Copyright Infringement and Theft – The Difference
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
For example, if you came home from work and found that your house had been cleaned out by thieves, you might say "I've been robbed!". If you did so in the presence of the author, would he correct you, pointing out that you were in fact burglarized, not robbed? Probably not--in normal conversational English people will use robbed more expansively than it is used in the law.
In common usage, people use "theft" and related terms like "stole" to mean the exercise of a right that should belong to someone else, with everything interpreted expansively.
For instance, we might speak of someone "stealing" another person's girlfriend. Obviously, he did not legally steal her, but there are social norms concerning what is acceptable behavior in relationships and toward people in relationships, and so if someone violates those norms in order to effect a retargeting of the girls affections, we'll say she was stolen.
Even farther afield, we have things like actors who steal the show, players who steal the game, and so on.
Getting back to copyright infringement, copyright law is purposefully modeled on the law of physical property, in order to artificially give intellectual goods legal status similar to that of physical goods, so that the same kind of markets that work for physical goods can be used for intellectual goods.
It essentially creates a homomorphism from the world of intellectual goods to the world of physical goods. Under that homomorphism, the operation of "copyright infringement" in the world of intellectual goods maps to the operation of "theft" or "stealing" in the world of physical goods.
If there was an article about why people shouldn't call monitors "the CPU" that went into detail about what a central processing unit was and why techs call it that, would you accuse the tech who was trying to explain what a CPU is of being confused about informal usage?
If my choice of entertainment is "the best in the world, for free" or "some aspiring entertainer, for five bucks" then the choice is easy: best in the world! free!
If my choice of entertainment is "the best in the world, for $20" or "some aspiring entertainer, for $5," then some people will choose to pay for the best experience, and some people will choose to get the aspiring entertainer for cheap.
Copyright infringement in the form of piracy really serves to cement the position of the already top-of-the-chart, and make it a lot harder for any alternatives to make a living. Compare word processors: Apart from the libre-software fringe, why are there no wide-spread word processors beside Word? If Word is coke, why is there no Pepsi, or Snapple for word processing? (The "move to the cloud" and "software as a service" movement is beside this point -- that's a change in "what it is" at a more fundamental level)
The key to beating piracy is to provide services that can't be pirated or are significantly better than the pirated alternative in some tangible way.
Your solution for 'beating piracy' for those cases where copying is inevitable makes perfect sense - IF a) you restrict innovation to 'services that can't be pirated' - but is that in society's interest? and b) your innovation can't be improved upon by someone who has the benefit of studying your product, has no technical debt and has incurred no R&D cost in getting to the point you took the product. That is a pretty demanding standard.
(btw - like your handle - inspired by W Gibson unless I am much mistaken)
Google Search is product that falls into the "can't be pirated" category that I previously mentioned.
Traffic accidents are inevitable. Murder is inevitable. Some portion of the population will always end doing harm to other parts. Does this mean we accept it and allow it to flourish? Or do we decide to instill in people the desire and ability to minimize behaviors which lead to suffering and economic loss?
We had the Renaissance without copyright laws. There are other ways to help artists, putting an end to Hollywood accounting, for example.
I agree that, specifically, music and movie estimates are ridiculously overstated. However, we have no means of measuring the total, fundamental economic losses due to a culture which no longer values intangible things.
Assuming you're a software engineer, do you want to proceed into a world where people shell out thousands of dollars for an iPhone, but scoff at paying $1 for software you've worked hard on? Current (and presumably future) attitudes toward (intangible) IP are dangerous to the economy we're developing.
Comparison infringement to things that kill people don't help you, even if that wasn't the main point.
Okay, substitute something non-lethal. People send their kids to school even when the kids are sick. This is bad for everyone. Do we just accept it, or do we remind people to keep their kids at home when they're sick? If you want more analogies, I'm sure I can come up with them, but I would prefer to simply have the question answered with regards to giving up on IP enforcement.
Finding ways to make money off of that is another matter. There are many things one can do: charge for support/customization, find patrons/sponsors who benefit from your work to fund it, etc.
I don't believe that copyright laws are a good way to fund innovation. And I believe there are a lot of alternate business models that remain unexplored.
Every law has a cost to enforce it. Many worry that the costs (both monetary costs and reduced freedoms) are ever-increasing while the benefit is static, and mostly going to middle-men. After all, I don't believe that the RIAA shares the proceeds of the infringement lawsuits with the artists (feel free to correct me if you can prove that belief wrong).
Rather than trying to make this law work, I think we should look to successful businessman/artists for the way forward. Web comic authors in particular have done rather well for themselves, in spite of giving pretty much everything away for free. For example, if you want the website of one particularly business-savvy author (who has a lot of good advice for anyone trying this), look no further than here: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/
He's done very clever crowd-sourcing (he gets fans to help him ship books), has partnered with fans who make cool merchandise to sell it (rather than shutting them down over trademarks), and does a lot of other things to make his products more compelling than the piracy option. Howard was a business manager before starting that webcomic and I've learned more by watching what he does than I've found in most articles.
Wouldn't it be much easier to know beforehand that you will get the money? That's the way contract work works: someone has a problem, and he would like to get someone to solve it. You set your hours, haggle for a price, then go to work, deliver the solution, get paid. This is another way to get paid: find someone to make a contract with. I believe that it is the most important way for professional work.
This actually also works for "apps" and other self-initiated projects, through crowdfunding (e.g. through Indiegogo or Kickstarter).
However, even completely unfunded work needs not be financial waste, as you build a portfolio with which to gain contracts.
Then they'd be worth nothing, because you couldn't distribute them to a large enough audience to recoup your costs.
Fuck no and you get it! The only problem is you haven't realized the portion of the population doing harm to the other parts is the copyright lobby. Destroying our Public Domain, forcing us to pay for our culture, putting our rights into the hands of a few, hindering innovation and creativity, etc.
Record companies think a measly $12bn a year is worth giving up all that. Some of us don't.
Edit: educating people about the ethical and economic implications of piracy does not require any change to the Internet.
Edit: yeah giving people information doesn't have the connotations as 'social engineering'.
The economic -- i.e. overall -- effects of piracy are quite likely good for the public.
Regarding people's objection to copyright, I see that largely as a circular argument. We're heading into an information-based economy with a population that doesn't seem to value intellectual property. If they can't hold it in their hand, they don't see why it's worth anything. As a software engineer, this really worries me.
I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage.
As a human being living on this planet, it really worries me that some people feel that their privilege to make a buck from some information is valued more than the ability for mankind to use that information to make progress.
You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless).
Edit: for the record, I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion, however much I might disagree with it, and I upvoted you.
Certainly, I agree that it isn't. Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things.
I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage.
I have to disagree with that, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Take the example of the games I have for my XBox 360. I cannot duplicate them (or will not expend the effort required, which is ultimately the same), yet they have provided me with far more entertainment than any piece of garbage I've ever come across. ;-)
You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless).
That's an interesting concept, but I create information. The application I'm writing right now would not ever exist without me. Others may be in the same market, doing similar things, but the fact is still that I am creating a unique, intangible object out of nothing. So, it's not merely passing through my head, but rather, it's originating in my head.
By the way, I agree with the parenthetical end of that sentence. If I don't distribute my software, it's never of any use to anyone (other than me). But I don't think that says anything about the difference between controlled release in exchange for money versus free replication.
I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion
I appreciate that, and have enjoyed this discussion.
Here's the disconnect: many people find those rules utterly unnatural. I could dig out the famous quote about ideas not being amenable to notions of property, but I suspect you already know it.
Incidentally, I tend to agree on the downvoting thing. I'd rather explain my position and engage than try to drive away people I disagree with.
That seems to be an anachronistic view through the eyes of a modern myth of commerce. One would expect information was shared. Proto-humans who could not or would not share information -- hence crippling co-operation -- would have been out-competed by those that did, so de-selected by evolution.
What is more central to being human than language, that is, communication of information? It did not evolve by guarding it and restricting it.
> we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things.
That is really quite distant from fact or sense. IP was created as a means of censorship and/or monopoly. And the idea that IP is somehow 'natural' is completely upside-down. Intangible/abstract objects are quite natural on their own: they have their own natural qualities distinct from material objects -- it is being freely and infinitely communicable and copyable that makes them exactly what they naturally are.
That said, there are other ways to make money. The notion that one can do one bit of work and live off of it forever is attractive, but not necessarily good for society. You can end up with the most capable people doing nothing productive. I'm sure there are individuals where that's not the case, I'm less sure about people in general.
Sure. But people have changed tremendously over time, right? Often, it's by focused effort (social engineering, more or less). Until around 150 years ago, slavery was legal in the US. A good chunk of the population saw absolutely nothing wrong with that. 50 years ago, significant racial discrimination was commonplace in many parts of the country, and now it's dramatically improved.
I'm not saying a person should live forever off one bit of work. I'm saying that software has a very unique financial model. Also, I can't help feeling that this future of open-source, funded hacking ultimately leads toward a career which is a bit like a non-stop NPR pledge drive. :-)
Sure, people change, but they also resist manipulation. And if you look at the copyright middlemen: the RIAA, MPAA & company, you see little but. They hose the artists via exploitative contracts, Hollywood accounting and crazy royalty calculations while talking to no end about helping the artists. Every blockbuster film is a huge money-sink (on paper... the "losses" get paid to their own subsidiaries).
Unless you're a rare megastar, the middlemen will screw you in those industries. You're better off doing business for yourself, and there are good ways to do that which don't involve suing grandmothers in federal court for having insecure wifi.
They've already declared yet another "war" on it, and we all know how much those cost.
First, because the cost of that restriction is effectively magnified. When information was in paper books, it was difficult to copy. Copyright restricted copies, but since people could not make copies it did not make much difference. But now information is digital the cost of copying is practically zero. That means the restrictions of copyright stops people realising a large benefit that would otherwise be available.
Second, the most vital ingredient in production of new information seems most likely not extra monetary incentive, but other information. And the fact that information is infinitely copyable amplifies its value. A single amount of money can pay for only one piece of information production. But a single amount of information can contribute, through copies, to an unlimited number of pieces of information production.
This is the funny thing. Copyright really only works with products that are substantially non-abstract, non-informational. When you have an economy that really is all informational, copyright does not actually make sense: its intrinsic contradiction just becomes too self-destructive.
Where do you propose that money changes hands in an information-based economy where information is freely copied?
It seems to me that removing that interesting feature of software moves developers closer to what I generally hear described as serfdom, "wage slave", etc.
Pretending to "sell" shrinkwrapped information is stupid nonsense.
Care to elaborate?
After all, software is precisely what has helped the information flow faster and better. In a rapidly evolving, copyright-free world, custom software is king.
edit: what is up with all the idiotic downvotes in this thread? You are NOT supposed to downvote just because you disagree with an opinion.
Do you believe that, really?
As an example, for most users, using Linux on the desktop is a lot more painful than using Windows on the desktop, because Microsoft has to pay a lot of people to do boring work that makes Windows less painful to the user. Linux only gains the features that someone feels it is rewarding to work on.
If we don't have copyright, then we have no way of rewarding dull work that only makes economic sense when replicated across millions. Think of the garbage truck: it's dull and smelly work, and you have to get up in the middle of the night. Almost nobody would do that if they didn't get paid. Yet society needs that work done -- yet we figure out how to compensate that work so it gets done.
Perhaps we can come up with a better way to compensate this kind of development work, but your argument does not provide a credible alternative.
And yet, we don't offer garbage men royalties on the garbage they've collected for 70 years after their death.
edit: there is no reply link visible to me for the comment below this one, so replying here:
The context is that my comment is a reply to another comment. It should be read in the context of that comment. The author of that comment already argued that without copyright, more would be available. I'm pointing out a factor he failed to consider. I'm not making an independent argument, and so do not need to restate things he already covered.
Works were created for looooooong time before any sort copyrights existed. The problem is having too many works, too many shitty works that only exist cause there's an artificial profit motive to create them. Have a look at major music and movies and books. I'd rather have 1 good movie a year than 100's of shit we get now.
Things will always get created. Probably not with any mass-market appeal or Block Buster level of attendance. Sounds awesome. I'm totally behind it.
"Information Economy" is artificial construct US is trying to push cause we no longer can compete in the Reality Economy. We will probably succeed in pushing it. But, it's just setting us up for even more epic collapse later.
FWIW, I upvoted you. I'd rather promote discussion than drive it off just because someone has an unpopular opinion. But anyone advocating an unpopular idea has to be a bit more careful in backing up their arguments for obvious reasons.
Plenty of artists, many of which spend years honing their craft, not only don't require copyright, but operate in environments which actively work against any kind of ownership (graffiti artists, for example).
Dostoievsky wrote The Idiot to pay some gambling debt. Da Vinci and Michelangelo and the other Masters of that age did all their work for wealthy patrons. The reason why Victorian novels are so long is partly to do with the fact that authors were paid by the page.
An argument can be made that at least some great works of art would not have existed were it not for the profit motive. Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it? Probably yes, but probably not as many.
Isn't that exactly what people are suggesting as an alternative to copyright? This isn't an argument against receiving money for your craft (I would argue that "profit motive" is inaccurate), but an argument against a legal construct which allows you to continually benefit in perpetuity via artificial constraints.
Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it?
Didn't Mark Twain marry into wealth specifically so he could write without any monetary worries?