queentess]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

"Unauthorised content consumption"

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

doubleplusgood

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

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.

It also falls short when describing derivatives/transformative works based on something else. While an unauthorized comic book version of a movie (or vice-versa) may be copyright infringement, it's hard to think of it as "theft."

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.

Except that it's not always illegal. It's definitely not always criminal; in many situations, it's entirely a civil offense, and it's up to the copyright holder to decide whether or not to attempt to stop it. (This is like a breach of contract in which one party decides not to bother going after the other... if your rental agreement says "no pets," your landlord isn't required to make you give up your goldfish in order to sue the guy who's breeding fighting dogs in his apartment.)

I can accept the term "piracy" better than "theft." Theft is a crime. Piracy is... often a matter of perspective. One country's "piracy" may be another nation's "privateering." If it's illegal, it may still not be immoral, depending on the situation--piracy can be used to get around excessive tariffs that only serve to bolster corporations, at the expense of both creators and end-users. Piracy was a method of survival, not getting rich, for people who had no other recourse (and while digital piracy doesn't involve necessities, it does involve educational and cultural materials that are unavailable in many areas at anything like a reasonable price).

Theft takes away someone's personal property. Piracy takes things that may not have a legitimate owner, that may have been stolen themselves. (How evil is it to pirate books & music that would've been in the public domain if copyright hadn't been extended? Who benefits from prosecuting such cases?)

When I'm being technical, I say "unauthorized copying." That makes it clear that the legalities are debatable. In casual conversation, I use the term "piracy."

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

[Only tangible goods can be "stolen]



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

That's not what the case says, though. It specifically notes that "intangible property" is included in the theft act, but then finds that "confidential information" (i.e., the test answers) are not "intangible property" for purposes of the theft act.

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.

Yes, there are several variations of theft in the US; about half of them look like this. I'm not sure which definition of theft you mean as the "traditional" one - at common law theft involved unauthorized taking and asportation of personal property (which I think had to be tangible) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the item's value. But I don't know any jurisdictions that use that definition now.

And there may well be jurisdictions where "criminal copyright infringement" would not be theft. But there are many, including the one where I live, where it clearly *is* theft. It doesn't matter what definition legal scholars use; it does matter in what jurisdiction the acts are performed.

Note that in the US, the vast majority of all criminal prosecutions are done by the individual states (something like 95-98%), with the remaining being federal crimes, assuming the the jurisdictional prerequisites are met.

Because most actions involving copyright violations involve crossing state lines and interstate commerce, however, there is federal jurisdiction; further because the federal copyright statute is more specific than the federal state statute, prosecutions will be brought under the more specific federal copyright statute.

But, at least in my jurisdiction, violating a copyright could certainly be prosecuted as theft.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

But, at least in my jurisdiction, violating a copyright could certainly be prosecuted as theft.

Not as "copyright infringement," with its potential penalty of $150,000 per violation?

So, copying a single album or ebook would be prosecuted as petty theft, with a fine of up to a few hundred dollars as the maximum?

In which case, I very much want to know what jurisdiction you're in, and how its copyright laws are written.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It also falls short when describing derivatives/transformative works based on something else. While an unauthorized comic book version of a movie (or vice-versa) may be copyright infringement, it's hard to think of it as "theft."

I agree. I own the Beatles's White Album and Jay-Z's Black Album. I also have a copy of DJ Dangermouse's mash-up, the Grey Album. I have legally paid for all of the music used to make the Grey Album, and have the album with DJ Dangermouse's permission. It's still copyright infringement for me to have it.

Except that it's not always illegal. It's definitely not always criminal; in many situations, it's entirely a civil offense, and it's up to the copyright holder to decide whether or not to attempt to stop it.

It's even more complicated as the copyright may be bought and sold, or owned by multiple parties. There is no certain way to determine who even holds a copyright, or whose permission you need to seek out to ask for additional usage rights.

When I'm being technical, I say "unauthorized copying." That makes it clear that the legalities are debatable. In casual conversation, I use the term "piracy."

There's also unauthorized distribution, unauthorized performance, unauthorized use and specific license violations. I'm personally a fan of having entirely new laws drafted covering the rights and obligations of digital property. Trying to shoehorn it into any existing category is bound to fail.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

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.

Just one closing statement: Whoever insists on calling violations or infringements of copyright "theft" usually doesn't know better--or, increasingly, has a hidden agenda. It's really very much like "piracy" again, which used to be reserved for violent crimes committed on the high seas until the content industry began to apply it indiscriminately.

They want to apply the same emotional connotations of the existing words to a problem that most people don't care much about.

Exactly.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

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.

No, I don't consider any of these examples theft (at least my legal system doesn't): "fraud" will usually do nicely in those cases.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I'm not sure which definition of theft you mean as the "traditional" one - at common law theft involved unauthorized taking and asportation of personal property (which I think had to be tangible) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the item's value.

Exactly.

But I don't know any jurisdictions that use that definition now.

Lots of them, including mine (I am from a civil law country). Let's keep it at that.

And there may well be jurisdictions where "criminal copyright infringement" would not be theft.

No kidding. EOD.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Just one closing statement: Whoever insists on calling violations or infringements of copyright "theft" usually doesn't know better--or, increasingly, has a hidden agenda. It's really very much like "piracy" again, which used to be reserved for violent crimes committed on the high seas until the content industry began to apply it indiscriminately.

The use of the word "Pirate" to refer to unauthorised copying has a very long history. Its first recorded usage was in 1703, by Daniel Defoe, regarding the unauthorised printing and distribution of a poem he wrote, called "The True-Born Englishman". In the introduction to the 2nd edition of the poem, he wrote:

"I should have been concerned at its being printed again and again by pirates, as they call them, and paragraph-men; but would that they do it justice and print it true according to the copy, they are welcome to sell it for a penny if they please."

ie, he wasn't concerned so much with the fact that they'd distributed it without his permission, but that they'd made mistakes in it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

ie, he wasn't concerned so much with the fact that they'd distributed it without his permission, but that they'd made mistakes in it.

You wouldn't get that with modern day writers. The unauthorised versions often have fewer mistakes than the authorised ones.

[Crowl]

Personally, I find that I am more okay with DRM than I used to be in the past, the bigger annoyances for me are geo-restrictions and unrealistic pricing where they are trying to charge me more for the ebook version than the current cheapest paper edition (whether it is the hardback or paperback at that time) when even going by their generous figures they should be at least slightly cheaper.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not as "copyright infringement," with its potential penalty of $150,000 per violation?

So, copying a single album or ebook would be prosecuted as petty theft, with a fine of up to a few hundred dollars as the maximum?

In which case, I very much want to know what jurisdiction you're in, and how its copyright laws are written.

Yes. Maximum fine of $10,000. Maximum term of imprisonment 3 years (but you'd probably get probation). Possible felony record, though.

The only actual prosecutions I personally know of involved people selling copied DVDs and counterfeit sportswear on the street.

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Just one closing statement: Whoever insists on calling violations or infringements of copyright "theft" usually doesn't know better--or, increasingly, has a hidden agenda. It's really very much like "piracy" again, which used to be reserved for violent crimes committed on the high seas until the content industry began to apply it indiscriminately.

As I pointed out, extensively, I think, and with references, there are many places where an infringement of copyright is theft, plain and simple. It's not a matter of not knowing better, or of having a hidden agenda. It's a matter of knowing what the laws actually say.

Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring that won't make it go away.

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Exactly.



Lots of them, including mine (I am from a civil law country). Let's keep it at that.



No kidding. EOD.

Your original claim was that copyright infringement was not theft. My only point is that sometimes it is.

[MerLock]

Also please improve the quality. I've purchased a number of ebooks that are poorly formatted or other errors. Why should I pay same/more/near the amount of a paper version but with more errors?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MerLock

Also please improve the quality. I've purchased a number of ebooks that are poorly formatted or other errors. Why should I pay same/more/near the amount of a paper version but with more errors?

For convenience of course...sheesh!!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Yes. Maximum fine of $10,000. Maximum term of imprisonment 3 years (but you'd probably get probation). Possible felony record, though.

The only actual prosecutions I personally know of involved people selling copied DVDs and counterfeit sportswear on the street.

Petty theft is a misdemeanor, not a felony. Are you saying that stealing a single CD from a store can have a 3-year prison sentence?

Most criminal copyright infringement cases are based on over 10 copies, and commercial resale.

My state's (CA's) laws say (emphasis added):

653aa. (a) Any person, except a minor, who is located in
California, who, knowing that a particular recording or audiovisual
work is commercial, knowingly electronically disseminates all or
substantially all of that commercial recording or audiovisual work to
more than 10 other people without disclosing his or her e-mail
address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work is
punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000),
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or
by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Any minor who violates subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine
not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500). Any minor who commits a
third or subsequent violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a
fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), imprisonment in a
county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both that
imprisonment and fine.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply:
(1) To a person who electronically disseminates a commercial
recording or audiovisual work to his or her immediate family, or
within his or her personal network, defined as a restricted access
network controlled by and accessible to only that person or people in
his or her immediate household.

This fits the qualifications of misdemeanor in CA; less than 1 year in prison, less than $10k in fines.

I could cope with the "copyright infringement = theft" argument a lot better if companies weren't seeking a million dollars in "damages" from the equivalent of a few stolen CDs.

As I pointed out, extensively, I think, and with references, there are many places where an infringement of copyright is theft, plain and simple.

Can you quote any legal codes that say so? That specifically say, "a person who distributes recordings [etc] is guilty of theft, and punishable by a fine of up to $X?"