However, Truean, I'm not entirely sure it's relevant to this conversation - no one, so far, has argued copyright isn't /wrong/, simply that it isn't "theft". Do you agree with that, at least?
Don't know. It depends on the type. Perhaps an analysis is in order?
It's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion to reach either way. Further, it depends upon what flavor of copyright infringement we're talking about. I think we might come to some agreement about clearer things and less agreement on murky things. My first classic example of the novelist is probably theft. That example has someone stealing their book.
Perhaps I should make the case for and against the more modern "digital type," being theft.
Case for it being theft:There are three theories why modern "digital piracy" should be considered theft. First, the lost sale/ volume seller case. Second, unjust enrichment. Third, the creative works and production argument.
Imagine if you will a car lot where cars are sold. The car lot owner has a great many cars and can effectively order as many from the car factory as he wishes as long as he can afford it. Now please consider a customer who starts to purchase a car but then backs out once the contract is done. The dealer got the car back, let's even say with no depreciation on the car, which dealer keeps. Say the dealer later sells the car. Sounds like no harm no foul right?
The dealer may still sue for the profit of the car he would've sold and probably win. This is because of the dealer has "lost a sale." Due to the dealer having an effectively unlimited inventory (or ability to replace via order) the argument goes that if not for the technical breach of contract, the dealer would have made two sales instead of one. The dealer would've sold the car from the breached contract sale and the other customer would've bought a different car, because the dealer would've ordered. Thus dealer has lost a sale. Simply replace "car" with "song." Due to the digitial ability to copy, the seller/dealer has an effectively unlimited inventory, much like the car dealer, better even. He can make the argument that he has "lost a sale."
Further, there is the legal notion of "Unjust Enrichment." I'll skip the technicalities in the interest of not boring you all to tears, but basically it goes something like this. It is a general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another's expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. One can argue that digital content is not free to imagine, create, produce and place into a digital format. Thus, due to these expenses and the enjoyment of said product created by these unreimbursed expenses, the person receiving the final pirated product is unjustly enriched at the artist and production staff's expense.
Moreover, consider the creative works and production arguments. These are the fruits of someone's labor and to simply pay nothing for it, nothing at all, is wrong. They have wrought this thing you want with their time and energy, as well as money. They get not a penny for it. Really? Imagine the years it took to hone all that talent and it's worth exactly.... nothing to people.... Doesn't sound quite right does it? Nothing?
Case for it not being theft:There are four theories why modern "digital piracy" should not be considered theft. First, the lack of a physical deprivation. Second, changing technology. Third, the unreasonable cost. Fourth, the haves and have nots.
One of many traditional notions of theft is that you have deprived the person of an object, right or other possession. Here, one could argue no physical deprivation takes place because the seller has not been deprived or a concrete thing. What piracy does in essence is create a copy and leave the original in tact. The original owner has not had anything "taken" from them and they had what they had before.
Further, this is the way our technology is evolving. Soon, we shall not trade in physical objects like CDs or Tapes. Rather we shall trade in content for musical, movie and creative content.
Moreover, consider the unreasonable cost especially in light of the second point (immediately above). The cost of production is going down greatly and $20 for a CD that cost $3 to make is an insane profit on the order of gouging the crap out of consumers for nothing more than greed.
Finally, consider the fact that there are people who simply cannot pay for it. There are the "haves" who can pay, and the "have nots" who cannot. No matter what you do, no matter what you say the, "have nots," simply can't pay for this product. The additional cost of creating another unit of production is so negligible as to be nothing. The act of copying said file and sharing the musical content is so de minimus, especially compared to the enjoyment that person otherwise could not have, that it doesn't make sense not to provide it. So long as we live in a world of "haves" and "have nots" why should the have nots not have when provision is so easy?
________________________________________________________________________
See how its way more complex than "it is" or "it isn't," theft. On the "theft side" I find the lost volume seller argument quite persuasive. On the "not theft" side, I find the "haves v. have nots," arguments persuasive. You can't lose a sale that could never have taken place, though good luck distinguishing the true "haves" from the true "have nots."
Author
Topic: Is Copyright Infringement Theft? (Read 17381 times)