Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

from the just-saying dept

Tue, Mar 13th 2012 8:57am — Mike Masnick

Every time you think we're done seeing totally ridiculous arguments about file sharing, the old really silly ones pop back up. Musician Logan Lynn has written a pretty silly rant on Huffington Post entitled Guess What? Stealing Is Still Wrong. And, indeed, it is. But nowhere in the article does he actually discuss stealing. He discusses infringement. In silly black and white terms that assumes that every single download is absolutely a lost sale, that no one who downloads ever gives him any money and that his biggest fans are criminals. Crazy stuff.

The music industry has been ravaged by the digital age, the primary culprit being illegal file sharing on websites with practically zero regulation. The past two decades have been something of a Wild West on ye olde Interwebs. No rules, no accountability. By the time the music industry reacted to what was happening, it was too late.

Almost nothing in this paragraph is true. It's a nice fiction that the RIAA/MPAA have been telling the world, but it's simply wrong. The music industry? Growing. Zero regulation? Try 15 anti-piracy laws passed in the last 30 years. No accountability? Should I list out the tens of thousands of lawsuits that copyright holders have filed against those who were file sharing? If you can't get the basics right, it's kinda difficult to take your complaints seriously.

While performing at and attending the CMJ music conference in New York City in fall 2009, I learned that at that time, 91 percent of all new music was downloaded illegally over the Internet instead of purchased. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Record stores are closing, music rags are shutting down, and the glory days of rock and roll are over...

Actually the popular stat at the time was 95%, and it was bogus. And, there's a lot of evidence that the number has actually been dropping, not rising. Record stores closed because they sold CDs which are increasingly obsolete. Music rags are shutting down because music blogs are running rings around them online. The glory days of rock and roll were never quite as glorious as you think...

which I actually don't give even half a shit about. In fact, I'm glad the music industry got destroyed. It was fucked-up anyway, so who cares? Poor (filthy rich) record executives making hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of artists. Boo-hoo. I'm crying for you. Really. I am.

It sure seems like you're complaining.

What pisses me off is having over 91 percent of my personal intellectual property stolen, often before it even has the chance to be finished and released to the world. As a professional musician, a lot of time, hard work, and money goes into making a record. As an independent musician, that money comes directly out of my own pocket. Being a starving artist honestly isn't all it's cracked up to be anymore, people, and getting ripped-off has always sucked.

You didn't have 91% of your intellectual property "stolen." First of all, the number -- whatever it is -- was a general number across the entire global market. That doesn't mean it's the same for all artists. This is basic stats. Second, if tons of people are downloading your works it's because they like your music and that's a good thing and then there are all sorts of ways to get paid.

Even when I was on a major label, I got totally screwed because so much money was put into the recording, printing, PR, and distribution side that trying to recoup from consumer sales based on that 9 percent of people obtaining the album legally was almost impossible. Everyone had the record months before it came out anyway, because of file sharing. The week before it was released, one site that posted download counts on files reported over 18,000 illegal downloads of my record before my lawyer had them take the file down. That alone comes out to $180,000 -- for my songs -- of which I saw $0. My record deal was a 90/10 split at the time, but guess what 90 percent of $0 is? You guessed it! Still $0.

First of all, the "numbers" posted on those sites are usually made up, not real. Second, assuming that every one of those 18,000 people would have paid $10 for the album is simply delusional. Some of them might have. Others might have downloaded first and then decided to buy later. Others might have downloaded, and then told 20 of their closest friends how awesome you are and told them to go buy your album. Or go see a live show. The assumption that this is $180,000 gone is simple fantasy.

Think of it this way: if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn't you be upset if someone broke into your studio, took your unfinished paintings, and hung them in their public gallery without your permission? Let's say you had some finished work hanging for sale in your own space, but every time someone saw something they liked, they removed it from the wall, tucked it under their arm, and left without paying for it? What if 100 people came to your show opening and 91 of them decided to steal one of your paintings off the wall? Then what? Paint faster to keep up with the demand?

Think of this way: if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn't it be awesome to find out that thousands of people were so eager to find out about your works that they were clamoring for copies online? Let's say you had some finished work hanging for sale in your own space, but every time someone saw something they liked, they made a copy and told a bunch of others about it -- and then paid you to do more paintings? What if 100 people came to your show and 91 of them liked you so much they decided to make copies and find out more about you and how they could support your future work? Then what? Things would be pretty good, right?

I know this is the part where all the kids and hipsters start to roll their eyes and say things like, "You just don't get it, grandpa," and, "It's freedom of speech," but I don't actually believe that stealing my intellectual property is your constitutional right. Sorry, everybody.

If you're going to mock those who are arguing against you, it helps to actually understand their argument. The free speech argument is not that infringement is free speech. It's that ridiculous laws like SOPA create massive collateral damage that do serious harm to free speech.

Next time you hear a song you like, I encourage you to purchase it instead of stealing it. Supporting independent musicians just feels better than robbing us of our livelihood. I promise! Hell, you could even go to your favorite local record store, buy a CD, and look at the cover art for hours. You know, for old times' sake.

Next time you have a fan come to your site, I encourage you to offer them proactive reasons to buy instead of just demanding that they hand over cash. Treating your fans as fans and giving them lots of ways to support you just feels better than treating your biggest fans as criminals. I promise! Hell, you could even offer up cool products and bundles, or try a name your own price offering, or any number of other cool new ideas. You know, for modern times' sake.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copying, entitlement, infringement, logan lynn, pipa, sopa, stealing

423 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:09am

Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dr.Who, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  That's Doctor to you, mister.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A fan, 14 Mar 2012 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Um, there's no period, as the Doctor is British. It's abbreviated Dr Who. Just FYI, to help you in the future. Nice try though.
    
    LD2012
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:11am

I'd never heard of the guy, even though he apparently works in a genre I'm familiar with. Amusingly, a genre that's largely built around people sharing recordings of DJ sets with each other for promotion, often free of charge or bootlegged.

No matter, since his poor ability to understand the arguments seem to go hand in hand with his promotional skills, he's still not getting any of my money. I'll give it to other musicians who understand the business they're in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:13am

'Everyone had the record months before it came out anyway, because of file sharing'

wasn't because of file sharing. to start with, it was because someone you, Logan Lynn, trusted with your stuff leaked it first. it may actually even have been you! gave you an excuse to rant, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:09am
  
  Re: Okay, I am going to get sh!t for this ...
  Ignore him he is a confused gay guy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  Actually someone Infringed on his rights as a rights holder. The person made his music available for download which is INFRINGEMENT. This enabled others to STEAL his music. Yes there is a difference!
  
  Infringement - to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another - from Merriam-Webster Online
  
  Steal: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully - from Merriam-Webster Online
  
  Notice how Infringement is to violate the law, specifically the rights of another. The person who shared the file violated the rights of the musican by circumventing the distribution/duplication rights granted under Copyright Law.
  
  Stealing is to take or appropriate without right with the intent to make use of the work wrongfully (without permission). Clearly the verb "steal" more closely resembles the action of the downloaders. They have appropriated (through a download) that to which they are not authorized. Notice how it car theft, the property does not need to be permenantly displaced from the original owner - the argument that to steal requires something to be gone is ridiculous. You can steal physical goods, ditigal goods, services, access to performances, etc...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Words have more precise meaning than are found in the dictionary. One should never use the dictionary to try to argue the meaning of words used in law or science.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, what is that thing used to find out the meaning of a word. You know it used to be printed and it's sort of a thick book with a bunch of words and their meanings and it's in alphabetical order. I give up, if only I had one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rich, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, can't read? I wrote about DICTIONARIES in my first sentence! Their definitions are not precise enough for law or science. Just ask a chemist what a metal is. Now go ask an astrophysicist. You will get two difference answers. Your dictionary may or may not contains either of these.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My sarcasm was to point out that the dictionary definition IS the legal definition. You're problem isn't that you don't have access to a dictionary, it is that you refuse to actually use it. Or you just choose to ignore the facts when they fail to suit your arguent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "the dictionary definition IS the legal definition"
        
        I'd love to see the reaction of a judge when you try to use that as a defense at your trial.
        
        Since when did Noah Webster become a legislator?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually legal definition often are very different from dictionary definitions. That's why there are 'law dictionaries' available. Legally, copying a work is infringement, not theft, regardless what Merriam-Webster has to say about it. This is because in the US the Supreme Court has ruled that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 2:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Legally in USA you mean. Supreme Court is not supreme all over the globe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Notice how it car theft, the property does not need to be permenantly displaced from the original owner - the argument that to steal requires something to be gone is ridiculous. You can steal physical goods, ditigal goods, services, access to performances, etc..."
    
    Nobody is arguing that the owner must be deprived of property permanently for it to be stealing. It's stealing if you even temporarily deprive the owner of their property. But the deprivation, regardless of the duration of that deprivation, is a sine qua non for it to be considered stealing.
    
    You can steal physical goods. You can't steal digital goods unless you steal the hard drive with the only copy of those digital goods from the owner. You can't steal an intangible good that is copyrighted, unless you wrongfully assert ownership over a copyright, such as when studios refuse to let copyrights revert to their creators after 30 years or labels claim ownership of other people's videos on YouTube.
    
    Theft of services involves a pre-arrangement for an exchange of money for services. This doesn't happen when artists are creating works and they're being published unless fans are actively commissioning the creation and publication of works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just more of your anti-copyright reality distortion. Even if I am not using my car, and therefor NOT deprived of anything, the simple act of taking use of the car without permission (not the act of denying me access to it) qualifies the action as STEALING. Just like the act of otaining access to a music file (while not depriving me of the file) is still theft.
      
      Stealing Services is called Theft of Service. You are not taking any physical good or depriving anyone of anything but it is still STEALING.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even if I am not using my car, and therefor NOT deprived of anything, the simple act of taking use of the car without permission (not the act of denying me access to it) qualifies the action as STEALING. Just like the act of otaining access to a music file (while not depriving me of the file) is still theft.
        
        Except, you know, that is not what's happening at all. Its making a copy of your car, A FREAKING COPY. But I guess being full of shit is your specialty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Someone downloading a music file illegally is obtaining use of the music without permission. Can you not understand that if a rightsholder offers use of the music for a fee, and you access that without paying the fee, you are STEALING. Just like if someone charges admission to a National Park, a concert, a movie, a parking lot, etc... And you gain access to that resource without paying you are stealing a service. Notice there is nothing lost, no one is denied access do to your actions, but it is still stealing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually if someone steals your car while you're not using it (which is usually what happens when cars are stolen unless you're carjacked), it's theft because you are being deprived of your vehicle, including the opportunity to use it, regardless of whether or not you happen to be using it at the time the car was stolen. Joy-riding or borrowing a car without prior permission is still theft, even if you return the car later, though it might not always be prosecuted.
        
        If you go into a National Park without paying, you are trespassing, not stealing. There is something theoretically lost because you're possibly using services such as restrooms and throwing away garbage and being protected by park rangers, etc.
        
        When you copy a file that you otherwise would not or could not pay for, you are not depriving the copyright owner of anything. It's not a lost sale. You don't increase their costs. You're not using their services because they don't have to duplicate their effort. They aren't rerecording their music just for you. It costs them nothing. This is why it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. If it's "stealing," feel free to cite a legal case in which a person was charged with theft or stealing when they copied a file.
        
        You keep pretending that goods which are infinitely reproducible at no cost to their copyright holders are the exact same as scarce, exclusive goods which do cost their owners product or money or opportunity or time if they are taken without permission.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 3:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Downloading a music file illegally is infringement on the copyright that rests on the music file. It's not stealing, because the artists hasn't lost anything.
        
        Here's your idea of stealing:
        
        You have a pig.
        I clone that pig.
        Now we both have a pig and then you accuse me of stealing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cowardly Anonymous, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Except that we would refer to that case as stealing the car for a small amount of time (and the culprit would probably call it borrowing without permission, which is actually the more precise language to use).
        
        In other words, you are taking a stretched definition and applying it in a form that stretches even further, for the sole purpose of an appeal to emotion, which is in itself a logical fallacy. You haven't been able to provide meaningful justification for why producing something by utilizing another thing as a model should be considered as disruptive to society as depriving someone of the use of something in order to use it yourself. These are the actual acts you intend to associate under the word stealing.
        
        My question to you is not whether you believe that copyright infringement is theft. It is not what the dictionary describes. It is this: do you honestly think that these two acts should be treated as equal under the law?
        
        To me, that seems to be a gross under-estimation of the effects of depriving others of access to things they have paid for access to simply because you do not wish or are unable to pay to access these things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No actually I am telling you that you illegally obtaining music is STEALING. I am using analogies becaue you have been brainwashed by anti-copyright propagandists (actually Masnick et al are anti-IP). Just because you can take somethign without paying and it does not remove something from the market does not mean that it isn't illegally gaining access to something to which you are NOT ENTITLED.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TwoZeroOZ, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just because you keep insisting something, that doesn't make it true.
        
        It's no stealing, and it's also not murder or rape.
        
        You're using analogies because you can't form a coherent logic-based argument, and are forced to defend your position with the only way left.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Question: What would you call obtaining something that you don't have the rights to, haven't paid for, or don't have permission to have?
        
        Would that be, I dunno, rape? (sarcasm...)
        
        Please - explain to us what that is. Try to use legal terms, "sharing" isn't the correct answer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The legal term is copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Colin, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In this case, it's infringement. Was that a trick question or something?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No actually I am telling you that you illegally obtaining music is STEALING.
        
        Actually we heard you the first time and it's STILL BS.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        B Pickel (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 5:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        please don't sue me... cause I just stole your post
        
        No actually I am telling you that you illegally obtaining music is STEALING. I am using analogies becaue you have been brainwashed by anti-copyright propagandists (actually Masnick et al are anti-IP). Just because you can take somethign without paying and it does not remove something from the market does not mean that it isn't illegally gaining access to something to which you are NOT ENTITLED.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 2:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No actually I am telling you that you illegally obtaining music is STEALING
        
        Saying that makes you look foolish. It's not stealing. It may be infringement and may be against the law but it is NOT stealing.
        
        "Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." -- The Supreme Court
        
        Okay, please stop saying stuff that's not true. It makes you look foolish.
        
        Just because you can take somethign without paying and it does not remove something from the market does not mean that it isn't illegally gaining access to something to which you are NOT ENTITLED.
        
        Um, dude. NO ONE is saying that it's legal. We're still saying it's not legal. Just that it's NOT THEFT. It's tough to take you seriously when you assume that which no one has said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay, please stop saying stuff that's not true. It makes you look foolish.
        
        But Mike, it's his First Amendment right to say things that make him look foolish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DoN0tReply (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right to free speech does not exclude you from the consequences of said speech.
        
        Example: the discourse of information pertaining to national security does not preclude you from any potential charges attached to the offence of the disclosure of said information.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:13am

Channeling "V": You can't steal an idea, Mr Lynn. An idea is a collection of thoughts, and thougts can only be shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  Channeling your inner Hippie I see. Put the bong down, step away from the smoke.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 3:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    You totally stole my idea. I'll sue you into the innermost depths of hell.
    
    Pray tell, how does one go about stealing ideas, hm?
    
    Do you get to rummage around someone's brain and grab the idea while its still forming in the victims brain, thereby depriving the victim's access to said idea?
    Remember, what you saw in Inception wasn't real, and besides that was about planting an idea, not stealing one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:20am

It can be.
Saying "copying still isn't stealing" doesn't make it true.

I understand that you don't agree that copying is stealing. But there are people -- not all of them on the side of RIAA/MPAA/et cetera -- who disagree with that, who think copying *is* stealing. (I'm one of them, even though I think the big IP holders are acting like idiots and deserve to have their businesses, perhaps their whole industries, go down in flames.)

(Why can it be stealing? Because afterwards, a person through their own action can end up with something they're not entitled to. The "stealing" doesn't come from the original owner *losing* access, but from the recipient *gaining* it. If you take an action by which you unilaterally claim something you're not entitled to, then you've stolen something. Nobody has to be deprived of anything for that to be true, or for it to be wrong.)

If you said "not everyone agrees that copying is stealing", I'd have nothing to add. But if you simply say "copying isn't stealing" as if that were a fact, or were agreed upon by over 95% of people, well, I have to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Doug, you have to get use to the Techdirt word games. Mike will tell you it isn't stealing, because you still have the original. It's a narrow, one sided way to look at things, ignoring the end result (the person who didn't steal suddenly has something they didn't have before, didn't pay for it, doesn't have the rights to it... but it's not stealing!).
  
  The more you pay attention here, the more you realize that the piracy supporters use the same sneaky weasel language that they berate politicians for using.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Pointing out that words have definitions and using them properly is 'word games' and 'weasel language.'
    
    You're not serious with this shit are you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    You lost your argument when you stated "doesn't have the rights to it". But I'll respond anyway...
    
    It's NOT stealing. *Rolls eyes*
    
    It's called SHARING. Sheesh...
    
    Here's a fun fact, if I pay for a commission picture, I'm the one who's paid for it, but others can look at it for free, which means they got something without 'having the rights to it', save it and share it with others.
    
    It's not stealing, it's sharing with people.
    
    Try reading some fan fiction and looking up fan art of various series once-in-awhile.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      If you pay for a commissioned piece in a PUBLIC location they can view it. If that commissioned piece is in a private location and they view it they are TRESPASSING.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Yes but the viewing itself is still legal. IF I hack into a Server to get a song, yes, that would be illegal, but if I take what is freely offered by someone, i.e. in a public space, then it should be legal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Suja (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        not the same thing
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        How so?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hfbs (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Fuckin' thread view, how does it work?!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Josh (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Trespassing is not stealing either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      How is it sharing?
      
      It isn't shared unless the originator "shares" it. If the originator doesn't, then it certainly isn't shared.
      
      It's acquired without permission.
      
      More word games. Everyone can choose their own definition of words and the dictionary contains multiple definitions of some words, but getting or taking something you haven't received the permission to use or take (or without paying for it) wouldn't appear to be the correct behaviour, whether the creator still has the original or not.
      
      Even "borrowing" isn't an apt fit ... to borrow something, you first ask permission.
      
      Stealing? Perhaps not.
      
      Shared? Definitely not. Not unless the person who has the authority to share it, shares it.
      
      Copyright needs a serious overhaul, with both sides of the coin being able to participate in the discussions and be heard.
      
      ...not that I don't think sharing is perfectly fine if you do own the "thing", whatever it is. I'm happy to share my own stuff, happy to get free stuff from someone who wants to share it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        It isn't shared unless the originator "shares" it. If the originator doesn't, then it certainly isn't shared.
        
        So the originator retains all rights ad infinitum. By your argument, I have to get Ford's permission to share my car. They are the "originator" after all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Ah, but Ford sold you the car and since we own some Fords ourselves, I'm pretty sure the ownership doesn't say anything about not sharing it.
        
        You can share your car if you like. You can even share a copy of it if you have one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rich, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Right, but if you sell me a painting, I'm not allowed to share a copy of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        or a CD/DVD, someone bought it at some point and decided to share it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Well, that depends on what you mean by "you".
        
        If you buy a painting from me, I don't care what you do with it (the painting).
        
        I sold you the painting. I didn't sell you a copy of it, but if you want to paint one (a copy) of your own from it, then go for it.
        
        If you run off 100 prints, call them yours and sell them, yeah, I'd care, but I'd care a lot less if they still had my copyright on them.
        
        But in the case of the painting, you may be devaluing the thing YOU now own. If I sold you the painting, I don't own it anymore, you do. It's value is what you paid for it. More copies floating about could mean less value for the owner, not for the artist (in this case, me).
        
        I'm not going to freak out a little unless what you do causes me or my business harm. I'm kind of lopsided about copyright I suppose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I sold you the painting. I didn't sell you a copy of it, but if you want to paint one (a copy) of your own from it, then go for it.
        
        So then you agree, making copies isn't stealing. I'm glad we agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I sold you the painting. I didn't sell you a copy of it, but if you want to paint one (a copy) of your own from it, then go for it.
        
        So then you agree, making copies isn't stealing. I'm glad we agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I sold you the painting. I didn't sell you a copy of it, but if you want to paint one (a copy) of your own from it, then go for it.
        
        So then you agree, making copies isn't stealing. I'm glad we agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I sold you the painting. I didn't sell you a copy of it, but if you want to paint one (a copy) of your own from it, then go for it.
        
        So then you agree, making copies isn't stealing. I'm glad we agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I sold you the painting. I didn't sell you a copy of it, but if you want to paint one (a copy) of your own from it, then go for it.
        
        So then you agree, making copies isn't stealing. I'm glad we agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I got a server error, again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Wow, I really thought you were trying to make a point, lol.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        In a way I did, copies and all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        When you get an error of some kind stop hinting the "reload" button!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        By your same logic, if I buy a CD and make copies, I am devaluing my own property, because who wants to buy a CD when there are many copies available (lol). What is the difference between a CD and a painting?
        
        As for your last argument, when did it become the consumers responsibility to ensure that your business does not come to harm. Back to my car analogy, if I can talk the sales man into selling me a car for less than the dealer paid for it, that is the dealers problem not mine. If you sell something that can not be contained in a finite manner and this hurts your business, why is that my problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The consumers responsibility is only to buy and use the product.
        
        Not buy and copy the product. Just cause I don't care if they copy my painting doesn't mean I expect them to put their name on it, thereby causing others to think they created the original work.
        
        That's the "harm" I suppose I was considering - I lose exposure if the person says they painted it, unless of course they do paint their own, then sell that. And then, I don't really care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 5:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "Not buy and copy the product."
        
        Why not? If I copy it (it's mine now, isn't it?) and then gift that copy to anyone, that's my decision to make. It was mine in the first place anyways - you sold it to me. I don't put my name to it, I don't make money off it - I just share it; and by share I mean copy-for-0-cost-and-distribute-it-for-almost-0-cost. (cost for me)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Why not? If I copy it (it's mine now, isn't it?) and then gift that copy to anyone, that's my decision to make.
        
        No, copyright law forbids you from doing that without permission (unless it's fair use for some reason). Yes, it's interfering with what you're allowed to do with something you own - that's what copyright is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tracker1 (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:18pm
        
        In the case of the painting..
        With the painting, you have the original (Master) that was paid for... beyond that, the CD you got was itself a copy, not the original (with original rights).
        
        Beyond this, in some countries, artists are asserting rights over original works that were sold... I don't think it's right, just pointing out the difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "By your same logic, if I buy a CD and make copies, I am devaluing my own property, because who wants to buy a CD when there are many copies available (lol). What is the difference between a CD and a painting?"
        
        Not right, because the CD is already a copy, not the original.
        
        If anything, you have sort of proven why piracy is bad for an artist. The copies devalue the work. The more copies are out there, the less each one is worth (right Mike?).
        
        Making copies of your "copy" doesn't devalue your copy, you devalue the original.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        People making their own food from recipes devalues food from professional chefs who create those recipes. We should stop people distributing recipes to stop the devaluing of food.
        
        Chairs are being devalued by multiple chair manufacturers and even certain individuals competing against each other. We should limit chair manufacturing to the Association of Accredited Chair Manufacturers to stop this devaluing of chairs.
        
        Being able to copy and distribute goods at near zero cost devalues the goods being distributed. We should limit distribution to protect the goods value.
        
        Hint: An item is valuable because it is useful in some way, not because it's distribution is limited. Limiting its distribution is what limits its value.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        So making any copies of an original devalues the original?
        You should throw in jail all the manufacturers of CD's because with each and every copy the original is less valuable right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The copies devalue the work. The more copies are out there, the less each one is worth (right Mike?).
        
        Only if you (still) don't understand the very real difference between value and price. But if you want to present yourself as totally ignorant on such things in addition to the definitions of theft and property, go right ahead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        IronM@sk, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        If I steal a car, I can share it as much as I damn well like. If nobody knows it's stolen, and I let them use it, thus sharing it, it's not their fault they didn't know it was stolen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    It is not word games to use words correctly. Copying is not stealing. Copying is different and has it's very own name when done illegally. This is called infringement. See my other post for more detailed explanation on this concept.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Copying is not stealing, in direct words, but the results (for the person making the copy) are EXACTLY THE SAME AS STEALING. They didn't have something, now they do - and they didn't obtain it legally.
      
      It's not sharing (sorry silverscarcat), it's obtaining without consent.
      
      Would you care to weasel word some more?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Tim K (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        by your logic murder is the same as accidental death. The results are the the same, whether they get struck by lightning or shot by someone, they are dead either way. So does it make sense to say that when someone is struck by lightning they are murdered?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Good, try, but no.
        
        When it comes to death, the question is murder, accidental, suicide, or natural. When it comes to obtaining something illegally, you have it or you don't. Playing the game of "it's not stealing" doesn't change the end result at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tim K (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        You make absolutely no sense. The question for illegally obtaining something would be stealing, infringement, etc...The end result is not the same. Stealing, the owner no longer has it, infringement, they do, the consumer side, yes you have it or you don't, but you are ignoring what else stealing incorporates. Same as in my analogy, the question may be what you said, but the end result is the exactly the same, you're dead. If I ignore part of the result then yes, they are exactly the same, you're dead, but whether or not someone goes to jail is different based on the circumstances so you can no just interchange the words. Good try, but no
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        steal [steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto�len, steal�ing, noun
        verb (used with object)
        1.
        to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
        2.
        to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
        3.
        to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
        4.
        to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually followed by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
        5.
        Baseball . (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
        
        Explain to me please where your definition of stealing fits the real definition of stealing, I would appreciate it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Except the only way to tell if something is obtained illegally is to examine the manner in which the thing was obtained. Possession exists regardless of if the obtaining was legal or illegal. You're trying to wag the dog here and say 'well they have it so it must not be legal' when the question is not 'do they have it' but 'how did they get it.'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Playing the game of "it's not stealing" doesn't change the end result at all.
        
        Exactly. You as the originator are in NO WAY HAVING LESS than before someone copied something from you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I am not obtaining this thing illegaly:
        1. someone bought your album.
        2. he shared it on torrent pages (since you're unknown an you need some exposure)
        3. i downloaded it
        
        Now *that* someone bought it (legal) and shared it (still legal) - it somehow becomes illegal obtain that information?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Your classroom assignment for the day is to read 17 USC 106, and then come back and reconsider the accuracy of your comment.
        
        Everything after your #1 is wrong if the album is secured by copyright and the author has only sold a copy and granted no greater rights that is associated with a mere sale.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Let me correct that for him.
        
        1. Some one bought your album (of uncompressed digital information)
        2. That person then used that album in the creation of digital files that although they resemble content on the original in some manner are compositionally and architecturally distinct. (ie. not the same)
        3. he shared the new file on torrent pages (since you're unknown an you need some exposure)
        4. i downloaded it
        
        There fixed. Happy?
        
        BTW - YOUR classroom assignment is to read the Supreme Court Decision in Dowling v. United States. (Karl made it easy for you and already posted the important part earlier.) I'll sum it up for you: Infringement != Stealing
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        2. That person then used that album in the creation of digital files that although they resemble content on the original in some manner are compositionally and architecturally distinct. (ie. not the same)
        
        That company (I forget the name) tried to sell Beatles music under this theory, that since they'd changed it somehow it wasn't the same music, and so the copyright didn't apply. They lost in court. You can probably find it by searching for something like "Beatles music psycho-acoustic simulation".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 11:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Your classroom assignment for the day is to read 17 USC 106
        
        For the record, "bratwurzt" does not appear to be from the United States. Thus, 17 USC 106 has no bearing whatsoever on whether what he's doing is legal.
        
        For the record, I don't know of anywhere in the Western world where distributing copies is legal. (In plenty of jurisdictions, however, merely downloading is legal... just like buying a bootleg DVD is legal in the U.S.)
        
        Well, unless he lives in England, in which case he'll be extradited, even if what he's doing is perfectly legal in England.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 15 Mar 2012 @ 2:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I'm from the country where first biggest torrent site was born (suprnova.org) and died with a few words from the White House. It's not the legality that bothers me (yes, there's probably just a few countries around the world that allow noncommercial file sharing) - it's non-transparency of the process that followed: there was no due process in suprnova.org case - police came, took his computers and returned them 2 years later. He (sloncek) was a kid at that time and had no money for a new server... No charges (at least no criminal charges) were made. Yes - it is our leaders that bent their behinds to the great NATO leader, but I'm glad that suprnova inspired mininova and so on and on... file sharing is evolving faster because these things happen (like TOR/dictatorships fight/evolution).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 8:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        >So does it make sense to say that when someone is struck by lightning they are murdered?
        
        Of course, that's Zeus practicing his aim, can't get rusty after all, titans might break free any millennium.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        would you care to lie more?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        It's not exactly the same as stealing specifically because for it to be stealing, the owner must be deprived of the original and the item being stolen must be exclusive. You cannot steal ideas, for instance, because you can't wipe someone else's memory of the ideas they've had, even if you copy those ideas.
        
        You seem to be trying to say that it's morally equivalent to stealing. You can't logically argue that it is practically equivalent for the stated reasons.
        
        It's funny you said that Techdirt's perspective (which isn't pro-piracy regardless of your accusations) is one-sided. Calling copyright infringement is one-sided because it's only looking that the person obtaining something they weren't authorized by the copyright holder to obtain. It doesn't look at the fact that the copyright holder is not deprived of the original. It doesn't look at the fact that from the perspective of the person offering the copy to someone else that they are in fact sharing.
        
        Calling copyright infringement theft has always been a weasel wording. It's an intentional effort to paint copyright infringement as something more damaging than it is (e.g. if someone copies $40k worth of music and they don't have $40k lying around to have spent on it, how is that a $40k loss to the music industry?).
        
        It's the same with the use of the term "piracy," which backfired when the so-called pirates started using it as a badge of honor. Next I suppose we'll be hearing about copyright terrorists...
        
        Obtaining without consent isn't a real thing. You might be referring to "theft by receiving" stolen property, but the property has to be stolen, rather than copied, for such a charge to apply.
        
        IP maximalists often tout the "it's the law!" argument for right and wrong. Well, the law doesn't say that copying is theft, so, "it's the law!" that copying isn't theft.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Liz (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Last year I planted a bunch of seeds in my back yard garden. The resulting plants blossomed and eventually developed into a variety of fruits and vegetables. I had so many in fact that I shared with my friends and neighbors.
        
        Now these people and I didn't buy the same fruits and veggies from the supermarket which is just two miles away. So then are we stealing from the grocery store since each tomato and carrot we ate from my garden is a lost sale to them?
        
        Now if someone (like those damned raccoons) came in and helped themselves - I wouldn't have had as much food stuff to consume and share. I'm at a loss because of a limited supply. THAT'S stealing. Even if it is from sneaky little bandit-faced canids who live in the wild.
        
        Now, I know it's a bad comparison. Seeing that I'll need to rework my garden again this year for another harvest while a digital file can be copied endlessly without loss to the original owner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        That doesn't even come close to being the same thing at all.
        
        You owned the veggies, you do what you want. You have the right to share them.
        
        However, if you went into a farmers field and tool the veggies and shared them...you'd likely be charged with theft, and the original owner of the veggies (the farmer) would have lost some sales. You devalued his earnings by taking the veggies and sharing them.
        
        Whether it's a lost sale for the grocery store down the street or not is a little bit moot in a situation like this. You didn't appropriate any veggies from them in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "However, if you went into a farmers field and tool the veggies and shared them...you'd likely be charged with theft, and the original owner of the veggies (the farmer) would have lost some sales. You devalued his earnings by taking the veggies and sharing them."
        
        Precisely! Now...that's a meat-space crime, with a meat-space victim and a meat-space penalty.
        However, if I went into a public server, copied mp3 files and shared them...has the the artist/songwriter/whoever actually LOST any sales? How can you tell? I might already have the CD, but want to download it onto my netbook (don't have a disc drive on it). The people I share it with might already have the CD. They might go out and buy it.
        In fact, this has happened to me countless times (although not with music). A year ago, I downloaded Battlestar Galactica, the series and watched it straight through. Loved it. Then, about a month ago...I bought the series on Blu-ray, paid full price. Felt it was well worth it. That sale WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't infringed in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        [has the the artist/songwriter/whoever actually LOST any sales?]
        
        Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how good/bad the stuff is, I suppose. But people who can't buy, will never buy no matter whether they listen to it free on the web, or grab an unauthorized copy. No money, no sales. So the lost sale thing is a waste of time in some ways.
        
        [That sale WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't infringed in the first place.]
        
        What is that old saying...the right results from the wrong actions? That's an excuse, and not a reason. I actually understand that there was an increase in "sales" but I'm not the one you have to convince. I give away stuff for free.
        
        I think a lot of artists in all genres (not just music) seem to be stuck on the "lost a sale" thing. If someone isn't going to buy it, they aren't.
        
        I agree that if you purchased the product and need it in a different format, you shouldn't have to use filesharing to get it or buy a different copy of it. The distributors (et al) should be offering it up in whatever format the purchaser of the CD wants in it. That could resolve a lot of nonsense for music and movie buyers.
        
        Business models need to change, but I'm not too sure that using the wrong methods to force these guys to change their business models is the right way to do it.
        
        And no, I've no idea what is the right way, but I'm almost sure this isn't it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Liz (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        You didn't appropriate any veggies from them in the first place.
        
        You're right, I didn't. If we were to take this example and build on it, I could have gotten seeds from the previously purchased foods. It isn't too terribly difficult to take a root veggie or a bulb like onion or garlic and get it to grow a new plant.
        
        With that, I'd have purchased a stock item, reproduced it and shared it with others. I could conceivably do this over and over and over. Now you might think this is perfectly legal thing to do. But what if the original material was grown by a licensed farmer who used stock from say, Monsanto?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 4:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        at that point legality and sanity become completely divorced from each other, reality ignores the former and carries on as normal, the company and courts ignore the latter, and you get screwed by the result :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        It's not sharing (sorry silverscarcat), it's obtaining without consent.
        
        As Dr. Cox would say...
        
        "Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrooooooooooooonnnnnnng!"
        
        If I give someone a book or DVD, they didn't pay for it, they borrowed it from me, but, by your logic (which doesn't work in the real world, BTW) they obtained without consent.
        
        Want to keep trying?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - kirillian (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Oddly enough, the results aren't even close to the same. They don't describe the same process or the same set of results. The only commonality between you stealing from me and infringing off of me is that you have something that you didn't have before. When you steal it, I no longer have it. When you infringe, I still own the work. You could also procure this work through buying, me gifting it to you, or through me sharing. In the end, all of those things share the exact same commonality that infringing and stealing do. There's a reason for language. Language allows us to differentiate between different situations. Using language improperly to falsely convey an idea also has a term - it's called lying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Authoring content is not stealing, in direct words, but the results (for the person creating) are EXACTLY THE SAME AS STEALING. They didn't have something, now they do.
        
        So all we have to do to make content authorship and copyright violation functionally equivalent to one another and to stealing in your eyes is have a few representatives sign a piece of paper that says content authorship is illegal.
        
        Who's weaseling again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        from the weasel master him/her-self:
        - If I bought it the results are EXACTLY THE SAME AS STEALING. I didn't have it before and now I do.
        - if I borrowed it (from a library) and memorized it in bitwise accuracy the results are EXACTLY THE SAME AS STEALING. I didn't have it before and now I do.
        
        You cannot by definition steal information. And if your creations are representable in 0 and 1 it's defined as information.
        
        Try harder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        from the weasel master him/her-self:
        - If I bought it the results are EXACTLY THE SAME AS STEALING. I didn't have it before and now I do.
        - if I borrowed it (from a library) and memorized it in bitwise accuracy the results are EXACTLY THE SAME AS STEALING. I didn't have it before and now I do.
        
        You cannot by definition steal information. And if your creations are representable in 0 and 1 it's defined as information.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        crap. Refresh slower than my clicks. My bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - David Muir (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Robbery is different from burglary is different from shoplifting is different from embezzlement is different from fraud... yet the results are the same: someone had money or property taken FROM them -- money or property they can no longer use. That is what makes these all forms of "stealing".
        
        You can't go ahead and lump copyright infringement in with them too because someone acquired something that they are not legally entitled to have. That logic makes driving with an expired license the same as grand theft auto, because you are enjoying the use of a vehicle that you are not legally entitled to use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Let's put it this way, shall we, it's not stealing because the infringement in no way shape or form makes it impossible for the "rights holder" to crank out as many more perfectly precise copies as they wish.
        
        Stealing would be running off with the master and that person starting to issue copies either in their own name or just to make money themselves. All while denying the "rights holder" to do the same.
        
        See? No weasel words just a real life comparison of the two words. At best infringement MAY deny the "rights holder" a bit of income. Though studies to show that the reverse is the case more often than not.
        
        The only weasel words being used here are yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22
        
        The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        There you have it. End of Argument. Legal determination by the Surpreme Court trumps all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Why would you want to change the established definition of stealing when there is a perfect word for "unrightfully aquired through copying" which is "infringement"?
    
    And this is not mockery, I am genuinely puzzled why anyone would want to be deliberately incorrect in communication.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      word games.
      
      emotive hyperbole.
      
      basically it's a lot easier to convince the ignorant that 'stealing is bad and this is stealing' than that 'you shouldn't make a copy, at no cost to anyone, of your stuff and give it to your friends so they can see how awesome it is, because that doesn't give us money, and thus is bad'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        And you can see other examples of this from other people who have manipulative agendas. When the GOP and their pundits call Obama a socialist at the same time that Obama has supported big business and corporate bailouts and handing the DOJ over to the entertainment industry, on top of being opposed by the actual socialists, it's clear that calling him a socialist is just a buzzword for people trying to garner the support of ignorant Americans who remember the Cold War
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - sigalrm (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 2:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Why would you want to change the established definition of stealing when there is a perfect word for "unrightfully aquired through copying" which is "infringement"?
      
      It's a straight-up psychological play, and an effective one at that.
      
      "Murder" and "Homicide" mean the same thing, but people react very differently to the words. Yell "Homicide" in a crowd, and you'll get a muted reaction at best. Yell "Murder" in the same crowd and the reaction will be immediate and much stronger.
      
      If you write that "X stole from me", you'll get far more of a reaction than if you print "X infringed on my copyright".
      
      Same deal with "Identity theft" - The vast majority of news that's printed pertaining to "ID Theft" is actually nothing more than your garden variety "Credit Card Fraud", but a headline that reads "X people were victimized by Credit Card Fraud" doesn't get nearly as much attention as "X people had their identities stolen".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 14 Mar 2012 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "If you write that "X stole from me", you'll get far more of a reaction than if you print "X infringed on my copyright"."
        
        This is a good point. It's like if Mitt Romney were complaining that he had to take a different luxury car because his other luxury car was in the shop in response to a poor person saying that their only car broke down and they lost their job because they couldn't get to work anymore.
        
        The most notable entities that own notable copyrights are corporations, not people. It's hard to gain sympathy for a faceless, sociopathic imaginary friend that rich people use to do their dirty deeds for them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Don't pretend that such word-use is one-sided, or even that the bulk of it is on Mike's side.
    
    *I* happen to consider it stealing, but I understand that some people do not, and that it's not "settled". The verb "to steal" is certainly not as well-defined as MPAA/RIAA pretend, no more than it's as well-defined as the author pretends.
    
    I also happen to consider IP-related stealing to be literally *victimless*. The original IP-owner is *not* (IMHO) entitled to *any* compensation. The proper remedy is for the "stealing" to be reversed (ie. the copy is to be destroyed), and if there's a pattern of offending behavior, the "thief" should be imprisoned.
    
    But the original IP-owner is not entitled to any remedy or compensation at all, since they have not actually been deprived of anything at any point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      *You* may consider it stealing, but the simple fact is the law does not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        And prior to the DMCA in 1998, unless the purpose of the infringement was to make a profit - presumably by selling the unauthorized copies - infringement was strictly a matter of civil law and not criminal law. Prior to the Copyright Act of 1976 (which took effect in 1978) even the selling of the unauthorized copies for a profit was a matter of civil law. In other words... IT WASN'T EVEN A CRIME until relatively recently. You could sue for damages if you could prove you were harmed and how much you were harmed. But you couldn't be arrested and jailed for it. That didn't happen until these laws were ILLEGALLY bought by the industry that couldn't prove they were damaged anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        ROFLMAO, how do ILLEGALLY make something law? Did both chambers of the Representative branch of the government approve the law? Did the Executive branch sign the law? If so the law was LEGALLY enacted. That's how our system works. The House and Senate send the law to the President who then must sign the law (or his veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority). Geesh I learned that stuff in elementary school. See "I'm Just a Bill" School House Rock, circa 1970s.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 3:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Bribery is still illegal according to the lawbooks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        sigalrm (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        how do ILLEGALLY make something law
        
        In the US, you do it by passing a law that violates the Constitution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Benjo (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Wait, so you think IP-related "stealing" is victim-less, but you think the offenders should be imprisoned?
      
      W T F? Are you kidding me? Name one victim-less crime where the offenders penalty is jail time.
      
      Also, IP-related stealing sounds stupid as hell. This could be on the level of corporate patent infringement, which is in some cases legitimately illegal. Get off your (incorrectly) moral high ground.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Name one victim-less crime where the offenders penalty is jail time.
        
        Well, this thing called the "war on drugs" comes to mind. It's not quite as stupid as jail time for copyright infringement though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:34am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    "The more you pay attention here, the more you realize that the piracy supporters use the same sneaky weasel language that they berate politicians for using."
    
    And, yet, you back politicans who, according to you "...use the same sneaky weasel language that they berate politicians for using."
    Double standard when it's convenient for you, boy?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    you have to get use to the Techdirt word games.
    
    Sorry, you're the one who's playing the word games.
    
    The words "stealing" and "theft" are, in fact, legal terms with very well-defined meanings. And copyright infringement is not encompassed in that, objectively. To claim otherwise is to use "steal" in a loose, slang sense -- which is word games.
    
    Your definition of why it's stealing is interesting, but wholly unsupported in law. There are a lot of ways a person can illegally gain something without it being considered "theft". The key point of theft is that someone was deprived of something.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cary Pistoff, 22 Apr 2012 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Quit analyzing this to death. when someone has a gift, they are given the choice to give it away freely and live poor, or sell their work and make a living. Taking what isn't yours, it's for sale and you didn't pay for it, you're stealing it. call a spade a spade and quit this bull.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:25am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Copying isn't stealing. I have over 4.6 trillion copies of Moby-Dick. So I've stolen 4.6 trillion times? I've stolen a piece of "property" that belongs to everyone?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    How many did you put in a box though?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    It doesn't *have* to be stealing.
    
    The question is: did you take something you weren't entitled to take?
    
    If the original is in the public domain, then "of course not". It has to go back to the entitlements.
    
    (That said: the solution is not for the IP-holders to sue and get paid. That's bogus. Just because someone stole something doesn't mean the IP-owners were deprived of anything. They are not entitled to any remedy of the sort -- what *should* happen is, the copies are destroyed, the "thief" goes to jail, and the owner of the original IP has no involvement beyond testifying as to the entitlements involved.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Its still called "infringement" no matter how desperately you want to call it "stealing"
      
      Just because your opinion tells you so, doesn't make it so.
      
      And they didn't "take" anything, they "copied" it.
      
      You really mean "did you copy something you weren't entitled to copy?"
      
      That would go a lot farther
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Tell me...how does one infringe when having 4.6 trillion copies of Moby Dick, which was published in 1851 and is now in the public domain? There literally cannot be copyright infringement of such a thing.
        In meat-space, there are copyrights on republications of the work, such that Publishing Company A owns the copyrights to a publication of the book, if they stuff enough new creative elements in it (perhaps a foreword or something), but the actual text of Moby Dick? Public Domain, pal, public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "Just because your opinion tells you so, doesn't make it so."
        
        Of course not - facts make it so. His, mine or your opinions weights nothing copared to facts.
        
        "You really mean "did you copy something you weren't entitled to copy?""
        
        I wasn't entitled to copy but I was allowed? It is not illegal (at least in Europe it isn't). It reminds me of banality of:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      I'm going to share my thoughts with you, but I'm going to do so under your definition of stealing. That is, you need to pay me for them or I will declare that you stole them. Why? Because if you read further you will have my thoughts without having paid for it, so you aren't entitled to them.
      
      Stealing is wrong, we both agree on that, but apparently we disagree on why stealing is wrong. I (and almost every other person out there) thinks stealing is wrong because you are taking something away from someone else has the right to that thing. You apparently think stealing is wrong because someone acquired something.
      
      Did you spot the difference? You hate that people have something, whereas most human beings hate that someone took something away from someone else. We dislike the taking away, you just dislike the having.
      
      Stealing is stealing, copying is copying. In both situations someone ends up with something. In only one situation does someone lost something. That you equate the two shows that you don't like people having things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        You've basically got it right. I don't like people having things *that they're not entitled to have*, and think that's the true harm that comes from stealing. Exactly!
        
        (You may not agree. I don't expect you to. But we'll go farther if we each understand the other.)
        
        (And I *won't* agree with your "and almost every other person out there". That's to be determined. But I understand that it's what *you* think.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Should I be expecting payment or should I call the cops? I told you upfront that you aren't entitled to my thoughts unless you pay me. You now have my thoughts but having not paid, you've stolen them from me by your very own definition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I realize that you're making an attempt to be funny, but I'm going to respond as if you were serious.
        
        That's only true if I accept that you get to establish such entitlements unilaterally. Of course, I do not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        If don't accept than you aren't entitled to his thoughts, are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        If you're going to take the route of "copyright is valid because it was arrived at through the democratic (i.e. not unilateral) process", then you undercut your own argument, because we've decided as a culture that copyright infringement is not stealing. That's why there are separate laws for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't copyright infringment as it is defined in the laws restricted to distribution and not consumption? Isn't that why they have been going after people who have been sharing? I don't think copyright law applies to people who download STOLEN content. You are not provided safe harbors under copyright law that defines your actions as a civil action. Your actions are still subject to property theft law, it's just that the content industry has never pushed for enforcement, but I don't see why they couldn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't copyright infringment as it is defined in the laws restricted to distribution and not consumption?
        
        Not really. Read 17 USC 106. (1) covers reproduction, (2) covers distribution.
        
        Technically, merely "consuming" the work is not infringement, but if you make a copy of it in order to consume it - as you do when you download a file - then you're infringing. On the other hand, you are not infringing when you purchase a counterfeit CD or DVD, since you didn't make the copy.
        
        No, it doesn't make much sense, but that's copyright law for ya.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Actually, I'm pretty sure if you have a counterfeit in your possession, they're still going to nail you for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Also:
        
        Your actions are still subject to property theft law
        
        Someone needs to re-read Dowling v. United States, in which the Supreme Court explicitly stated that infringing copies are not stolen goods.
        
        Property theft law does not apply to copyright infringement, in any way, shape, or form. Only copyright law applies to copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't copyright infringment as it is defined in the laws restricted to distribution and not consumption?
        
        You are wrong. Copyright has several distinct rights associated with it under Section 106 -- and included in those rights is a right of distribution, as you note, but also a right of reproduction (and public performance, among other things).
        
        Making a reproduction (download) can also violate the law.
        
        Isn't that why they have been going after people who have been sharing?
        
        No. The reason they tend to go after uploaders rather than downloaders is due simply to the fact that you can see the IP addresses of uploaders. You can only see the IP addresses of downloaders *if* you're the one seeding the file, and if you're the rightsholder, than it's an authorized copy and the download isn't infringing.
        
        However, on discovery, someone accused of uploading may also be hit with reproduction charges if there's such evidence (this happened in the Jammie Thomas case, for example).
        
        I don't think copyright law applies to people who download STOLEN content.
        
        You "think" wrong. For someone who is so sure of himself, you appear to know almost nothing of copyright law.
        
        Copyright does apply to reproductions (downloads) as stated. But it is not theft.
        
        Your actions are still subject to property theft law, it's just that the content industry has never pushed for enforcement, but I don't see why they couldn't.
        
        Um, this is totally incorrect.
        
        Really. Learn a little about the law if you want to act like you know what you're talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        No, I'm making an attempt to show you that your definition of stealing is stupid.
        
        I don't get to establish such agreements unilaterally. I made the proposal, you kept reading even though you knew what the terms were. You kept reading, so that means you agreed to the terms. You could have easily ignored my comment, but you didn't. Since you agreed but didn't pay you weren't entitled to my thoughts. Yet you read them anyway. By your own definition of stealing, you are a thief.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I kept reading even though I knew the terms you tried to impose. But we're talking in a public forum -- it's extremely clear that you do not have the right to impose such terms, the notion is absurd, so I ignored that bit of silliness on your part.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        How is it any different than copyright law? In this case I'm using contract law, and the terms are more upfront than shrink-wrap licenses, which have been held as enforceable in many jurisdictions. How is saying "By clicking 'I agree' you agree to ..." any different than "By continuing to read you agree to ..."?
        
        The point is I put up terms and you violated those terms. Whether it's enforceable or not is rather beyond the point. You define stealing has having something that you're not entitled to. I only gave you my opinion if you were willing to pay me for it. Without paying for it, you are not entitled to it, yet you took it anyway. By my definition, that isn't stealing, but by your definition it is.
        
        You can argue that you're definition is correct, but by so doing you are also arguing that you are a thief.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        So likewise you acknowledge that people have the right to ignore the silliness that is the unauthorized duplication warning inserted at the beginning of every commercially produced DVD because...
        
        "it's extremely clear that you do not have the right to impose such terms"
        
        Glad we all agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Wait...so if I hear music, say on a "public forum" like a radio broadcast...then I have rights to enjoy it and can make use if it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I don't like people having things *that they're not entitled to have*, and think that's the true harm that comes from stealing.
        
        Harm to whom?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I don't like people having things *that they're not entitled to have*
        
        You're right, we should all be jealous greedy assholes. That's how we'll take over the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cowardly Anonymous, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I can't think of a single person that earned (and thus was entitled to) anything their parents offered to them as a child. Yet someone provided each of us with food, shelter and education or we would never have reached the point where we write a comment to a blog site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Never had to work for your allowance? Mine was never given to me unless chores were done above and beyond keeping the house and dishes clean. Washing windows, feeding animals for the grandparents, mowing the lawn, raking leaves were all examples.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 7:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Ehm... this is not stealing, it's called ENVY. Look it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tyler, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The difference is that you have not copy written your thoughts, and therefore it is not considered intellectual property. In fact, though I haven't checked, this site probably states somewhere that by posting here you give up any claim to property rights of anything that you post. The artists who make this music generally have copy written their work. If we are to ignore this, then no intellectual work can ever be profited from. Inventions of all types, movie scripts, music, photographs, books, all would be free and could not be profited from because they are not a "physical thing." Copying music simply takes the place of stealing the physical product (CD, etc.), and it accomplishes the same thing. You have procured something without paying for it, while robbing the artist of their work.
        
        The argument that there is not a physical thing stolen is not a valid excuse. If you were to sneak into an arena for the concert, you would also not be stealing a physical product, but an experience. And yet, it would still be illegal. You're not permitted to simply attend college classes without paying for them. Are we to believe this is simply based on the use of the physical building? No, it's because you are required to pay for the experience of learning something that you have deemed valuable (this is meant as a simple equivalency of the nature of physical and intellectual property, the discussion about free education is a separate issue). Amusement parks, transportation services, cleaning services, many doctors visits, all things that often don't result in you leaving with a product. You are still required to pay for the service. The artist, in this case is also providing a service, and frankly, there IS also a physical product. Just because you've found a way around taking the physical property, doesn't mean you've absolved yourself from the theft of their work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka, 13 Mar 2012 @ 6:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        His thoughts, your thoughts, any thoughts are covered by copyright the moment we affix them into a medium. Like this text box.
        
        And yet i can freely take your content and use it any several ways.
        
        The argument that there is not a physical thing stolen is not a valid excuse.
        Darn words having meanings! I want them to mean what i want!
        
        If you were to sneak into an arena for the concert, you would also not be stealing a physical product, but an experience.
        And yet, it would still be illegal.
        At the worst it would be trespassing, which is a different thing then theft. That is why it has a different name.
        
        You're not permitted to simply attend college classes without paying for them. Are we to believe this is simply based on the use of the physical building? No, it's because you are required to pay for the experience of learning something that you have deemed valuable (this is meant as a simple equivalency of the nature of physical and intellectual property, the discussion about free education is a separate issue).
        You are hilarious!
        Actually, "auditing" a class is a common event. Free learning! Learning, just laying around!
        
        You know, I don't think we have to go much farther.
        � 2012 Teka Rain
        I hereby grant techdirt and/or floor64 the unlimited right to store and display this comment in context. All Other Rights Reserved. Reading and/or Quoting rights available by license, All other reading and quoting forbidden.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The difference is that you have not copy written your thoughts
        As a signatory to the Berne Convention, United States copyright law declares that as soon as you write your work it is copyrighted (not copy written). My thoughts, as soon as I wrote them, were copyrighted. Not registered, which would be necessary to sue for damages, but they were copyrighted nonetheless.
        this site probably states somewhere that by posting here you give up any claim to property rights of anything that you post.
        This site doesn't do that, and no site that I am aware of does either. They might state that you grant them permission to publish your works, but the works are still yours.
        If we are to ignore this, then no intellectual work can ever be profited from.
        You would do well to inform Michelangelo, Cory Doctorow and Red Hat of that.
        Copying music simply takes the place of stealing the physical product (CD, etc.), and it accomplishes the same thing
        Does Best Buy consider it the same thing if I copy a DVD or steal a DVD? Do you really think WB would think it's the same thing if 1,000 people copied Batman Begins or 1,000 people stole Batman Begins DVDs? No, then they aren't the same thing.
        You have procured something without paying for it, while robbing the artist of their work.
        I'll ignore the circularity of your argument and say that the artist still has his work. Copying it is merely that; copying. In addition, I procure lots of things without paying for it. Air is one. And the smell of the doughnut shop I pass on my way to work. And the free samples of food at the grocery store, even when I don't buy anything there. And the free songs I hear on the radio when I turn it on, hear a song, and then turn it off without ever hearing an ad. Getting something without paying for it is not the definition of stealing. I disagree with Doug D's definition, but your definition is even worse.
        The argument that there is not a physical thing stolen is not a valid excuse
        I've not seen anyone credibly claim that copyright infringement is legal because it's not stealing, only that it's not stealing. What's your point?
        If you were to sneak into an arena for the concert, you would also not be stealing a physical product, but an experience.
        Whose experience would be stolen? Who is missing their experience because someone sneaked into an arena? No one's. Therefore, no stealing is involved.
        And yet, it would still be illegal
        True, but illegality is not the definition of stealing.
        You're not permitted to simply attend college classes without paying for them
        Correct. Again, just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it's stealing. Jaywalking is illegal. It's also not stealing. You know what else isn't stealing? Drunk driving, murder, arson, perjury, defamation, slander, libel, copyright infringement, patent infringement, animal cruelty, child abuse, regicide, vandalism, trespassing, breaking and entering, etc. There are lots of illegal things that aren't theft and don't involve stealing. Copyright infringement is illegal, no one is saying otherwise. The argument here is that theft and copyright infringement are not the same. Murder is taking someone's life. Also not stealing. Slander, libel and defamation are taking someone's honor, but still aren't stealing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      the "thief" goes to jail
      
      Why is the word thief in quotations and why are they going to jail?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Because I'm trying to acknowledge -- in fact, draw attention to the fact -- that not everybody is defining the words the same way I and the dictionary I use do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        What about how the law defines it? Because the law defines what you're talking about (unauthorized copies) as infringement. The dictionary doesn't decide punishment. The law does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        How the law defines it is certainly relevant, and if the article title had said "technically, by a strict legal definition, according to US law" that'd have been different. But how the law defines it isn't *all* there is to the discussion.
        
        If one is talking about morality or about how the law *should* work, then how the law *currently* works can be a factor, but isn't the final word.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        How the law defines it is how you use the words when you try to equate "stealing" with "infringement", regardless of your other arguments.
        
        Thats all there is to the discussion, really.
        
        Since copying is not stealing, and all that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        In this case, how the law defines it is the only proper definition to use. Copyright is a purely legal construct. As such, there is no other way to look at the is-infringement-stealing debate than with legal definitions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      You're attempting to justify your bad definition of "stealing" by substituting a bad definition of "taken".
      
      Someone else in the world wants to tell me how I could reorganize the bits on my hard drive such that, when interpreted and played through my speakers, a certain sound is produced.
      
      What was "taken"?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Here I'll bite on this.
      
      Lets say Andy makes some art. He hangs it in a private gallery in his house and gives no one the right to look at it.
      
      Then, he invites ten people in to examine it. One of them, Billy, is an asshole who sneaks in a camera and takes some pictures of it. Totally uncool. Billy prints out those pictures and hangs them in a public place.
      
      By your definition, everyone who passes by the picture Billy printed out is a thief, because they have access to something they don't have the rights to. Am I correct?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        You're not correct because you missed the "by their action" piece. That's more like receiving stolen goods than like stealing. Billy is the one who's (arguably) a thief.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Ok, so when someone duplicates an artist's work and places it in a public area, anyone who sees it is not a thief? What if I walked past, saw a cool picture, and took my own picture of that... Now I'm duplicating the original artist's property, is that thievery?
        
        What if someone stole an artist's CD and put it on the internet. If I made a copy of that stolen thing, am I a thief or not?
        
        From the standpoint of actions taken, there's no difference between the two acts of duplication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      The question is: did you take something you weren't entitled to take?
      
      No, the question is: is the owner worse of after someone made a copy. No, he isn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dumb A$$, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    That's in the public domain you fahrking retard
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:25am
  
  Re: It can be.
  My entitlement cuts both ways!
  
  Somebody is entitled to payment for something nigh infinitely reproducible; and somebody else is entitled to something nigh infinitely reproducible for nothing more than the time & bandwith cost.
  
  Who's wrong, who's right, who cares?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: It can be, but it's not
  Isn't copying a form of sharing?
  
  I was raised with people saying, for years "sharing is good".
  
  So, if copying is sharing, then I submit to you that copying is good.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ComputerAddict (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
    I prefer this logic path:
    Sharing is Caring,
    Sharing is Digital Copying
    Copying is like Stealing (Their Definition not mine)
    
    Do the quick algebra,
    Cross-cancel things out...
    
    Stealing is Digital Caring.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
      "Stealing is Digital Caring."
      
      Only insofar as long as the "stealing" is copyright infringement (AKA copying).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
    Great! Copy your money and send it to me. Sharing is caring!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
      Ah, but that kind of copying is a felony.
      
      It's called counterfeiting.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
        Not if it is a photograph, copy that money and send it to him :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
      Great! Copy your money and send it to me.
      
      Can do!
      
      Now, where should I email you this money?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
        Sorry, but that's hardly a "copy", is it?
        
        Might want to hit the dictionary more often.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
        Sorry, but that's hardly a "copy", is it?
        
        "Take a picture or scan an image of your money. Send digital copies to the MPAA & RIAA in whatever quantity you feel you can afford. "
        
        How is that not a copy? If I scan a document and email it to you, what am I sending you if not a copy of the document? It's certainly not the original, so what else could it be?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:48pm
    
    Re: Re: It can be, but it's not
    Hey that's MY angle. I'm the one who's asserted that this is all as a result of bad parenting of spoiled brats that didn't learn to share as kids like the rest of us. :P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean. It's not up for debate, stealing has a meaning and copying simply doesn't fit the definition. Your silly paragraph in parenthesis is just a pathetic attempt to redefine what stealing actually means so that it fits your preferred usage but that's not how words work. Stealing requires both, period. Not because I say so but because that's what the word means. It is a fact that copying is not stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    I agree that "words don't mean whatever you want them to mean". But it *is* up for debate.
    
    The dictionary I just consulted has 8 definitions for "steal", 3 of which are completely compatible with my way of thinking about this. Other dictionaries may disagree.
    
    There isn't some universal objective "master dictionary" we can consult to settle this -- I don't get to redefine words, but I *do* get to explain that my understanding is different from yours, and is backed by a dictionary that I had nothing to do with writing. There is disagreement, and there is room for argument.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      "The dictionary I just consulted has 8 definitions for "steal", 3 of which are completely compatible with my way of thinking about this. Other dictionaries may disagree."
      
      Which dictionary?
      Please cite, son.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Geez. Go to Merriam Webster's site and look it up. There are eleven definitions there.
        
        Please put some effort into your thinking, son.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        isn0t this "son" calling a bit patronizing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        isn0t this "son" calling a bit patronizing?
        
        No, extremely patronizing. :-\
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      "The dictionary I just consulted has 8 definitions for "steal", 3 of which are completely compatible with my way of thinking about this. Other dictionaries may disagree."
      
      Great, what dictionary was that and what were the definitions?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Agreed, every dictionary that I have looked at classify steal in the theft sense as a transitive verb. A transitive verb requires an object so which object am I taking when I copy a file again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The creator's soul...that's what you're taking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jake (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Interesting thought, but still not an object.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Actually it is in the syntactic sense, which is all a transitive verb requires.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Does that make me a shinigami? Cool :3
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Oddly the OED has fewer definitions:
        http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/steal
        
        Note that this is a more "concise" one than the one that takes up an entire bookshelf before breaking it under the weight.
        
        For the Americans here the OED is globally considered to be the definitive English dictionary though by no means does it fulfill any authoritative role like that of the Acadamie Francais
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cowardly Anonymous, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "For the Americans"
        
        Thanks for the concern, but I'm reasonably certain that the ratio of those who know about the OED here is roughly the same as in other English-speaking populations. It isn't that Americans are the problem, but that our government has fallen to the control of big businesses (and we aren't happy about that one, see the occupy wall-street protests).
        
        Being concise (quotes most certainly not required) simply is the best effort at precision, rather than inclusion. Precision is usually preferred in use of language, because of the damage that ambiguity can cause, though inclusion is extremely useful in the study of language. Thus it is prudent to have both versions, but the concise version is actually the better to use for authoritative purposes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        As an American let me tell you something that you may or may not already know.
        
        If the government fell into the control of a group, that is because culture fell into the control of that group, politicians come from a pool of people that grew up inside society and their cultural values, so if politicians are shitty it means the values inside that society are also equally shitty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Irrelevant. "Stealing" is what the law defines it to be, and copying is not stealing according to the law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Language is dynamic (ie. the meanings of words change over time) and the meanings of words ARE ultimately what the public accepts them to mean. So as it is genuinely accepted that the majority of the general public agrees that (based on the percentage of the public that engages in the action as well as the frequency that they engage in the action - especially if you use the figures provided by the entertainment industry)
      
      A. Theft is bad.
      B. File-sharing is not bad.
      
      Therefore...
      
      C. File-sharing is not theft.
      
      There simple logical deduction solves it for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      But it *is* up for debate.
      
      We get that you desperately want that to be the case. Which still doesn't make it any more true.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Downloading an UNAUTHORIZED copy is not mearly copying. Just like baking magic brownies isn't just baking. That is the problem with this site, people are trying to say, "It's not stealing, it's just copying". No, its illegally copying because the source was not offered legitimately by the rights holder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - LazDude2012, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Which is the point! You said it yourself: it's illegal copying. Whether it's wrong or not, which seems to be your big hang up, isn't the point of this discussion. The fact remains: copying is not stealing, and the two can't ever really be the same, not without redefining stealing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - oconnellc (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 6:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I'm curious why that is such an important distinction for you? Whether or not you can be prosecuted for stealing or infringement, what is REALLY the difference?
        
        How about this... It doesn't really matter if you like someone's business model or not. If you download a copy of something without paying for it, it is unethical and illegal. It doesn't matter how it affects someone's business or if you like the way they try to execute transactions. It is illegal and unethical.
        
        Now, what was your point again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 8:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        How about this... It doesn't really matter if you like someone's business model or not. If you download a copy of something without paying for it, it is unethical and illegal.
        
        Unlawful? Yes. (I prefer "unlawful" to "illegal," because the latter implies a criminal act, and copyright infringement is usually a civil offense.)
        
        Unethical? Probably not.
        
        Is copying and sharing unethical? Generally speaking, it is not. The cornerstone of many ethical philosophies is that sharing is one of the most moral things you can possibly do. If you're sharing a copy of something, that's certainly not any less ethical. It might be more ethical, since you are creating abundance where once there was scarcity.
        
        The Biblical parable of the loaves and fishes is a prime example of this. Five loaves and two fish feeding 5,000 men. It's hard to imagine a more accurate metaphor for file sharing.
        
        Now, if you're a fisherman or a baker, then Jesus's miracle certainly would be a threat to your livelihood.
        
        If they behaved according to your morals, they'd complain that every miracle was "theft" of bread and fish. They'd give your own sermon on the mount, where they'd try to "educate" everyone in Galilee about how much "stealing" food is "destroying the value" of fishing and baking. Without bakers or fishermen, they'd say, there won't be any more bread or fish, and you'd have nothing left to "steal." They'd also tell everyone to just ignore that Peter guy, because he's not a "professional" fisherman.
        
        Eventually, they'd go to the Romans, and demand that they do something about "that rogue pirate Jesus," who is costing them seven pieces of silver per day.
        
        Do you think this behavior is actually moral?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BeeAitch (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      ...and illegal copying is defined by the law as infringement, not stealing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Please return all the 'air' you have stolen....
  
  Why? You took action (breathing) and gained something you are not entitled to without properly compensating the rights-holder (GOD)...
  
  Your compliance with this request will show that you really do understand the concept of stealing, and that you will no longer steal things that you do not have an explicit right to.
  
  I assume you don't have any documentation showing your right to breath? So please stop....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:28am
  
  Re: It can be.
  I don't want to say you're an idiot, because I sense that you may have some 'skin in the game', (musician, maybe?), so you appear to be blinded by your own interest here.
  I would only ask you to reconsider, "something they're not entitled to". That's wrong. All of humanity is entitled to enjoy the results of artists work. Nobody can own it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:51am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    1) No skin in the game. I'm a computer programmer, but I do in-house programming for my employer. Where it makes sense to, I participate in open source projects, and make my own projects available to others.
    
    2) You say "all of humanity is entitled to enjoy the results of artists work". You say it axiomatically. Obviously, I do not agree, but I'm open to discussion -- *why* do you believe that? What argument would you make to persuade someone who's undecided?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      As a fellow developer and open source contributor I want to:
      
      A) Thank you for making your arguments in a reasoned, logical manner. Compared to the trolls we often see around here, it is a breath of fresh air.
      
      B) Say that bogging this down to a discussion of semantics is a losing battle. However, I think the problem is a lack of logic on the parts of those that proclaim infringing to be stealing. Consider the following (which I have written here before).
      
      I watch an episode of The Daily Show via their website - Not stealing
      
      I watch an episode of The Daily Show at a bar - Not stealing
      
      I watch an episode of The Daily Show on cable - Not stealing
      
      I record an episode of The Daily Show via DVR or MythTV - Not stealing
      
      I download an episode of The Dialy Show - Stealing
      
      There simply isn't any consistency in the rationale behind what is and what isn't considered "stealing". I am allowed to record, but not to download, either way it's an identical arrangement of bits on my hard drive. It's like telling me I can legally get to a destination by car, if and only if I take proscribed roads. What I (and most people) care about is getting to the destination quickly and inexpensively.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Whether that download is stealing depends on criteria that *I* think are reasonably clear, at least at the extremes.
        
        Were you entitled?
        
        In your first example, you watched it, you did not *obtain* anything. After you're done watching, there's no copy anywhere that didn't exist before. The same is true of your second and third examples. Nothing was obtained, so the question of stealing doesn't make sense.
        
        In the fourth example, it's clear that you're entitled to make that copy, because of fair use for space-shifting and time-shifting.
        
        For the "download" case, that's where it may or may not be stealing depending on your entitlement. For a person who never visited the Daily Show web site, doesn't get cable or satellite, and has never been to a venue where it was being shown legitimately, it's clearly stealing. If the download is a side-effect of the DVR or using the Daily Show's own web site, it's clearly not stealing.
        
        There *is* (to my mind) a grey area in between, for example: if two people get Comedy Central from different providers (eg. Comcast vs. DirecTV), and one forgets to TiVo the show, and the other remembers, and burns it to a DVD and hands that to the other person, has any stealing occurred? I don't actually know enough to answer that question right now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "There *is* (to my mind) a grey area in between, for example: if two people get Comedy Central from different providers (eg. Comcast vs. DirecTV), and one forgets to TiVo the show, and the other remembers, and burns it to a DVD and hands that to the other person, has any stealing occurred? I don't actually know enough to answer that question right now."
        
        Right, and most people don't really care they just want to watch the show they forgot was on or their DVR didn't record.
        
        I think the daily show is a bad example because, iirc, they do make everything freely available on their site. But basically people will not get bogged down in these questions nad grey areas. If they want to watch it, they will watch it. If you provide legitimate means they will (mostly) go through those avenues (assuming they are not unduly burdensome) because fans do understand and want to support artists they like. If you don't provide legitimate means that is not going to stop most people from getting what they wanted.
        
        You can call it entitlement if you want but I would say its common sense. People know its possible and their is no reason anything can not be available cheaply and conveniently online. I would say the entitlement comes from the rights holders (usually not the artist) who want things to be the same as when it was logical and necessary to have control over distribution, control that the rigged to prevent true competition while dominating the supply chain to increase marginal profits at every step from the artists mind to the costumers hand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "Right, and most people don't really care they just want to watch the show they forgot was on or their DVR didn't record. "
        
        I agree. That has little to do with whether it's right or not. You're basically saying (to my ears) that they don't care whether it's stealing or not. I agree that that's true. I also think it's often true of, for example, individual pennies. Are they wrong to steal? Sure, but most people are just not going to get worked up over someone taking 1� out of a tip jar.
        
        (Which is why the law, and society as a whole, should focus on pragmatic solutions, not absolute perfectly enforced write-and-wrong-based reasoning. It drives me a bit crazy that so many traffic violations are ignored, but I recognize that it's necessary for society to function, so I don't try to get it changed -- but they're still violations, even if they're ignored.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        "You're basically saying (to my ears) that they don't care whether it's stealing or not"
        
        Correct, its too archaic a principle and a whole bunch of grey areas. People want the artists they like to keep making stuff and they want to people able to get stuff that they logically should be able to.
        
        Technology now allows us to give money directly to artists so they can keep creating and it also gives a near zero cost means of receiving the content.
        
        The problem is the people who used to make lots and lots of money by selecting artists and giving us the content do not want us to do it ourselves. So they stand in the way of setting up any system that actually fosters fans and artists connecting directly and setting up a fair an balanced system to help artists get money and people get content.
        
        Imagine a world where fans didn't have to beg for years to have their favorite show brought back by a network (e.g. arrested development) because instead of paying a flat rate cable bill I get to decide what shows I like and support them directly. Great for the consumer, horrible for middlemen. However it is a system we have the technology for, it is just being blocked by entrenched power every step of the way.
        
        I think the video game market is the closest to achieving something like this. Look at the big name developers that have wanted to make games that their fans wanted for years but no publisher would ever give them money. Now they are reaching right out to the fans and the fans are answering the call. The world hasn't flipped on it head yet but it is surely leaning. (e.g. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure AND http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2 )
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I guess my point is, most of us would like to be pragmatic about it but when multinational conglomerate empires worth billions stand to lose a lot of money with a pragmatic solution it makes it really hard to discuss, plan and implement one. If people keep falling for their bullshit and repeating their worthless stats or arguing about semantics we do not move forward.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        >>-----------------------------> wow, that was a really long stretch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        >>-----------------------------> wow, that was a really long stretch. Here is another.
        
        An alien race picks up earths TV stations and records them. The little gray guy then sends it to his friend. Infringing or not?
        
        We should be realizing that once it is broadcast, it is in the public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Incidentally:
        
        "What I (and most people) care about is getting to the destination quickly and inexpensively."
        
        I get that. That's why I think our governments and societies should focus on *pragmatic* solutions to these sorts of problems, rather than absolute rights-based approaches.
        
        I mean, if I were to go 100% absolute-rights-based rather than pragmatic, I'd eventually insist that anyone who ever ran a red light end up in prison, even if nobody had been harmed.
        
        It's clearly *wrong*, those people are doing something *wrong*. But our society really has to be pragmatic about addressing it. The end goal for society *cannot* be for everyone to always act absolutely "in the right".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hothmonster, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Very true and reasonable of you Doug. So with 15 laws in 30 years and 0 effect on piracy do you think it might be time to try responding to the wants of the consumer instead of trying to force them back to a system that no longer makes sense now that the internet exists? When have we spent too much time, money and political power trying to control the flood and start just digging some channels instead?
        
        The problem is the people setting the stage for this argument. Doing most of the paying for the studies, getting their talking points repeated in papers and on tv and spending millions of dollars lying to congress will die (figuratively) because they make their money by siphoning money away from the actual artists in exchange for getting content to the consumer.
        
        This used to be and expensive, arduous and serious logistical task but it isn't anymore. I could professionally create cds/movies/books with nothing but a home computer and a couple grand in special equipment to make my product faster and higher quality, a person used to need a warehouse and 100k equipment to do this kind of stuff. I don't need to ship it to stores all over the country anymore. So these companies used to take the song and spend 3 dollars getting it pressed to CD and 2 dollars getting it shipped and fractions of dollars per unit on negotiating with stores, paying all the employees required to do this ect ect. So we as consumers looked at all that work and we were ok with giving them a few dollars extra. We knew it didn't cost 9.99$ to make and ship a cd but we accepted it as a decent value for the effort and work to get it into our hands. Now it costs a fraction of a penny to copy-paste. You can not make 5$ profit on something that costs you nothing without people seeing it as a rip off.
        
        There are massive companies built too profit off these physical goods that are no longer needed or wanted(on anywhere near the same scale) and their are organizations that only exist from dues these companies pay. Do you expect these member organizations to tell the truth? To not confuse the issue and spread fallacies among the consumers? They only exist because of these large conglomerates and if those conglomerates become redundant bye bye 500k a year job at the MPAA.
        
        /rant
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        ugh was trying to squeeze this in before lunch ended, that last paragraph is a mess of bad toos and bad theirs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        To cut to the chase: I do in fact think it's time to massively decriminalize almost all of this activity and to change the parameters of the ecosystem. I agree, completely.
        
        Which is why I hope the TechDirt folks stop saying things like "it's not stealing" as if it were universally agreed-upon settled fact. Doing so creates disagreement on ideological grounds where there could have been agreement on pragmatic grounds.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Techdirt folks won't stop saying "its not like stealing" because it IS UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON SETTLED FACT, in the eyes of the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Then they're being impractical and creating argument where it's not necessary to do so. None of their arguments or solutions really depend on whether or not it's stealing.
        
        (Also, no, the law says nothing about whether it's like stealing. That sort of question is out of scope for the law.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Then they're being impractical and creating argument where it's not necessary to do so.
        
        Says the guy who desperately tries to convice anyone that words don't mean what they do mean. Funny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cowardly Anonymous, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The mantra that you are so opposed to is created as a response to the propaganda and emotional appeal of calling the action theft. The wording explicitly works against reasoned debate by preventing a separate discussions regarding infringement and theft.
        
        Since the industry has convinced most of those actually negotiating the law as well as a large segment of the population that infringement is theft there is no room for the debate that needs to happen.
        
        In other words, the difference between the two topics covered by theft and infringement under the law is useful and thus worth preserving. We have no reason to blur the two by using the most expansive version of the definition of theft that has ever been proffered. Doing so creates ambiguity, which, if you have ever worked with the grammars of programming languages, you will recognize as rather disruptive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The one that gets me even more? I can't watch an episode of The Daily Show via their website, on my phone. Even if it's thru my own WIFI....
        
        (Well, not supposed to....)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Seriously not.
    
    Apparently, you aren't an artist.
    
    Humanity is only entitled to it if the artist publishes it; sells it, or shares it themselves.
    
    Who are you to say that all of humanity is "entitled" to it? Psha.
    
    As for nobody can "own" it. Yes, yes they can. You pay the artist for his painting and oh-my-god, you own it. What you decide to do with it is your business.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      https://www.google.com/search?q=picasso+paintings&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch &tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=5ppfT8vvI6W42wX-64C1CA&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1149& bih=688
      
      I just admired all that art without anyones express permission. Guess i am a fucking dirty thief?
      
      "Who are you to say that all of humanity is "entitled" to it? Psha."
      
      Ever hear of the public domain? Probably not, nothing goes into it anymore anyways.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Admiring. Well whatever. You can do that anywhere, usually for free. You still don't own it, you didn't copy it. You don't need to permission to admire, you need to acquire.
        
        Sure, anything in the public domain may be free, but NOT everything is in the Public Domain. What don't you understand about that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dcee (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        But, it was acquired. I paid for the CD/DVD then downloaded it on the Internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - oconnellc (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The existence of 'Public Domain' does not mean that by definition every artistic creation is in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        No nothing goes in it anymore, didn't i just say that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      You are mixing up physical and non-physical goods. Sure, I own the physical object that is the painting, if you sell it to me. I don't own the "art" though. I'm still not allowed to makes copies of it for my friends or to sell on eBay. You don't own it either. The law gives to a monopoly on that right for a limited time. Copyright is not ownership. You don't own the art, even as the artist. Society owns it. Yes, humanity IS entitled to it. It is OUR culture. Even the law says so!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        You are mixing up physical and non-physical goods. Sure, I own the physical object that is the painting, if you sell it to me. I don't own the "art" though. I'm still not allowed to makes copies of it for my friends or to sell on eBay. You don't own it either. The law gives to a monopoly on that right for a limited time. Copyright is not ownership. You don't own the art, even as the artist. Society owns it. Yes, humanity IS entitled to it. It is OUR culture. Even the law says so!
        
        So wrong as to be ridiculous.
        
        The art is mine, the painting is mine, but, I sold it. I can place no restrictions at all on it, if I so choose. It's my creation. If you buy a painting from me, you can do what you want with it.
        
        If I create a painting and hang it on my living room wall and do not sell it to anyone, then I own it. Period. No, humanity doesn't have a right to it. I do. Only me, if I want to be so selfish.
        
        You don't get to tell me who has a right to something I created, neither does any law say that while I'm alive. After I die, do I really care what happens to it?
        
        That's nuts. No. Make thousands of copies and do what you want them, I won't care at all. But while it's hanging in my home, on my wall, and I'm still living and breathing, I get to decide. As for the painting I sold you, you get to decide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dcee (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        You get to decide if no one sees your painting, and you don't talk about your painting to anyone. Because once you do, once it's seen, it can be inspired on/copied/etc.
        
        The only way to keep "art" and "ideas" to you, is to keep them in your brain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      You are right, nobody is entitled to the artist property. But since copyright isn't property, but is actually the granted right to copy, which I'm giving you. Then everyone is, in the reality of the world, entitled to make copies of things.
      
      That's why its CopyRIGHT, not PropertyRIGHTS.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      If the law was created to take it away from humanity (copyright), that which belonged to humanity in the first place, then humanity is entitled to it. The only thing that says we aren't is a law providing for limited times, an exclusive right to the creator.
      
      When that period of time expires, it belongs to all of humanity. Therefor, all of humanity is entitled it it, except for the period you are granted exclusive control of it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Apparently, you aren't an artist.
      
      I am, though.
      
      Who are you to say that all of humanity is "entitled" to it? Psha.
      
      Copyright is granted to artists by the public, and exists primarily to benefit the public. That's why the Constitution granted copyright powers to Congress, not to authors and inventors directly.
      
      This is explicit in the Constitution, was expounded by Thomas Jefferson, explicitly stated by Congress, and reiterated repeatedly by the Supreme Court.
      
      So, a better question is: who are you to say humanity is not "entitled" to it? Your voice has no more import than his, mine, or anyone else's. If we outvote you, then our votes carry.
      
      You pay the artist for his painting and oh-my-god, you own it. What you decide to do with it is your business.
      
      Really?
      
      So, I could paint my own copies of that painting, and sell them? I could print out T-shirts, handbags, and baseball caps with that painting's image, and sell them on the streets of New York? I could make posters and give them away to whoever I want?
      
      No. I couldn't. That's what copyright is: the right to restrict others from using what they own.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Er, I just realized you were talking about a single copy of a single painting, that was never made available to the public at all.
        
        Making an unauthorized copy of it still isn't akin to "theft." It's more like trespassing, or invasion of privacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:43pm
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    "All of humanity is entitled to enjoy the results of artists work. Nobody can own it."
    That is such BS. Entitled? Who entitled you? Entitle, rights, owns, copy, steal. You are NOT entitled to live - you are not entitled to have any rights. You sound like a spoiled child that has never had to fight for anything, because you are entitled.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: It can be.
  I must say, Well done, you actually stated a valid argument instead of being like most and just saying "but but but, stealing!!"
  
  The problem with what your saying though is that copying is still not stealing. It is infringement and infringement is wrong and it is illegal. We are not trying to say that infringing on copyright is ok, we are saying that calling it stealing and trying to compare it to physical objects is just stupid.
  
  It is kind of like trying to compare communicating a threat and physical assault. They are both crimes and are kind of similar on some levels but one does not really hurt you while one puts you into the hospital. While similar crimes you cannot interchange the terms for them. The same is true of theft and infringement. They are similar in some ways but in other ways nothing at all alike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael Whitetail (aka Siswai'aman), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Nothing to contribute to what you said, but I had to reply to complement you on your name "The Black Wind" Awesome to find another follower of The Dragon.
    
    Tai'Shar! Shadar Logoth
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    You say "copying is still not stealing" as if that were a fact.
    
    I'm open to argument, but you didn't make an argument, you made an assertion. If you'd like to take a stab at persuasion instead of assertion, I'll listen.
    
    (And, communicating a threat *can* cause harm, so I'm not sure I accept the "one does not really hurt you" part in your last paragraph. And you *can* use the term "attack" for both, it's routinely done.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Copying is not stealing IS A FACT. It is. Its not an opinion. It is not an assertion. Legally, copying is NOT STEALING. Its INFRINGEMENT.
      
      Legal dictionaries are what legal terms are defined by, not websters or your pocket dictionary.
      
      Do yourself a favor and look up the legal terms. Since we are talking about law.
      
      Theft: (Legal definition) "the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)."
      
      PERSONAL PROPERTY. IP is not property, in terms of personal property.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Where did people say we were talking about "the law", instead of about morality or abstract principles?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael Whitetail, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The 1st entry for Morality by dictionary.com:
        
        mo�ral�i�ty
        /məˈr�lɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
        noun, plural -ties for 4�6.
        1.
        conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
        
        Morals are the consensus of the community large or small, enacted by the majority as a common set of rules to live ones life by..... Sounds an aweful lot like 'Laws' doesn't it?
        
        Principles are by definition a personal belief and therefore do not factor into a discussion of morals or laws as such are binding to all (morals bond you in a cultural sense where as laws do so in a criminal way. The cultural often being the hardest to live down)
        
        prin�ci�ple
        /ˈprɪnsəpəl/ Show Spelled[prin-suh-puhl] Show IPA
        noun
        1. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        When you are talking about stealing, it is implied you are talking about law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        You may have inferred it, but I certainly never meant to imply it. The law is far from the only context in which the word "stealing" has meaning, and the law doesn't get to define the terms for those other contexts.
        
        (Or: if a country changes the definition on the books for "stealing" so that "taking bread away from poor people so they starve" no longer fits that definition, do you consider that to have actually changed the meaning of the ten commandments?)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        As trolls ans shills go you are really good. Please keep posting here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        We are talking about copyright. Since copyright is purely a construct of the law, then the law is what we are talking about when we discuss copyright. Like it or not, your morality does not enter into the discussion. Personally, I don't care what you are morally outraged by. It has no bearing at all on my day to day existence. The law, on the other hand, does. Please, stop trying to play pretty little word games.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeremy2020 (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      According to law. Infringement is not 'stealing'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Machin Shin (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      I was trying to make a simple point. That is that these two things are different in a few ways and because of this the two crimes have different names.
      
      If I go steal your bike you have now lost your bike. This is stealing. I have taken something from you.
      
      If I infringe upon your IP then I have not taken anything from you. Instead I have illegally gained a copy.
      
      So stealing has caused direct physical harm just like me walking up and hitting you with a bat. Infringement has caused a perceived injury to you much like me threatening with a bat but not actually hitting you.
      
      They are different with different names. Both are illegal and both are wrong. They are not the same and calling them the same thing just confuses the issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I would add and to say that the lesser crime IS or IS THE SAME AS the greater crime is to afford it the improper and undue negative connotations of the greater crime.
        
        However, they are NOT saying file-sharing is LIKE theft which would be a proper statement but wouldn't accomplish the purpose of them making the statement in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:41am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Stealing, per the dictionary has two aspects. For physical property, you do actually have to deprive someone of something without their permission. There is nothing in the definition about gaining something.
  
  If I steal your bike and throw it away, I haven't gained, but I've certainly stolen.
  
  The second aspect of stealing is intellectual (ideas) passing off ideas as your own is stealing. I'm sure that someone will argue that copying a song is passing it off as your own, but we know that the intent of the definition is to imply that an idea is your own when its not.
  
  copying is stealing like a dog is a shark. Yes they are both animals and they have some similarities, but we use different words for different things.
  
  So if copying is stealing then stealing is copying. But I thought stealing is ALWAYS illegal and copying can be legal. But they are the same, no?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Here's a dictionary definition to consider:
    
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal#Verb
    
    I don't see that *any* of the definitions shown there necessarily involve depriving anyone of anything. You may argue that #1 is in applicable because you don't consider a digital copy to be something that can be "possessed". I'm willing to leave #3 out of consideration for the moment since failing to do so would short-circuit the discussion. But #2 clearly has nothing to do with depriving anyone of anything, it has to do with the "thief" *acquiring* something, whether anyone is deprived or not.
    
    Your dictionary may of course have a different set of definitions that do show such a requirement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      I think you would have more insight if you looked up the legal definition of stealing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Also #2 looks to me to be related to #6. But I am not native English speaking so who knows.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Bailey, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Sorry to break this sad news to you but "Intellectual Property" is a METAPHOR, one that is becoming increasingly irrelevant for describing the real world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    ... the stealing of ideas you mention is called plagiarism.
    
    it's a different thing again.
    
    and i started writing that before i finished reading your comment so i thought that was going somewhere else (just finished reading it. i'm half asleep) so i'll just put this out here as is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    So if copying is stealing then stealing is copying.
    
    Incorrect; A is a B does not imply that B is an A. For example, squares are rectangles. Are rectangles squares?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: It can be.
  While we are talking about an argument based in semantics, technically speaking, if I purchase a CD containing uncompress .cda tracks and then rip them to compressed mp3 files and digitally compare the original file on the cd with the file that is now on my computer (say with md5 sums) the comparison will reveal that the creation in no way resembles the original and therefore is not the same content. So how can someone have stolen something when the "owner" retains the original and what is gained by the "thief" isn't even the same thing (technically) as what was in the "owner's" possession?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:00am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    (Aside: whether it's "the same thing" isn't something you can settle that simply. Can two people ever have "the same thought"? Certainly something different happens in the physical world when two people think things that they'd describe as the same.)
    
    Here's how *I'd* determine whether someone can have stolen something:
    
    1) Does the "thief" have something they didn't have before?
    
    (Clearly yes.)
    
    2) How did they get it?
    
    (This matters, a lot. If someone else cracks into your "Google Play" account and uploads music you're not entitled to without your knowledge, *you* haven't stolen anything.)
    
    3) Is the "thief" *entitled* to have that thing?
    
    (This also matters a lot, and is why not *all* copying is sharing -- in fact, the vast majority of it isn't.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Is the "thief" *entitled* to have that thing?
      
      Actually the *thief* is "entitled" to have that thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I submit that this is a radical position, at odds with most of society.
        
        It's a pretty common view that they're not entitled to it, but it's not a big deal and should be overlooked. But I do not think it's all that common a view that they're actually entitled to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Hundreds of million of people commit flagrant acts of copyright infringement everyday. There is no jail large enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      The point of all of this is is NOT whether infringement should or should not be legal as that is a completely separate argument. To say that "infringement is stealing" is to associate negative qualities with the act that it does not on it's own possess. It's simply spin-doctoring on the part of the Content Cartels.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      And what does the "thief" have? An arrangement of 1s and 0s.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Furthermore the downloader does not acquire their possession FROM the artist so how can they be stealing it from the artist. To you the tangible world as an analogy (like the proponents of your position love to do) if I purchase a stolen car stereo from a pawn shop, although I may be guilty of possession of stolen property, however I can't legally be charged with STEALING that property because I was not guilty of taking it from it's rightful owner. So how does file-sharing fit the definition of theft again?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Who said it was stolen FROM the artist? I just said it was *stolen*, not that it was stolen *from* anyone.
      
      In fact, if you've read everything I wrote, you'd realize that while I consider it stealing, I also consider it victimless.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        If they are victimless, then what is the point of making them illegal? Stealing is illegal because it harms the original owner. File-sharing is illegal because... well the special interest groups illegally bought laws to make it so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        If you think nothing should be illegal unless someone is harmed, then yeah, it shouldn't be illegal.
        
        A lot of people don't think that way though. Is running a red light legal? Even if nobody is harmed?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        No but their is massive potential for harm and society has agreed it is not up to the individual driver to decide if harm will or will not occur. Which is why you see cars stopped at a redlight at 4 am with no other car on the road for miles. Even at that point when the driver is 100% sure nothing bad will happen he sits there because he agrees with the rule that it is not his call.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Running a red is a traffic violation, not a crime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Technically it is a crime (misdemeanor) and if a cop see's you do it and writes you a ticket yes you are being charged with a crime. However if you are sent a ticket by a redlight camera's automated system, you are being charged with an "administrative violation" (like a parking ticket) which is not a crime since there is not really a way to for them to prove that the owner of the car is the one that committed the actual crime. Just because they don't necessarily charge someone with the crime doesn't mean that the act they committed didn't constitute one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Technically it is a crime (misdemeanor)
        
        Could be just an infraction in some states (which is not a crime at all). I don't know if that's actually the case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jotunbane (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        According to my step dad (who is a cop by the way), running a red light is perfectly legal... as long as nobody sees it.
        
        So yes, running a red light IS legal, if nobody is "harmed" by it. But the minute somebody (a cop??) see you do it, well we know what happens then.
        
        So I would argue that copying (call is stealing if you like) is perfectly legal... as long as nobody finds out about it.
        
        So the ball is back in your court now. I copy/steal EVERY god damn day. Do you want to bitch about that, well go right ahead (you are right, we don't care). You cant prove that I did it (nobody saw it :) and technically you cant do ANYTHING about it (well you COULD break the internet, that would slow it down some, but good luck with that).
        
        And you can call me an immoral nogood freetard info-hippie if that makes you feel any better. Start making sane laws and we might consider obeying some of them, until then ... pfth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        So...this is what the next generation has to look forward to.
        
        Anarchy. Great. I'm glad I won't be around to see it.
        
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I don't think his comment matches with any of those definitions of anarchy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Nowhere in the laws I know (and yeah, we have cops and lawyers in our family) does it say that it is legal to run a red light just because no one sees you.
        
        It is not legal. Period. It's a traffic violation. No, you won't get a ticket if no one's there, but that doesn't suddenly make it legal.
        
        So choosing to ignore laws (of any kind) fits within the scope of anarchy. Chaos and disorder. Ignore the government laws and you have chaos. Anarchy.
        
        So yeah, I can see anarchy in a simple statement like that. When people to decide to do whatever they want without giving some thought to regulations and laws, and deciding to think something is legal when it isn't...enough of that and you are going to have anarchy.
        
        I'd agree the government is always right, and laws aren't always right and may need changed to keep up with the times. But ignoring them isn't the way to do it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The future will not be kind to the control freaks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        So choosing to ignore laws (of any kind) fits within the scope of anarchy. Chaos and disorder. Ignore the government laws and you have chaos. Anarchy.
        
        If lots of people ignore most laws, yeah. If some people ignore copyright law? I can't see how that produces chaos or anarchy.
        
        I get what you're saying, but if you're suggesting that the tendency of the younger generations is "ignore laws and do whatever I want", I think this is no more true of this generation than it was of any other at their age. What's happening is widespread bypassing of a particular set of laws.
        
        I don't think ignoring copyright law could lead to any of these things:
        
        1. a state of society without government or law.
        2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control
        3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
        4. confusion; chaos; disorder:
        
        If your grandkids (if any) grow up in a chaotic unstable society, it won't be due to file sharing. I also don't buy the argument that ignoring one law leads to ignoring all of them eventually. You didn't claim that, I'm just mentioning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gracey (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        [but if you're suggesting that the tendency of the younger generations is "ignore laws and do whatever I want",]
        
        I'm suggesting that ignoring laws can lead to anarchy. So right now, it's the red light and copyright?
        
        Which both seem pretty minor, I agree.
        
        But the concept of ignoring laws is not likely to stop there. The "we want what we want" mentality isn't confined to the younger set either, but they do embrace it a lot quicker than old fogies like me.
        
        I'm saying that doing anything the wrong way (such as trying to get poorly written laws like copyright changed) can lead to chaos. It isn't about the fact that it's copyright laws, but more about choosing methods for change, or to try and bring about change.
        
        Doing it wrong.
        
        Isn't going to always make the results right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        I would submit to you that you, madam, do in fact ignore many laws every single day. With the sheer number of them on the books it is impossible to NOT break the law unless you sit quietly in a corner doing nothing at all. Even then there is the distinct possibility someone can find something to charge you with. Do not be so blase with your your accusations and wild theories regarding anarchy until you fully understand what you are getting into.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Except when there is a popular uprising against an unjust law affecting the rights of the citizens. Ignoring the law to affect it's change is not only the right thing to do it necessary. Was ignoring the discriminatory laws during the 60's that fostered the civil rights movement to change those unjust laws "anarchy"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jotunbane (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 2:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Nowhere in the laws I know does it say that it is legal to run a red light just because no one sees you.
        
        Of course it doesn't.
        
        It is not legal. Period. It's a traffic violation. No, you won't get a ticket if no one's there, but that doesn't suddenly make it legal.
        
        No it does NOT make it legal, but it does make it "legal".
        
        So choosing to ignore laws (of any kind) fits within the scope of anarchy. Chaos and disorder. Ignore the government laws and you have chaos. Anarchy.
        
        I'm going to ignore the fact that you equate chaos and anarchy (to me that is just as offensive as equating infringement and stealing).
        
        8 anarchists in 1886 decided to get violent, and anarchists have had to live with that label ever since. But you are right, I am a proud anarchist.
        
        We (anarchist's) normally refer to people whose only argument is "but but... the LAW" as Satans Cocksuckers (Bill Hicks said it), and then proceed to ignore the hell out of them.
        
        I'd agree the government is always right, and laws aren't always right and may need changed to keep up with the times. But ignoring them isn't the way to do it.
        
        I assume you meant "is NOT always right".
        And, as you may have guessed, I disagree. Ignoring them is THE ONLY way to do it. As an anarchist I can't really "run for office" (that whole "No Gods, No Masters" thing).
        
        So my point remains. Yes I know that copying is not legal. Yes I do it anyway. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE CAN DO ABOUT IT. That was my only point, make all the laws you like (we ignore them), block every website you can find (we don't rely on the DNS system), make torrent, mp3, Tor, VPN etc illegal (we come up with a new system).
        
        And you can scream about that all you want, in the end we will just ignore you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Another User who is just fed up., 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        But the whole problem is it not stolen never was. So if copying is legal and infringment is not illegal (civil matter) than your entire agrument is false Doug D. Even on a morale level lets brake it down to common things
        
        Number one nothing was ever stolen!
        
        Copying is not illegal therefor cannot be considered stealing.
        
        Copying is a form of reproduction using certian tools. in this instance a program is used to create a Wave, MP3 or CD image of a CD(which the cd is not stolen). Than you have your new item that is a copy of another item which was never stolen.
        
        So again what is ecatly stolen? Cannot be stealing because again nothing was never stolen. Now you can argue that someone out there stole the CD's than made copies of a stolen cd than maybe that would be stealing?
        
        Just like when we back in the 80's use to make copies of tapes or Mix tapes of songs from the radio or tapes and records. Still not Stealing. Or have anything stolen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        It's impossible to steal what isn't property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Arthur (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Using words correctly is important. With a contentious subject like this, it is very important.
  
  "Stealing" is illegal, by definition. "Copying" may be infringing and, therefore may be illegal. To say "copying is theft" is to falsely accuse many people who have only copied legally.
  
  These things are different.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    You're absolutely right. That's why the subject of my message was "it can be" instead of "it always is".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Arthur (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Yet you make the absurd claim that "Copying" is "Stealing" when the words mean different things.
      
      No one here (that I can see) is claiming that copying is legal, it may or may not be. But claiming that all copying is stealing is disingenuous. If, by copying, someone "obtains something they are not entitled to", that is wrong and accurately called "infringement".
      
      You don't have to falsely conflate it with "stealing" to make it "more illegal". It's already illegal. Why argue about it? Infringement is illegal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Copying can be stealing, the same way picking something up with your hands can be stealing. Stealing is a higher-level, more abstract concept.
        
        In the context of copying a thing that you do not have entitlement to copy, copying is stealing.
        
        The difference between the "it can be" in my subject and the "it is" in some parts of the discussion is meant to be context.
        
        Of course making copies of something you created yourself from scratch is not stealing. Of course making copies of something you own as part of fair-use is not stealing. Of course making copies of something in the public domain is not stealing. But in the right context, copying is stealing.
        
        Of course picking up the sandwich that you made at home this morning is not stealing. Of course picking up your own phone to answer it is not stealing. Of course picking up your own wallet if you drop it is not stealing. But in the right context, using your hands to pick something up is stealing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Arthur (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: It can be.
        Why do you object to using the term "infringing" which is a quite accurate word to describe the exact type of copying that is illegal. Why insist on using a vague and sloppy term "stealing" when the exact, specific illegal action is "infringing"? Why be inaccurate when an accurate term exists?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: It can be.
        I'm actually not trying to insist that everyone agree that it's stealing.
        
        I'm trying to point out that some people do consider it stealing, so saying "it isn't stealing" is going to create disagreement where it wasn't necessary to do so.
        
        I actually agree with most of what Techdirt has to say about copyright, but I do consider this sort of thing to be "stealing", so when they come out and say flatly that it isn't, it irritates me greatly, and I would argue it's also counter-productive -- it creates disagreement over what's essentially a trivial point in the mind of some people who would have otherwise agreed completely.
        
        I'd really like it if they'd either stop trying to talk about whether it's "stealing" or not, or to simply state "not everyone agrees that it's stealing" instead of flatly declaring "it's not stealing" as if that were simple fact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tim K (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        But how is it trivial when people like Logan use it to equate infringement with if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn't you be upset if someone broke into your studio, took your unfinished paintings, and hung them in their public gallery without your permission? When those are two completely different things
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        It doesn't matter if "some people do consider it stealing." They're wrong. There is nothing to discuss.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Arthur (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The fact that "some people" consider "it" to be stealing isn't made clearer by agreeing with them. If by "it" they mean "copying" (which is what you are saying) then they are wrong. Using their ideas is wrong and stops discussion.
        
        If, however, by "it" they mean "infringing" then they should say that to avoid confusion.
        
        To continue to use "stealing" when the accurate term for what is illegal is "infringing" promotes the lie that all copying is stealing. Don't you think accuracy is better than hyperbole?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        In case it's not clear: I do not agree with you.
        
        I agree that "infringing" is an accurate word, and is in fact more precise. I simply don't agree that it's not also a kind of "stealing". More than one term can be accurate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Arthur (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        To say "copying is stealing" is not just inaccurate, it is deliberately misleading. To say "some types of copying may be stealing" is accurate.
        
        But, no, you've made it plain that you think "copying is stealing" is "accurate" and not misleading when it obviously is neither.
        
        Apparently, you think inaccurate, deliberately misleading statements "can be accurate". I don't think I want to visit your planet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        More than one term can be accurate.
        
        Unless they are contradicting each other which is the case with 'your' interpretation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        And really, when we get down to it, what you consider it means nothing in a court of law, which is the only place 'copyright' has any real meaning, anyways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        So by your reasoning, if I build a BMW from scratch in my back yard, to the exact specs of a commercial BMW, then I am a thief?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Possibly! That depends on whether you were entitled to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        The artificial granted right of copying to a select few is the enlightenment, making copies of things is the natural state.
        
        Now we can all debate on how far we, the people, grant a select few the exclusive, artificial, unnatural, monopoly on copying. But that is a different discussion altogether.
        
        You seem to be confused on that part.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        *entitlement is what copyright is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        If we are playing fast and loose with definitions, I would like to say that no one is entitled to locking up culture with copyright, so all copyright holders are thieves.
        
        They steal works from the public domain, the most obvious thefts being retroactive copyright extensions. But I say just plain old copyright as it was first devised is also theft.
        
        So, Doug, why do you defend people that steal from billions? Why do you side with the aggressor?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        This is actually pretty close to a fair question. It comes down to negotiated societal consensus.
        
        I'm all for re-negotiating as a society, changing who's entitled to what. I'm not for individuals declaring unilaterally that the rules aren't what they are.
        
        (Heck, if I had my way, we'd use a system of land stewardship instead of land ownership as well. But I can see that the reality is, we don't.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Pro tip: society is made up of individuals, and "re-negotiation" is a gradual seamless process that goes on all the time.
        
        Right now the negotiations are headed in one direction and a powerful minority is, in a rare display of dexterity, simultaneously digging their heels in, filling their butts with sand and sticking their heads in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Concur, especially since stealing is not a legal term, but a colloquial one. As for "theft", I find it interesting that so many here immediately become legal experts, but then immediately shift gears when it comes to the legal reqirements such as those, for example, associated with "due process".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: It can be.
  "If you said 'not everyone agrees that copying is stealing', I'd have nothing to add."
  
  And if the artist had originally said "Guess what, not everyone agrees that stealing is right" then he'd still be a self entitled prick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Doug, I will pay you in electrons for any music you record and publish. Now, the going rate for an individual electron is effectively NIL. So I owe you how much??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:25am
  
  Re: It can be.
  This whole debate on definition and such have always had me confused, I understand what infringement is but it seems like everyone is attacking the way infringed upon material is delivered. The internet doesn't do the infringing, it's the person who put there is. An simplified example of this would be, somebody invents a lead to gold formula, gets patents, copyrights,etc. Now a buddy of his takes it, copies it, prints it out on thousands of pieces and then distributes it to people walking on the street. Ok now with all the laws and whatnot that are in place today, the police go after the people that receive this info that were just walking on the street, instead of going after the person that put it there. If companies can't compete with information/data/movie... going out into the public, maybe they should be doing something else to make their profits instead of lobbying for laws that go after the innocent. The internet is only doing what it does and that's spreading information.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    You got it wrong. Maybe we should be forcing the government to stop picking winners and losers. The whole buy yourself a monopoly thing has to end.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      This is true too but that's another issue all together, the point I was trying to make is that, saying it's theft or even infringing, when it's been put into a public place. You can't steal or infringe upon something that's in the open, the infringement comes from the person that put it there. No one is forcing people to create and put it onto the internet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: It can be.
  "If you take an action by which you unilaterally claim something you're not entitled to, then you've stolen something. Nobody has to be deprived of anything for that to be true, or for it to be wrong."
  
  According to the dictionary, you're wrong, boy.
  "to take the property of another wrongfully."
  -Merriam Webster
  Is your song file still there?
  It hasn't been taken!
  Your property's still there!
  Then it's not "stolen".
  It's copied, not stolen, boy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    Actually, I'm right, even by that definition! Look at the Merriam Webster definition of "take"!
    
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/take
    
    By the first definition, it does *not* require that the original "holder" be deprived of anything! It only requires "to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control", which copying *certainly* does.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      "Actually, I'm right, even by that definition! Look at the Merriam Webster definition of "take"!"
      
      "Take" isn't "steal", boy.
      And since the decidedly-different definition of "take" doesn't include "steal" (except in your own mind), it isn't the same thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
        Your MW definition of "steal" was "to take the property of another wrongfully".
        
        I pointed out that this was consistent with my definition of stealing because the MW definition of "take" does not involve depriving anyone of anything.
        
        You're the one who brought Merriam Webseter in as authoritative. Their definition of "steal" includes the word "take", and so depends on their definition of "take". Considered together, it's all consistent with my definition.
        
        And, I'm not sure why you consider it important to refer to me as "boy". It's true that I happen to have testicles attached to my body, but I don't see how that's of any consequence in this context. But if you enjoy doing that, you go right ahead sweetie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Amen Brutha, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Masnick is an ass. Everyone is full of $hit with the exception of himself. Rape, pillage and plunder...it's not a crime to copy things you didn't pay for. I bet if Mike went to college, he probably cheated his way ...all the way. Because hey, it's cool to copy. Everyone else has it wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:32am
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    "Rape, pillage and plunder"
    
    That seems to more accurately describe the way record labels treat the artists they are supposed to represent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: It can be.
  "The "stealing" doesn't come from the original owner *losing* access, but from the recipient *gaining* it."
  
  So if simply gaining it is stealing then i am guilty of stealing my Girlfriends TV. I didnt have an HDTV before i met her, now i live with her and have an HDTV. I didn't buy it, but i "gained" it by moving in with her.
  
  So come arrest me now for, as you say, this is stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    I understand what you're trying to say, but check all the relevant laws -- I'm pretty sure she was entitled to grant access to it, and did grant access to you, so, you're not gaining anything that you're not entitled to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:40pm
  
  Re: It can be.
  Saying "copying still isn't stealing" doesn't make it true.
  
  No. Saying it doesn't make it true. The fact that it's true makes it true.
  
  I'm not saying that copying is *legal*. I'm just saying it's distinct from "stealing."
  
  I understand that you don't agree that copying is stealing. But there are people -- not all of them on the side of RIAA/MPAA/et cetera -- who disagree with that, who think copying *is* stealing.
  
  They can think it, doesn't make it true. And, if you honestly think that it's stealing, you'll never understand why it's happening or learn how to beat it.
  
  (Why can it be stealing? Because afterwards, a person through their own action can end up with something they're not entitled to. The "stealing" doesn't come from the original owner *losing* access, but from the recipient *gaining* it. If you take an action by which you unilaterally claim something you're not entitled to, then you've stolen something. Nobody has to be deprived of anything for that to be true, or for it to be wrong.)
  
  I could just as easily explain the many many reasons why it's not stealing. And that's the point. It may fit parts of the definition, but not all. And that's why we discuss i it separately. Saying that because it matches some criteria, and then ignoring all the ones it doesn't match means you don't understand what's happening or how to deal with it.
  
  If you said "not everyone agrees that copying is stealing", I'd have nothing to add. But if you simply say "copying isn't stealing" as if that were a fact, or were agreed upon by over 95% of people, well, I have to respond.
  
  Sorry for saying the truth. Copying isn't stealing.
  
  Again, I'm not saying that copying is always legal. Clearly, it is not. But it's why we have the word infringement. Copying can frequently be infringement and against the law, but let's discuss that, rather than using the loaded and incorrect word "stealing."
  
  If you say it's stealing then there's no way to understand what's happening, and you're simply guaranteed to continue to fail to adapt.
  
  My pointing out that copying isn't stealing isn't an attack on artists who believe it is. It's an attempt to get them to understand how to beat infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug D (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    If you say it's stealing then there's no way to understand what's happening, and you're simply guaranteed to continue to fail to adapt.
    
    This is very false.
    
    Or: you're asserting it without backing up the assertion. Care to explain why you believe this? If I say "I consider it to be a form of stealing", what specifically is it that you conclude I'm missing?
    
    I'll point out that in other comments, I've said that I do not consider the original content owners to be entitled to any compensation for it, because I do not consider them to have lost anything. Is that the sort of thing you had concluded I must be missing, because I consider it a form of stealing?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      Or: you're asserting it without backing up the assertion. Care to explain why you believe this? If I say "I consider it to be a form of stealing", what specifically is it that you conclude I'm missing?
      
      There are multiple components to "stealing," one of which is that the original owner no longer has what they had. Another is that something was taken from them without authorization. You need all those pieces for it to be stealing.
      
      When we're talking infringement, only the latter component is included. The former is not.
      
      So if you say it's a "form of stealing" you're wrong, because it does not match what stealing does, and by claiming that it does, you miss out on the fact that you still have the original object and can do things with it. Thus, you have shut off your ability to deal with the issue in a proactive way.
      
      I'll point out that in other comments, I've said that I do not consider the original content owners to be entitled to any compensation for it, because I do not consider them to have lost anything. Is that the sort of thing you had concluded I must be missing, because I consider it a form of stealing?
      
      For it to be comparable to stealing the loss is a necessary component. The problem with calling it stealing when there is no such loss is that such a loss is implied, and it closes off the possibility of using that lack of loss to your advantage. Setting it up as stealing necessarily forecloses ways to use the copying to your advantage.
      
      Again, all I'm saying is that copying is different than stealing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Benjo (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It can be.
      No, you clearly stand on a warped moral high ground where you think people should be imprisoned for victim-less crimes.
      
      Hell, you can call it whatever you want. You are entitled to incorrectly think whatever you want. If you think the world is made of peach jam, that's all you. It's not an opinion, it's wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: It can be.
  But there are people -- not all of them on the side of RIAA/MPAA/et cetera -- who disagree with that, who think copying *is* stealing.
  
  None of those people sit on the Supreme Court:
  Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
  - Dowling v. United States
  
  It may be stealing in the sense that you can "steal" a joke, "steal" a glance, or "steal" someone's heart.
  
  It is not "stealing" according to the law. That is a fact.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- IronM@sk, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re: It can be.
  The "stealing" doesn't come from the original owner *losing* access, but from the recipient *gaining* it.
  
  [citation needed]
  
  So why then, is it always the original owner who reports the lost access, rather than the recipient reporting that the original owner no longer has access. It's not that the original owner is complaining that the recipient has gained an item, it's that the owner has lost access to it. Your statement is flawed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bob Roberts, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:49pm
  
  Re: It can be.
  What an absolutely stupid concept, you must be a rich republican to think such a thing. If you come by and copy my car I won't mind that you now have one, just shows your taste is as good as mine. As long as I can still drive mine you can make as many copies as you want. I'm sure there is a name for enjoying someones else's lack but I can't think of one right now. Whatever that word is, it's pejorative, and it applies to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Daniel B, 14 Mar 2012 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: It can be.
  See, you didn't really explain how someone 'gaining access' to something is stealing. What if I borrow a book from a friend? By your definition, since it doesn't matter if the owner 'loses' access, isn't that stealing? What if I just take a perfect picture of another photograph? Or of a painting?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chelleliberty (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: It can be.
  Yes, thank you! To wit, if an action meets any part of the requirements of 'stealing', then (via one of two well-known principles of deductive reasoning: the "Synechdocheus" syllogistic form, or the rule of inference from first-order logic "Modus Synecdoche") we can deduce that the action is equivalent to stealing.
  
  Elementary logic here, didn't everyone learn it in the Logic class they took in school? (What? There's no required public education on Logic here in the U.S.? And it's generally not even offered at all until secondary education here, and even then it's optional? Those facts strike me as somehow important, but I can't quite put my finger on why...)
  
  [NOTE: I think wikipedia has been vandalized, so I was unable to link to the articles on "Synecdocheus" and "Modus Synecdoche". Also, suspiciously, I was unable to find mention of them in the article on deductive reasoning via syllogism or in the articles on propositional logic or first-order predicate logic. Quite strange, I hope that the damage will be reverted soon so that everyone can read the articles on this important principle: maybe at least on Techdirt we will no longer have to deal with the specious reasoning inherent in "Copying isn't stealing because no one is deprived of anything."]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 11:52pm
    
    Re: Re: It can be.
    To wit, if an action meets any part of the requirements of 'stealing', then (via one of two well-known principles of deductive reasoning: the "Synechdocheus" syllogistic form, or the rule of inference from first-order logic "Modus Synecdoche") we can deduce that the action is equivalent to stealing.
    
    I'm assuming this is satire, right?
    
    Synecdoche is on Wikipedia. It is clearly a literary construct, not a logical construct.
    
    I studied logic in college, and no logic professor in his/her right mind would consider Synecdoche logically sound. If some object is in a subset, it does not logically follow that it is in a set that includes that subset.
    
    The classic example is defining a human as a "featherless biped." It didn't work in ancient Greece, it doesn't work now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:20am

Who?
Logan Lynn? Who's that? I never heard of her/him. Who cares what drivel an unknown idiot says?

On the other hand, when a highly respected, internationally known musician says something stupid, repeatedly, then its real news.

Note: it hurts me to acknowlege this, because I've been a John McLaughlin fan for forty years. I will still follow his musical development, but I don't think I care to read what he says from now on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaine (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:24am

Who's "Stealing" your stuff?
"often before it even has the chance to be finished and released to the world"

Who has access to the pre-released material?

Either it's someone on staff that's "Stealing" it or maybe it's NINJAS.

We're focused on the wrong problem. It's not pirates, we should be looking for ninjas!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ComputerAddict (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: Who's "Stealing" your stuff?
  See this guy gets it... walking out of the studio with a CD of unreleased music that isn't yours... now that would actually be stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Who's "Stealing" your stuff?
  Ninjas haven't been awesome for years now, so they gotta do something to be interesting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: Who's "Stealing" your stuff?
    clearly they've got better at that whole 'not being noticed' thing that's meant to be their main skill...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: Who's "Stealing" your stuff?
  From what I see in the article, this Logan guy actually agrees with some of the usual techdirt arguments, he just blames the wrong people.
  
  The week before it was released, one site that posted download counts on files reported over 18,000 illegal downloads of my record before my lawyer had them take the file down.
  
  This is just the same "release window" argument commonly used. Except Lynn doesn't care about the people who wants to hear the music, just about his "lost profits".
  
  Even when I was on a major label, I got totally screwed because so much money was put into the recording, printing, PR, and distribution side that trying to recoup from consumer sales based on that 9 percent of people obtaining the album legally was almost impossible
  
  This is a well-known fact, though he'd rather bash his fans (who appreciate his work) than the people who actually screw him over.
  
  What pisses me off is having over 91 percent of my personal intellectual property stolen
  
  and
  Next time you hear a song you like, I encourage you to purchase it instead of stealing it
  
  Saying things like this (as well as the tone in his blog post) just makes him come off as entitled and aggressive.
  
  What if 100 people came to your show opening and 91 of them decided to steal one of your paintings off the wall? Then what? Paint faster to keep up with the demand?
  
  You're out of songs to sell because people stole them all? Tell you what: just send me an mp3 and I will gladly reproduce it for cheap, just for you!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hfbs (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:08am
    
    Re: Re: Who's "Stealing" your stuff?
    
    What if 100 people came to your show opening and 91 of them decided to steal one of your paintings off the wall? Then what? Paint faster to keep up with the demand?
    
    You're out of songs to sell because people stole them all? Tell you what: just send me an mp3 and I will gladly reproduce it for cheap, just for you!
    
    You hit the nail on the head there..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:30am

If only...
If only we could actually steal intellectual property. Then most of these idiots would have their brains sucked dry in a matter of weeks and they would finally shut the hell up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:34am

Reminds me of...
Everytime I read one of these clueless artist rants I can't help but be reminded of this from the Napster heyday...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y

Was hysterical then and still is today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:35am

Go buy a cd...greaaat advice and such a good grasp of your market.

Best of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edward (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:40am

"if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn't you be upset if someone broke into your studio, took your unfinished paintings, and hung them in their public gallery without your permission?"

But what if they went to the gallery where you had sold them, took pictures, and then *shared those pictures* with their friends?

OMG!! the gallery is going to go broke because 91% of people that COULD visit a gallery and view your paintings DIDN'T because they had a copy sent to them by a friend. And you will go broke because the gallery will not buy any more of your paintings!

And you will never sell that picture over and over and over... because you only painted ONE original and the rest are worthless copies, right?

That's not how it works. Gutenberg put thousands of scribes out of work. Kodak put thousands of portrait painters in the poor house. Digital technology will change the way we profit from information.

Evolve, or die. And get off my lawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yo, Ho!, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:42am

Take a page
Artists like this need to learn to take a page from the youtube artists out there. Many of them use youtube as their main form of promotion. They get out there, work their tails off and make a good product - and guess what. People buy.

Out of a ton of examples I can think of off the top of my head, the Piano Guys is probably the brightest. Here's this group of guys making professional quality videos in their spare time, on their own dime. In exchange, they offer the mp3s of their videos for FREE for a limited time on their website, and ask you to become a founder and donate however much you want to keep them going. At different levels of donations they give you different things - ranging from a physical CD to a t-shirt, to personal piano lessons! This is a group of guys that *get it*. Treat your fans like fans, and your fans will pay you handsomely in return.

Yell, and whine, and persecute your fans, and you'll find all of your work pirated, and no one willing to pay. It's kind of like the bully in the sandbox. Pretty soon, you find yourself playing alone - even if you do have all the best toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:45am

Noteworthy
It should be noted 1) that you, apparently, can listen to his music for free on myspace, and 2) I couldn't find his stuff on either Demonoid or TPB.

I feel like his problem isn't piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: Noteworthy
  Sounds like he just succumbed to industry brain-washing. Either that or when his stuff didn't do as well as he wanted and looked for someone to blame, he picked up a bogus, spin-doctored industry report and took it at face value without digging any deeper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:48am

Interesting timing of this article, seeing as how I'm about to go plunk down $100+ for tickets to an upcoming Trans-Siberian Orchestra concert - a group I never would have heard of had someone not "stolen" a video of one of their songs and posted it to YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hfbs (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:55am

Huh, don't know the guy but I think I'm going to go download everything he's ever done because I can and he's really not winning my heart with the whole 'you're stealing my music!'. In fact, every time an artist says I 'steal' their music, I go download it. Several times, if necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:26pm
  
  Re:
  Noooo! If you download it several times, it economically harms him more. Every $10 copy you make costs him $10 - don't you see?
  
  If you set up a script to do it non-stop, he will starve overnight, turning to dust like vanquished monsters in horror films.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 9:56am

"15 Anti-Piracy Laws"? Surely you jest, or else you view every amendment to Title 17 and other related Titles as an anti-piracy law, even if they have nothing to do whatsoever with piracy. Seriously, merely by way of one example, the state sovereign immunity amendment was about piracy? Of course not.

He mocks? If summarizing the all too typical responses to opinions such as expressed by this gentleman is mocking, then your standard for using the term is a bar set at about a micron above ground level. In my view, if anything is truly mocking, it is the hubris being directed at this gentleman.

And, by the way, he uses "free speech" correctly in that if you tell someone to stop "sharing" without authorization, far too often the response is along the lines "Sharing is perfectly fine, it is cultural, and, besides, it is non-commercial fair use." Never mind that Fair Use is a doctrine developed at common law in the US to accommodate the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hfbs (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  Holy shit.. what? I'm sorry, but 0/10.
  
  All 15 of those Anti-Piracy Laws relate to Piracy. Yes, even the state immunity one - before, they couldn't be charged with copyright infringement and now they can. How is that not related to piracy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    1. Read, among others, the Atascadero, Seminole Tribe, Alden, and Florida Pre-Paid decisions by the Supreme Court and you will quickly see that the act attempting to abrogate state immunity from suit is preempted by the 11th Amendment.
    
    2. Even if the 11th Amendment was not in play, apparently your bar for the word piracy is somewhere close to ground level.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re:
  or else you view every amendment to Title 17 and other related Titles as an anti-piracy law
  
  If I did that then the number would be much higher, as Title 17 has been adjusted many more times than the 15 I mentioned in those 30 years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:06am

http://sendthemyourmoney.com/

A drawing of a spider may also suffice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:07am

Here is a suggestion
Why don't these artists try and go with the 'Megaupload' business model? They could offer up some of their music and videos for free download and generate income from advertisement revenue. Obviously all the owners of these file download sites are generating huge amounts of revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: Here is a suggestion
  ... because that results in law enforcement invading your house with guns and helicopters and destroying your business, obviously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: Here is a suggestion
  Clearly you don't understand the principles of aggregation.
  
  Log off, go read an economics text.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traveller800 (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:11am

When I saw this, I left him a post on his facebook, pointing out the many holes in his arguement. I mentioned how file sharing sites tend to bre villainized despite breaking their spines trying to bend over backwards to please the industry...how he should have looked at his own staff in 2009 when his song was leaked instead of the 'pirates' and most of all...how insulting his fans will not make them wanna buy his songs.

My post was deleted after 1 minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trparky (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:17am

It is still theft...
If you look at the definition of the word theft, it reads as...
"the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."

In the case of piracy, though it may not be a physical item that you are taking, you are still wrongfully taking that item/property (though it may just be a copy of that item) that does not belong to you that you did not pay for.

That song or movie that you pirated belongs to someone else, it is not within your rights to take that without proper compensation to the person/entity that owns it.

This is theft if you go by the literal definition of the word "theft."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hfbs (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:29am
  
  Re: It is still theft...
  You are still wrongfully taking that item/property (though it may just be a copy of that item)
  
  Not to point out the obvious, but there's no 'taking and carrying away' being done here. There's carrying away, yes, but what's being carried away are copies.
  
  And there's no taking (copying) of a copy either - it's pure copying.
  
  But I suppose if we're going to compare definitions, then let's look at the one for 'copy' - "An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate". Well fuck me, that sounds familiar. The trick is this - you have to interpret the definition of 'stealing' a certain way to make it fit whereas the definition of copying matches it perfectly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - trparky (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re: It is still theft...
    But... did you pay for that copy? If the answer is no, then you legally do not have the rights to have that copy.
    
    If you copy or take something that you do not have the permission or legal rights granted to you by the owner of that "item" then you have technically stolen that "item." Again, I understand that it is a copy but you don't have the legal rights to copy. In any civilized world, that would be considered to be theft.
    
    Now, at one time or another I was once like you. I felt the same way about copying. I remember the old Napster days when I traded songs far and wide across the Internet. But when the lawsuits started happening I deleted all of my ill-gotten songs and started buying them instead to support those artists that made those songs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It is still theft...
      Here's where your entire argument falls down: who did I "take" it from? Some guy on the Internet, who was offering it freely.
      
      Thanks for playing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It is still theft...
      "In any civilized world, that would be considered to be theft."
      
      Strangely enough, in all the countries I know, the law says different.
      
      I guess we don't live in a civilized world. That actually explains why the media industry has no qualms robbing the world of its cultural heritage again and again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It is still theft...
      you legally do not have the rights to have that copy.
      Now you're talking about whether or not someone has rights to a copy. AKA COPYRIGHT.
      
      Not stealing. Good to see you've come around.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:49pm
  
  Re: It is still theft...
  Really? Did you just have to go and blow your horn before reading the 200 odd posts above you that hashed this all out, as if you know better than anyone else? Besides, as I posted earlier, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASTROBOI, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:21am

Record store?
All the record stores I knew went out of business back when Walmart started selling records for less than record stores themsleves paid for them. Maybe he means USED record stores. But those don't get him any royalties either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rubberpants, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:22am

Vocabluary and Framing
That we're still taking about this is evidence to me that, as mentioned by Cory Doctorow in his talk about the war on general computing (which is excellent by the way), we just don't have words to describe all the new things the Internet is creating. Our vocabulary is lagging behind reality.

And so, in the presence of a linguistic vacuum, people want to use the words that best fit how they view things.

To the MPAA/RIAA it's "stealing."
To consumers it's "sharing."
To lawyers it's "infringement."
To Jack Valenti it's "murder."
To me it's "cp song.mp3 song1.mp3"

What is it really? Well, we don't have a good word yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim K (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:33am

Also, thanks Masnick for the free PR!
Funny, apparently Logan thinks all PR is good PR. I guess he doesn't realize when you sound like a jackass that's not the kind of PR you want. I guess he didn't read about the guy that did the same with Dave at PA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tim K (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: Also, thanks Masnick for the free PR!
  Meant Gabe (or Mike Krahulik)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:34am

Hollywood are thieves
If copying is stealing, than Hollywood needs to be arrested for ripping off Battle Royale and calling it Hunger Games. They copied it and are passing it off as their own new work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eponymous Coward (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: Hollywood are thieves
  Gotta go back to Suzanne Collins, author of the Hunger Games books, if you want to do that. A friend recommended that I read them, and they are actually pretty solid for teen lit. After reading them, I mentioned the base similarity to Battle Royale to my friend, and was greeted with a "huh?". Hard to find a lot of people with solid Japanese cinema knowledge.
  
  Tangent:
  
  Let's say I freely tell the Hunger Games story to my friends, and say that my memory is perfect so they are receiving an exact, word-for-word COPY of the story from me. Are we stealing at this point? Are we even infringing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: Hollywood are thieves
  Hunger Games is it's own series written by Suzanne Collins in 2008. I've never read Battle Royale, and it could be very likely that the Hunger Games is based on it, but that doesn't make Hollywood the thief - it makes Suzanne Collins the thief.
  
  But then, personally, I'm a fan of derivative works, so it's all good in my book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Moondoggie, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Hollywood are thieves
    Maybe Suzanne Collins is a fan of the Hunger Games and would like to relive the feel?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Moondoggie, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hollywood are thieves
      I mean Battle Royale....
      
      Sorry. No sleep and no breakfast does funny things to a guy...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:35am

Well now
i wish i liked this guys stuff enough to steal it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:43am

guess what mikey?
Copying IS stealing. Try telling software developers otherwise, not to mention movie producers. Stop promoting piracy like you are somehow entitled to "copy" and download whatever you want, despite how much hard work and money has been invested into those very projects, which depend on people buying "copies". Just because you can make a digital copy of something, does not give you a moral or legal right to distribute someone's work. Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tim K (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: guess what mikey?
  I missed the part where Mike said that it was ok to copy and download whatever you want...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: guess what mikey?
  No, copying is not stealing, but you already know this, and we already know you know this, so save a few electrons and drop it already.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:22am
  
  Re: guess what mikey?
  I'm a software developer.
  
  Copying is not stealing. The work and time I invest into my projects does not give me a property claim on your computer or your MP3 player. Just because I'd like people to pay me for my investment does not mean I'm entitled to it, nor does it mean that someone who chooses not to pay me is immoral.
  
  Grow up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:22pm
    
    Re: Re: guess what mikey?
    Another software developer here: I concur.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cowardly Anonymous, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:45pm
    
    Re: Re: guess what mikey?
    Make that three, though admittedly I haven't graduated yet, so I don't have much experience in the field. Still, there are plenty of logical issues with the equating of copying to theft.
    
    Copying includes creation whereas the various forms of theft are limited specifically to transferal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 6:33am
    
    Re: Re: guess what mikey?
    Another software developer here.
    
    I came, I saw, I concurred.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re: guess what mikey?
  Copying IS stealing.
  
  No, it's not.
  
  Try telling software developers otherwise, not to mention movie producers.
  
  Many software developers and movie producers I know agree with me. But, not sure what that has to do with anything. We're talking about actual definitions. Not what some people want to believe.
  
  Stop promoting piracy like you are somehow entitled to "copy" and download whatever you want, despite how much hard work and money has been invested into those very projects, which depend on people buying "copies".
  
  I don't promote piracy. I don't think anyone is entitled to copy or download whatever they want. And just because you want a certain business model to work, doesn't mean that the market will play along.
  
  That's all I'm saying. Recognize how to deal with what the market wants and you can make lots of money. Piracy isn't the problem, it's a symptom of you failing to understand your market.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dementia (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:47am

Personally, I loved the mixing of ages with the comment of a Wild West on ye old interwebs. So which world does he live in again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ANON, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:47am

NIN Fan
"Next time you hear a song you like, I encourage you to purchase it instead of stealing it."

should read "Next time you hear a song you like, I encourage you to try and see that band in concert (which is what happens already) where they actually get most the money or buy that track online where the artist is entitled to a license royalty vs a sale, meaning they get 50% of that money instead of 10%. Well that is unless the record label is ripping the artist off still trying to give them 10%. (see Eminem vs Universal)"

I have no interest in supporting the labels, just the artists. I wish there was an option for that. A paypal donate button on the artist site would be nice.. not that I am a fan of paypal either but...

I started pirating music before iTunes and things of that nature existed due to the an album being released online over a month before I could buy it. I went to the store to buy it (after reading it was out on the net) to find out, not out in stores. This was my favorite band that I had purchased every album and single they had released and a few imports, around 18 CDs of that band alone. The band itself most likely played a role in it being released early (they are known for doing that). Also had to rebuy a couple CDs that had been damaged over time. I was using early MP3 players at the time of which the RIAA or whoever suing Diamond for making the Diamond Rio MP3 player. Most the ones I used were imported from Hong Kong because of that lawsuit. Seemed insane to wait a month buy a CD and since that day I have never went out and bought a single CD.

Any legal option that is offered to me seems to be after I can already get it online, some DRM crap or something else less convenient or worse quality than piracy. Actually I did download 2 CDs directly from a few artists sites, they were free from the artists themselves and one during the aftermath of a natural disaster, mainly due to me being stuck in a place where I did not have access to my normal means of listing to music and internet, that CD is now long lost or damaged, but the MP3/FLAC files I got before I bought the CD from the private torrent tracker work fine.

It seems the record industry has lost me.. maybe forever?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:49am

The bee analogy to casual copying
Bee: Ohh, a flower. I shall collect some pollen.

Tree: Bees that don't deposit pollen should be outlawed! We must place hurdles for bees to pollinate, to make sure every bee that takes must also give!

After years of bureaucratic restrictions on pollination....

Tree: There are few trees left, we are dying. Stupid bees keep stealing from us, we must lock down pollination even more, lest we die off.

Tree2: ZOMG! Bees in that other park are free to pollinate their many trees with no restriction, we must stop that before the trees die off!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suja (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: The bee analogy to casual copying
  i think the bees are the ones supporting copyright, cause only a hivemind colony of dumb peasants ran by a queen would support such a stupid system
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dlayzer, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:12am

Thought Police
I am truly excited for the day when brain scanners are invented, and it's decided that the memory of a song is too accurate of a copy, and must be outlawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donald Dipset, 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:33am

pussy ass motha fuckas
Sounds like dude needs to learn how to preform. record sales been dead. CROWD SURF MOTHA FUCKA A$VP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:58am

Logan is clueless.
"What pisses me off is having over 91 percent of my personal intellectual property stolen, often before it even has the chance to be finished and released to the world. As a professional musician, a lot of time, hard work, and money goes into making a record. As an independent musician, that money comes directly out of my own pocket. Being a starving artist honestly isn't all it's cracked up to be anymore, people, and getting ripped-off has always sucked."

He's making the mistake of trying to fund his time and labor by selling something that he can't control. That's his error, not ours. If he wants to be paid for his labor and time, he should be selling his labor and time instead of pretending that the fruits of his labor is what he is selling. The problem is born out of his inability to understand what business he is in, he's assumes that he must control what is impossible to control.

Art isn't something with unique and distinct boundaries that distinguish it from other art, it overlaps with many other pieces of art. It doesn't exist in a bubble that separates it completely from all other ideas, it's a cluster of combined ideas which makes it impossible to apply the concept of property to any of it.

"Think of it this way: if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn't you be upset if someone broke into your studio, took your unfinished paintings, and hung them in their public gallery without your permission? Let's say you had some finished work hanging for sale in your own space, but every time someone saw something they liked, they removed it from the wall, tucked it under their arm, and left without paying for it? What if 100 people came to your show opening and 91 of them decided to steal one of your paintings off the wall? Then what? Paint faster to keep up with the demand?"

This is another example of how he is blind to reality (which is the common delusion that copyright based industries share). If you take his painting, he doesn't have it anymore. That isn't even close to what infringing through file sharing does. When you copy, the result is more where there was less. His statement makes clear that he doesn't understand the difference and he bases all of his arguments upon that flawed assumption. Taking a painting means someone has stolen physical property, a clear measurable loss has occurred. In the case of copying, there is no measurable loss to account for because it cannot be known what people would do, for certain, in absence of the ability to copy. When you copy, the author loses nothing. His supply of works is not diminished.

He also thinks that his works are his property, which is illogical and impossible when you realize that all art overlaps with other art. If you could apply the overlapping traits of art to physical property like land, it would be like owning a parcel of land, but you also own parts of your neighbors' land and they own parts of yours. How could you distinguish what's uniquely yours and what's uniquely theirs? The borders would be blurred beyond existence. What you would end up with is a common ownership of all land between all members of that society. Individual ownership would be impossible, thus is the way with art. For anyone to called a piece of art their "intellectual property" is trying to apply incompatible concepts to it in order to attain a quantum of control, despite the fact that such control isn't even necessary and a lack of control would benefit the progress much more than imposing limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: Logan is clueless.
  "He's making the mistake of trying to fund his time and labor by selling something that he can't control. That's his error, not ours."
  
  I couldn't agree more. It's like trying to force people they need to buy a buggy whip for a horse carriage when they go out for a drive in their car. His sole arguement for forcing people to have a buggy whip, well because its illegal to not have a buggy whip.
  
  I can sympathize with Logan working hard and getting zero return on his investment. But, that is business. It happens. What I don't understand is this attitude that exsists that everything is a sure thing... Wall Street, GM, Chrysler, Mogan Stanley, AIG.. Etc.. Why do people feel like the world owes them success and wealth? What is it with this bailout type of attitude so many people possess?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Logan is clueless.
    He wouldn't have a problem with investing his time in a project that doesn't see any, or little, return on it if he was smart enough to find people that would agree to pay him to make it. It's a simple solution. Once again, the error is his.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:33pm

Amusing, I haven't seen the shills that commented here giving their precious contributions in quite the few copyright blunders this week....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:39pm

Not all bad news
I have seen worse and let us keep in mind that he is an ex-RIAA artist, who was not only screwed over by the contract, but was also fed a daily dose of the common infringement is stealing dogma.

My most fun point of all this is when he said "because of file sharing" when I was expecting the dreaded P-word. I think that indicates that there is hope for him.

Well with 18,000 downloads for $0 then it would take a glorious moron to believe you would still get 18,000 downloads if you charged $10 per download. He would be lucky to get 1,800 at that price and maybe even 180.

Those of us who have been around long enough know that it was not file sharing that killed the music stores when the likes of Amazon and iTunes had a much bigger hand in that one. We can also see that Stream is killing off Game stores now as well.

Well Logan Lynn is part way there and we can only hope he wakes up to smell the crap he shovels. Nothing counts more in the music world than popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LeadPoop, 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:48pm

Fans
I can't believe this guy had 18,000 people willing to listen to his music for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 12:55pm

I know this is the part where all the kids and hipsters start to roll their eyes and say things like, "You just don't get it, grandpa..."

You just don't get it, Grandpa.

Oh wait, I'm old enough to be your father.

You just don't get it, little boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dcee (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:34pm

Walls are crumbling, people are getting guillotined, and we're arguing about the color of the blade.

Comme c'est mignon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:52pm

He's got a legitimate beef against the people in his own organization or associated entities that leaked the music before it was done. There's really no excuse for that sort of corruption, regardless of the number of people who may be clamoring for the dude's music. But if you can't even control that, what chance do you have of controlling the rest of the world?

It's like the war on drugs. People do drugs in prison. How do they get drugs in prison? I have my thoughts about that but the larger point is: How are you going to keep drugs out of America? Turn the whole country into a prison? Even if you did you still couldn't keep them out. Authorities know this and so the war on drugs is just an excuse to turn America into a prison.

The same goes for file sharing. Regardless of the morality of file sharing, the attacks on file sharing are really just an excuse to turn the internet into a prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:56pm

All I see are cowards!
Cowards to stand up to the truth!

I don't care what people say or do, but only the truth. You can't steal thoughts. IMPOSSIBLE! If this were true, learning is illegal, & HELL, looking at paintings or products in a store are illegal SINCE YOU ARE CLONING A MENTAL COPY every time you look at them.

WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH YOUR ILLEGAL COPIES YOU CREATED BY HELLO? LOOKING, SEEING, LIVING your life?

OK, piracy is wrong cause that is stealing, but copying never has been & never WILL be stealing.

Now, I want an RIAA representative to tell me I am stealing so I can tell the bastard to go rot in hell for all the things he is stealing BY JUST BEING ALIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slimfish, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:02pm

You Win Mr Lynn!
I promise to never download one of your songs. Ever. From anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 2:42pm

The real people trying to steal anything are the people trying to fence the public space for themselves, excluding everyone from it just to satisfy their own entitlement needs.

Just because the laws says you can't it doesn't mean you should go down that road. That road is paved with pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:01pm

Step 2?
Step 1. Make great music
Step 2. Find an audience & give fans a reason to buy
Step 3. Profit
-------------

If the musician isn't profiting, it's not because of internet piracy. My money is on either crappy music or failure to find an audience. Fact is, it's easier than ever to create great music, no longer do you have to win the backing of gatekeepers to churn out studio-quality albums. Never been easier to find an audience. There is absolutely no questioning those 2 claims.

The old reason to buy was "it's the only way to listen to the music you want when you want." OK, that's out the window. No law is going to change that, as the law is routinely ignored because real people recognize that copying is not stealing, and routinely ignoring the law. Dozens of times a day for the average citizen. Laws don't change ingrained societal behavior, and the musicians decrying the new state of the music industry need to realize that.

So provide your fans a better reason to buy besides "I'll sue you if you don't."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:05pm

Quote:
The week before it was released, one site that posted download counts on files reported over 18,000 illegal downloads of my record before my lawyer had them take the file down.

18 thousands downloads?
That must be bad music for only 18 thousand people to had the interest in seeing what it was.

The comments on the download page of that torrent must be like "WTF! is that music", "Worst music ever!".

The A list on filesharing has millions of downloads, the B list has hundreds of thousands of downloads the rest get thousands.

Disclaimer: I don't know who that guy is, what his music sounds like and don't care to find out, let alone pay to listen to that crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:41pm

Wow
300+ comments so I expected an interesting debate. Unfortunately it's only everyone wasting their time on a troll/clown trying to redefine words, being as tenacious and clueless as those morons who insist that Balrogs don't have wings :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:46pm

Assault of the Language
If I beat someone with two punches to the gut, that is a crime.

If I kill the same person with two stabs to the gut, that is a crime.

Since they are both illegal, are they both murder? No. There is some difference between the two crimes, and thus we have created language to remove the ambiguity: the former is an assault, and the latter is a murder.

Don't call an assault a murder, because it isn't. Even if you are really, really, really angry at me for the assault, it's still not murder. The correct word exists...why not just use it?

I have young kids. I tell them every tree is a "tree" and that's all. But some are maples and some are elms. I hope that by the time their 10 years old, they'll understand that, although both are trees, elms are not maples. I wish the debater here understood the same thing.

And when he calls a pine an elm, I'm not using "weasel words" when I tell him he's wrong.

Words matter. People try to deliberately use words that serve their needs. Techdirt tries to use the correct words, and dispel the bias that is being *deliberately* inserted by the consistent incorrect word choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: Assault of the Language
  "I hope that by the time their 10 years old"
  
  ugh. I mean "they're".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 3:58pm

Huffpo's web site is still one of the most obnoxious there is. A 250 word limit for replies? That's just a busy box for the brain-dead. But I just had to reply to that diatribe. So I'll try to post my reply here.

My comments appear in bold (I hope).

-----------

Guess What? Stealing Is Still Wrong

Um� Guess What? File-sharing is NOT stealing.

Most of the working musicians I know have been paying close attention to the real-life

Translation: Most of the working musicians the author knows are not quite dead yet.

Drama unfolding in the file-sharing world lately.

Comment: (The author is being melodramatic. Feel the author�s poeples� pain!)

That's not to say all of said working musician friends agree with what I am about to say here,

Translation: the author knows a few people who may not be fools and relics of a bygone age.

but the majority of them do

Translation: but most of the people the author knows ARE fools and relics of a bygone age

(whether they will publicly admit it or not).

Translation: (pointless statement that carries no weight � treat as invisible)

Between the outcry around proposed government anti-piracy initiatives,

Translation: Between cheering freedom and cursing fascism,

the recent Megaupload arrests,

Translation: the latest instance government, court and police corruption and complete misunderstanding of the situation

and multiple file-sharing sites shutting down

Translation: multiple plays of whackamole

or drastically (and rapidly) adjusting their policies in the days since,

Translation: or rapid updating to the 19th century,

there is a full-blown, game-changing spectacle underway.

Translation: progress will triumph.

The music industry has been ravaged by the digital age,

Translation: The traditional extortionists, liars, con-artists, rapists etc, think they are getting raped for a change,

the primary culprit being illegal

Comment: (illegal, where corrupt money can buy the right politicians off)

file sharing

Translation: modern technology

Comment: Seriously, how many modern technologies have the industry leeches and rapists claimed will kill them in the last century (and why are they still alive and making more money that ever)? Dozens! There are: Player Pianos, Wax Cylinders, Sheet Music, pre-recorded music, music playing in films instead of a live theater orchestras, vinyl LP�s, radio, television, VCR�s, audio tape-recording (reel-to-reel tape and cassettes), Digital Compact Cassettes (the one they actually managed to kill), DVD�s, mp3�s, I-Tunes, I-Pods, computers, cell phone ring-tones, singing �Happy Birthday (copyright) , the Internet, etc (� the list is enormous!).

They also tried to extort money out of �record stores� for playing the records that they sold (yes, civilized world, in North America, you had to take the chance and buy a record � listening booths were not allowed!)

For me (the reviewer) the industry�s death is a century past due. By �industry� I mean all the money-grubbing holders-on, leeches, con-artists, tricksters, gougers, liars and rapists, not just the record companies (although I put them at the head of the line).

on websites

Translation: (gibberish and not translatable � the writer does not have the faintest idea about the subject).

with practically zero regulation.

Translation: with FREEDOM.

The past two decades have been something of a Wild West

Comment: Oh, Americans and their fantasies about mass murderers in white hats on horses.

on ye olde Interwebs.

Comment: I hate to break it to the uneducated (including the author) , but that pointless brainfart is a mashup (will English professors sue?) of Old English and modern tech-inside jokes.

No rules, no accountability.

Comment: (to author) Exactly who, besides �music industry� insiders, their shills like you, and those corrupt politicians they bought, says there has to be �accountability? Culture (however twisted) abhors rules and accountability.

By the time the music industry reacted to what was happening, it was too late.

Comment: (to the author) I read the same about pre-historic stone wheel manufacturers the other day. The music industry had close to 2 decades to get their act together. The truth is, they stupidly chose to fight technology and buy �laws�. They (you) lose.

While performing at and attending the CMJ music conference in New York City in fall 2009, I learned that at that time, 91 percent of all new music was downloaded

Comment: It�s called the 21st century. You either join it or you die. People used to listen to music on the
�radio�. But greedy money-grubbers killed that with commercialism. They fucked it and its almost dead.

Illegally

Comment: Illegal in places where lawmakers can be bought. See �Joseph Biden�.

over the Internet

Translation: in a modern way

instead of purchased.

Translation: instead of giving a bootlegger the money via a gas station.

Since then, things have only gotten worse.

Comment: worse for the rapists are able to rape less.

Record stores are closing,

Comment: Along with horse-and-buggy whip stores

music rags are shutting down,

Comment: mote good news: evolution continues,

and the glory days of rock and roll are over...

Comment: the author has no idea what �rock and roll� is. Oh, and the sky is falling�

which I actually don't give even half a shit about.

Translation: I know a swear word. Also, ignore everything (the author) wrote up to here!

In fact, I'm glad the music industry got destroyed. It was fucked-up anyway, so who cares? Poor (filthy rich) record executives making hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of artists. Boo-hoo. I'm crying for you. Really. I am.

My beef is not that I feel bad for record labels or the no-talent hacks who run them. I think it's good that the overall priorities in the entertainment industry have been forced to change and that the powers that be have had to reexamine what it means to be of value to their consumer base.

Comment: So please ignore everything written by the author up to here � the author admits that (s)he�s shilling for the rapists.

What pisses me off is having over 91 percent of my personal intellectual property stolen,

Comment 1: (to the author) Specify exactly what was taken form you or retract the statement. If you still have an original copy, there was no theft.

Comment 2: Objection! The statement is hearsay. No proof has been provided.

often before it even has the chance to be finished and released to the world.

Comment: even before some poor buggers are forced to actually listen to the tripe the author barfs out.

As a professional musician,

Comment: �professional musician� is an oxymoron.

a lot of time, hard work, and money goes into making a record.

Comment: Stone wheel makers put a lot of time, hard work, and money goes into making stone wheels that no-one will buy.

As an independent musician, that money comes directly out of my own pocket.

Comment: As an independent stone-wheel maker, that money comes directly out of my own pocket.

Being a starving artist honestly isn't all it's cracked up to be anymore, people, and getting ripped-off has always sucked.

Comment: (to the author) No talent is no talent. If it hurts when you do that, don�t do that!

Even when I was on a major label, I got totally screwed because so much money was put into the recording, printing, PR, and distribution side that trying to recoup from consumer sales based on that 9 percent of people obtaining the album legally was almost impossible

Comment: The author speaks from personal experience as to what a terrible industry the old music industry was and gives good reason for them to perish.

Everyone had the record months before it came out anyway, because of file sharing.

Translation: In the modern age, time to market can be much shorter.

The week before it was released, one site that posted download counts on files reported over 18,000 illegal downloads of my record

Comment: (to author) OK, c�mon. What label do you actually work for? You�re too much of a moron to be a musician.

before my lawyer

Comment 1: Lawyers make baseless threats all the time. It�s part of that area of con-artistry. And earns them vast sums of money. But that is the subject of another description.

before my lawyer had them take the file down.

Comment 2: (to author) I haven�t heard the expression �take that down� since the 1980�s. I�ll bet you say �bring it up on the screen� as well. Captain Kirk would be proud of your mastery of 60�s science-fiction terminology.

That alone comes out to $180,000 -- for my songs -- of which I saw $0. My record deal was a 90/10 split at the time, but guess what 90 percent of $0 is? You guessed it! Still $0.

Comment: (to author) Do you actually think that every copy downloaded would have been a sale? Where do you get you drugs?

Think of it this way: if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn't you be upset if someone broke into your studio, took your unfinished paintings, and hung them in their public gallery without your permission?

Comment: (to author) Except, unlike the bad analogy you provided above, no-one took anything from you. They just made a copy. THERE IS NO THEFT IN YOU CASE. You still have your originals.

Also, you are really complaining as a salesperson or accountant. An artist makes art.

Sales are handled by salespeople. You need to stop implying that this is about artistry. Incidentally, please provide and address at which to invoice you, in case I hear any of your music against my will (say while enjoying silence in an elevator). All my invoices to you will be at the rate of $1,000,00.00 per infraction (i.e., violation of my rights to not listen) and payable within 10 days, after which 45% interest will be added, compounded daily for each day past the due date.

Let's say you had some finished work hanging for sale in your own space, but every time someone saw something they liked, they removed it from the wall, tucked it under their arm, and left without paying for it? What if 100 people came to your show opening and 91 of them decided to steal one of your paintings off the wall? Then what? Paint faster to keep up with the demand? Really focus in and cater to those remaining nine do-gooders so you can pay your bills and eat?

Translation: (specious, redundant and already refuted above. The analogy is completely wrong. IN YOUR CASE, THERE WAS NO THEFT).

Is it really up to those few people who still believe stealing is wrong

Translation: As clearly stated above, copying is not theft, even if it is a copy of dog-barf. Stop propagating a lie.

to support the entire industry?

Comment: (to the author) Bad writing - the sentence is nonsense. But if you are pleading to (me to) support an obsolete, woefully corrupt industry, you�ll get nothing form me but contempt of your stupidity. I may even be moved to swear at you.

It surprises me that honest, everyday people who tip servers well

Comment 1: Tipping is to make up for a rip-off of (necessary) staff by corrupt business and government. Grow up and travel outside the US wall and you�ll find that in many countries, tips are a fixed line-item in the bill. You have provided YET ANOTHER VERY BAD ANALOGY. It may be necessary to appoint a guardian for you since you seem to lack the mental capacity needed to understand the modern word. Please go and stand in the dumb relic line behind bush, harper, sarkozy, biden and the others.

Comment 2: I cannot understand your surprise � do you yourself not tip? I tip. The better the service, the better the tip. But just as I tip the waitress/waiter, I don�t tip the spoon if someone wanted me to tip the spoon, I�d tell then to stick their heads where the sun doesn�t shine.

Comment 3: I also pay (if charged) when I chose to hear live music. I also choose not to hear some live music. It�s called FREEDOM.

and are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a pair of jeans

Comment: I have worn jeans every day for decades. And I have never paid more than maybe $30.00 for them. My last pair cost me $16.00. You see, not everyone is an idiot pawn3d by evil corporations.

think it's perfectly fine to steal music

Comment: (to the author) For the last time. As stated above, copying is NOT stealing. Get an education and for gosh sakes shut it.

and not just a little music, but tons of it.

Comment: Like a few odd-balls, I bought thousands records through (I still have close to 10,000 LPs in off-site storage). I listen to virtually none these days. You see, that�s old-fashioned.

Something's off here.Way off.

Comment: (to author) I agree! Who is the moron editor at Huffpo that allowed your lame shill piece to be published and how did hollywood buy him or her off?

I know this is the part where all the kids and hipsters start to roll their eyes and say things like, "You just don't get it, grandpa,"

Comment: (to the author) All this time I thought you were a middle-aged woman because of your writing style. Any way, strewth and then some.

and, "It's freedom of speech," but I don't actually believe that stealing my intellectual property

Comment: Get it through you defective old man brain: COPYING IS NOT STEALING. And if I were you. I�d go easy on raising the subject of you rather miniscule intellect.

is your constitutional right.

Comment: This is a straw-man argument and carried no weight � ignore it)

Sorry, everybody. I get that you are used to consuming music like it's chewing gum,

Comment: Mmmmm, I have loved music all my life. And I used to chew gum (it has been years�). But after I chewed gum, it was just tasteless rubbery stuff and I threw it out. I kept much of my record collection (except for the degradation of the actual vinyl, the records do sound the same as when I bought them � I just shift them to an infinitely more convenient MODERN electronic format now).

Comment: (to author) Do you realize that the verb �to consume� h as more than one meaning and that your are conflating two different meanings in order to make your specious statement sound valid (which it is not)?

but those days are numbered.

Translation: I cannot sell stone wheels much longer.

I'm glad that file sharing companies are getting shut down,

Comment 1) : �file sharing companies� is a mashup of numerous unrelated entities that do different things. You really need to drag your tired old butt and brain (same thing?) into the modern age. They can close all the �file sharing companies� they want. New ones will simply replace them (usually two for every one killed). Either create and record worthy music, or get a job cleaning toilets. You are not needed.

and I'm happy that the people who have been stealing from me and my fellow record-makers all these years are going to pay for their crimes (or at least stop doing illegal piracy facilitation business as usual).

Comment 1: No gain without pain.

Comment 2: By your definition, you have been stealing my brain bandwidth to process and correct your ignorant statements.

Comment 3: I�m happy that I couldn�t give a damn about you and that you are a nobody from a dead era.

Organizing a $180,000 heist would get you sent to prison in real life, so what's the difference?

Comment 1: (to author): OK, your ignorance has crossed the line once too often. If you EVER say stealing again, you had better have your will up to date.

Comment 2: I demand that you provide an address at which to invoice you for wasting my time with you verbal diarrhea. You WILL receive an invoice from me. I am charging you $1,000.000,00 per minute for my services, payable within 10 days, after which 45% interest will be added, compounded daily for each day past the due date.

Next time you hear a song you like, I encourage you to purchase it instead of stealing it.

Comment: Enough! It's time to stop repeating your erroneous and misleading statements. The new remuneration system will work through social Darwinism and freedom, not the extortion mechanism of artificial supply limitation that was so firmly entrenched in the olden days. Some so-called musicians (and most artists and most record company employees) have no merit whatsoever to release music and those who don't have merit will be forced to withdraw, adapt or be replaced. Those who do have merit will be (and are being) well-rewarded.

Supporting independent musicians just feels better

Comment: Support direct payment to performers for live music. Support direct payment to valued artists, if you feel that they are worthy. Let the evil and obsolete �music industry� con-artists, thieves and liars (as the author claimed himself) starve and die off.

than robbing us of our livelihood.

Comment: What�s your home address? We need to, er, have a chat.

I promise!

Comment: (snicker). Oh, now that�s worth something (guffaw!).

Hell, you could even go to your favorite local record store, buy a CD, and look at the cover art for hours. You know, for old times' sake.

Comment 1: Or, you could joint the modern age.

---

General comment:

Dear author:

That was the worst collection of random garbage I have ever read. Don�t try to get a day-job as a writer (or scholar, or anything save perhaps music industry shill).

Yours truly,

Johann Sebastian Bach, the 102nd

p.s.: I just saw the picture. Lose the hat - you look like a complete idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:01pm

Congradulations MASNIK !!!!!

you finally found that button, you've been trying to press to get some more readers !!!!

this one always works,, you're Google overlords will be proud...

Bravo Zulu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 11:51pm
  
  Re:
  Like he had no readers before? Yeah, right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Bert (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:11pm

an hour later
Holy crap. I read the headline and had avoided reading the comment thread because I knew what would happen. The only way a conclusion could ever be made in these "copying != stealing" threads is if the discussion were executed with baseball bats.

I have to go outside now. This is bad for my BP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jaster Mareal, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:11pm

BS!
Since I've been downoading, I haven't bought a damn thing. Hmmmmmm, let me think. I can get dressed, drive to the store and hand over $15 for a CD I may or may not like....or download it for free in 5 minutes? Yeah, tough choice.

ANYONE who saystheywill go and buy the CD they just downloaded for free is A FREAKING LIAR!

It's steraling. You know it. I know it. Just own up to it ferchrissakes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re: BS!
  *Blinks*
  
  So...
  
  the fact that I first DL'd several of my anime and TV series and then bought them makes me a liar?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - fettastic, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:44pm
    
    Re: Re: BS!
    I said CDs. I buy the Blu-ray of ses/TV I download, sure. But considering the first thing I would do once I bought a CD would be to rip it anyway....why would I do that if I already had the MP3s? See how that doesn't make any sense?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 7:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: BS!
      Ah, okay. I thought you were giving a blanket statement that anyone who's ever downloaded anything has never bought the merchandise later when it comes to anything.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:41pm

Who the hell is this guy and why would anyone even pirate his music, let alone buy it??? Maybe he should concentrate on producing good content first, then play the piracy card if things still don't work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 13 Mar 2012 @ 4:53pm

SEMANTICS, SEMANTICS, SEMANTICS
Yes, play with your definition of the meaning of words and phrases, it's nice to see a discussion on the redefinition of words.

Im sure, most can see, if you have to change the meaning of words, to justify your desire to act in a criminal way, this is up to you guys.

what it does display is that you have run out of any reasoned arguments, leaving you with only one alternative to redefine your language, (that words really does not mean what you think it means, or what the law determines as it's meaning)..

once you have to resort to semantics, you know you have LOST any ability to present a cogent argument to support your claim (or really, your desire for an alternate reality)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:05pm
  
  Re: SEMANTICS, SEMANTICS, SEMANTICS
  You're just sad and angry that you were late to the party, darryl. You troll when there's a lot of comments; you troll when there's none.
  
  Oh, and by the way, if using definitions to "justify behaviour" negates the original argument, any discussions in favour of "copying = stealing" or any stronger enforcement of copyright law are likewise invalid, because they have to rely on definitions to support their perspectives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:09pm

Just another idiot blaming the lack of interest in their "art" by anyone but their mother. She said it was good though, so obviously it's all due to piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony Trombo, 13 Mar 2012 @ 7:19pm

Bootleg
A few years ago I gave away 25 copies of my film "HICK TREK 2: The Next Aggravation" to known bootleggers at Sci-Fi conventions. It wasn't a very "good" copy, just clean enough to let you SEE what I had done.

From that, I've sold SEVERAL THOUSAND "real" DVDs because people wanted to own a better copy.

Say what you will about copying... it sometimes works in your advantage as an artist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2012 @ 10:10pm

You people are uninformed boobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  Hmmm, there are two sides arguing in here...which side are the boobs? I need more information!!!!....oh
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Sanger (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 12:48am

It's a joke
Instead of music consider another medium. Let's say you think of a hilarious joke (like the one about the three nuns in a taxi�..) and you tell a friend. She thinks it's the funniest thing she's ever heard and tells her friends and they tell all their friends and soon it spreads like wildfire. You go on a trip to another state and are at a party and someone asks you "did you hear the one about the three nuns in a taxi? " You say "hey that's my joke, you stole it. You can't tell it. You have to pay me."

Now it sounds ridiculous but digital content is somewhat like this. In economic terms it is non-exclusive, meaning it's not really possible to prevent it spreading. Try telling people not to tell your joke.

To be sure there are still differences between music. Oral jokes are not copyrightable; but if you wrote it down after you told it, then it would be. Also joketelling is not a commercial enterprise so you aren't expecting to be paid. But in terms of how easy it is to transmit and how unlikely you are to be able to prevent it spreading, it is very similar indeed.

That's the larger problem we are facing long-term, not copyright, but that with digital technology created content is becoming less like a private good, such as books and cars, and more like a public good, such as language, and we don't know exactly what to do about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 12:55am

"By the time the music industry reacted to what was happening, it was too late. "

The moot point is: why did they take so long to react?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 4:26am

Wow I'm shocked to hear this from an artist I like so much. I bought a few of his albums and have been a fan for a while, but this is really... astonishing.

Logan Lynn, you just lost a loyal fan and customer.

I first discovered your music by downloading it. I then downloaded each album before I bought it, to be sure it was worth my money. Every time it was, and every time you got my money.
But apparently you still think of me as a thief and a hipster kid. You know what? Fuck you. Wish I had never bought your albums, I certainly won't be buying anymore. Don't worry though, I won't download your music: I don't want to hear it at all anymore!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2012 @ 11:38pm
  
  Re:
  Seriously? This dude's music sucks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill, 14 Mar 2012 @ 8:10am

infringement
This infringement stuff is so off track. ASCAP and BMI rape the artists. Only pennies on the dollar actually go towards royalties. They pocket the rest for their operating costs. Any of you seen their office towers in Nashville? By the time the record company gets their part it is common for a young band to be in debt after two hit albums. The only money you actually make is from performances. Now they go to the clubs and demand royalties for small performances. That is why there are fewer and fewer clubs having live bands. The greed of the RIAA and the publishing companies are killing the recording industry. At least in the digital world, you can become famous without the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 11:31pm
  
  Re: infringement
  ASCAP and BMI rape the artists. Only pennies on the dollar actually go towards royalties. They pocket the rest for their operating costs.
  
  This is not really true.
  
  What you're describing is the way record labels work, not PRO's like ASCAP or BMI. The latter are totally different from labels, and have actually fought labels in the (distant) past.
  
  Likewise, their operating costs are not unreasonable; usually 10% (or less) from songwriters' revenue. Considering that publishers take 50%, that labels take 85% (of performing artists' revenue), and that labels demand that you only get 75% of the statutory royalties if you're both a singer and a songwriter... and the PRO's look absolutely heavenly by comparison.
  
  This is not to say that the PRO's actually benefit artists in general. It's not that they operating costs are high, it's that they unfairly distribute revenues. For example, they take money (by law) from venues as performance royalties. Yet they don't distribute that money according to whose songs are played in venues. They distribute it according to radio airplay. In other words, if you're a BMI artist whose songs get played in bars all the time, yet your song is not in rotation on terrestrial radio, then you get nothing.
  
  It's not that PRO's don't pay artists. It's that they only pay artists who are radio darlings. This usually means major label artists, since major labels traditionally are the only ones who can afford the payola.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drew, 14 Mar 2012 @ 9:25am

Hypocrites
You know we all hear this bs and when we get stuck with a pos cd dvd ect there are no refunds. On the other side almost anything you can think of in Wal-Mart you can get a refund on with little question.

Now to explain why I call these people hypocrites.. What I'm about to describe we've all done on many occasions... What could this be? "LOANING" anything to a friend,co worker,neighbor and so on. The action of me borrowing a hammer from the guy next door has potentially made one of the many manufactures of tools lose money.

You might say that's different but I assure you it's not! If they refused to loan it to me I would have been forced to go buy it. So anyone who has ever loaned anything or borrowed anything EVER cannot say one thing about people copying movies or music..

If these copyright whores get their way and set us back decades it will not be long till other manufactures start making ridiculous demands as well.. That's all we need a law forcing us to register every single item we own just so they can make sure we do not loan it out.

So I'll say it again if you have no problem with loaning or borrowing anything you should be perfectly fine with copying a movie.

These hypocrites should be strung up for their crimes against the free world and our way of life. They crack down on torrent sites that host no infringing data. I mean could we blame Smith & Wesson for every gun murder in the world?

Would I copy a file... Hell no! I stopped buying any form of media period after the last few months. My freedom of speech my privacy my way of life is much more important to me. They can take their trash as go choke on it. Plus I've been getting out a lot more and doing shit that's actually productive.

Well that's my two cents I have work to do and I need to borrow a pen sorry bic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ned, 15 Mar 2012 @ 11:52am

>91 percent of all new music was pirated

I call bull on that.

91% of new music or 91% of new music from labels?

There is a HUGE difference because there are thousands and thousands of bands that put out albums every year and millions around the world and the big labels speak for about
0.001% of them.

i travelled around europe with a band for less than a decade and the thing bands need more than ANYTHING else is exposure to move to the next level. which is why live recording and tape trading has been so popular in the US also for the past 3 decades. Before I can pirate you, I have to know you even exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eddie, 22 Jan 2013 @ 9:13am

really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eddie, 22 Jan 2013 @ 9:23am

The Supreme Court and lower courts disagree with the author of this story and all those who feel they are entitled to take at will other peoples creations without paying, i.e STEALING.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and O�Connor, said, �deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.�

Foundation v. American Broadcasting Cos., 621 F.2d 57, 61 (2nd Cir. 1980): �The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft,"

The Supreme Court has been comfortable referring to copyright infringement as theft on other occasions.

Lower courts and Congress have also used �theft� to describe copyright infringement on various occasions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emanuel, 26 Apr 2013 @ 4:11am

Deliberate misunderstanding....
Have anyone here heard any of these expressions?

"You stole my heart"
"He stole a look at the diary"
"He stole the puck from his opponent"
"To steal a base"
"To steal research from colleagues"
"He stole my job"

OF COURSE infringement is not stealing, in the legal sense. Stealing, as in removing someones physical property, is only ONE way this word is used. You are all (deliberately?) misunderstanding Logan.

The expression "stealing" is used a lot metaphorically for people to state the significance of an act and that it's not right. It can be any act, like these examples show. Logan is not saying that stealing is the same thing as infringement, like you claim. He's saying that it is just as bad morally.

You are all just pettifogging. There is a real issue here are your not even touching it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:26am
  
  Re: Deliberate misunderstanding....
  Have anyone here heard any of these expressions?
  
  Some of those are just idiomatic, some are specific to sports, and some share the key factor that differentiates stealing from copyright infringement: the victim ends up not having the thing that was stolen. This is not a minor issue; it's very important. Stealing always deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement does not always deprive someone of something, and even if it does deprive, it's only of a potential thing, never an actual thing.
  
  He's saying that it is just as bad morally.
  
  Even if that's what he's saying, he's still wrong, because of see above.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abdallah, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:54am

Personal experience
I remember that during my teenage, and during the defunct era of music tape, even we could find copies of the song easily, my friends wanted the genuine tape of their favorite singer..

People want to be so close to the artist they love, even I could find it easily on the Net, I will always wish to have the genuine record !

And thank you for your article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ronak patel, 3 Jun 2016 @ 9:02am

stealing is stealing
Fuck you mother fucker i just lost an argument cuz of your bitchass black ice cream. I rest my case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]