> People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it.
Please don't conflate tangible goods with intangible goods. Intangible goods are patterns. You can't steal a pattern, because a pattern can't be "owned" in any sense that a physical object can.
Now, you can have rights to a pattern and that right stops others from exploiting that pattern commercially, but you don't own the pattern. Even our current laws recognize this. After all, your right will expire, but if you own a car, you own it forever and without limits.
The only reason this is true is that the laws say it is. Same as with those patterns of yours -- the laws could easily be changed so that you own the pattern always and forever. It's quite pointless to argue about the shoulds of the situation based on current law.
When we're talking about incentives for production and utility, it actually makes quite a bit of sense to conflate cars and music. They have many similar properties. On the consumption side, you do have to consider the added utility of making the music free, though, because some people will be able to consume it who otherwise wouldn't have paid.
The only reason this is true is that the laws say it is.
I disagree. I think it's part of the current social code/contract, not just the law. In fact, the RIAA/MPAA ads say exactly that - "you wouldn't steal a car" - because they know people find property (particularly personal property) to be something we have a right to.
Copyright, on the other hand, is only unquestionable by the law.
> I think it's part of the current social code/contract
Eh. For the purposes of what I said, these are about the same. Laws are indirectly derived from the social code, so just move my statement up a level. You still can't answer the question of how the social code ought to view bits from how it currently views them.
Sometimes the social code is wrong, and those who believe that copyright piracy is bad for society are making the case that this is one of those times. Simply observing the current state of the social code in no way counters those arguments -- although some of them can be countered other ways.
Eh. For the purposes of what I said, these are about the same.
That's the thing: I don't believe they are. 46% (70% for young adults) of the US citizens admit to have committed copyright infringement. Almost no one agrees with large fines or with cutting off the connection for infringers.
I think there's a big disconnect between the social code and the law.
OK, there may be somewhat of a disconnect. On the other hand, that disconnect is irrelevant to my point. I'm only saying that you can't argue from what is to what should be. Whether it's the social code or the law, pointing out that it's currently in favor of copyright infringement doesn't prove anything about whether it should be in favor of copyright infringement.
The should, however, is derived from the is. Our prescriptive laws are, at least in theory, derived from descriptions of reality. Thus do we claim contraception should be legal. Thus do we claim interracial marriage should be legal. These rights are fought for; granted from first principles, but also from social realities. "All men are created equal" was only taken to include blacks after the Civil War.
So too must the public attitude towards filesharing define our laws surrounding it. The majority of people have, without caveat, expressed through their actions their belief that filesharing is, and should be, a normal and accepted part of society. This may rankle those whose paychecks are predicated upon the status quo, but it doesn't affect our shifting morals. We are a people who accept and embrace "copyright infringement". It is only once this reality is accepted that the content industry may move forwards.
Yes, but not the tautological is. "People should not be sued for their entire worth for pirating songs," isn't derived from, "People like to pirate songs." It's derived from, "punishment should be equitable," "pirating a few songs isn't that big of a deal," and "that's scary." And those are derived from even further beliefs.
The important question is, if you take the root beliefs and walk back up the tree, do all of the beliefs come to an overall support of free copying? Then you do that in aggregate for society, taking into account uncomfortable truths about the economics of music production and advertising where necessary and on a level individuals won't when they derive their inevitable personal free-riding preferences. Going from high level feeling to high level feeling ("I like file sharing" -> "file sharing is right") does not work. Almost everyone says that they would prefer to pay less tax too.
To put it another way, there are plenty of things people would do if they could get away with it. Not paying taxes, driving as fast as they want, tossing cigarette butts wherever, etc. Your exact argumentation could be used to say, "Society's views about these activities need to change," but that's not actually the case. All you are observing is that people will take advantage of situations where they can get away with something, even if it's not ultimately good for society as a whole. In no way do I accept the norms that you're deriving from this. Rather, I should say that I don't accept the way you are deriving them. My personal jury is still out on whether I think filesharing is a problem that needs to be addressed more or less forcefully.
Your comment in no way actually addresses what he's saying, which is a hypothesis to the justification for why people do things. In fact, he didn't even conflate the terms as I see it, unless you want to say piracy is only related to theft. And the section you quoted doesn't even have the term "theft" in it (which you also quoted). In short, it's a tired talking point of a technicality that adds almost nothing to the larger discussion.
It sounds like you have strong opinions on the topic -- I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.
> I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.
People don't justify anything. By saying that something needs to be justified, you are suggesting that this is a moral issue? It's wrong for me to copy patterns of bytes? If so, then I've been a sinner since I was 10. Remember those 5 1/4 floppies, BBSes, IRC, etc? Yeah.
Copyright law was designed with businesses in mind, not individuals. Fair use should be expanded to encompass all personal use of patented or copyrighted material. Restrictions should only apply to commercial application.
Speaking of business ...
Did I mention I create digital works every day? That's what I do. I create software. My work can easily be copied ... and if it was, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. Actually, I wouldn't even blame myself. Because my rampant "piracy" as a kid made me realize something. There is no value in software. There is only value in service. The software I write is merely a tool that I use to render a service and even if you copied it, you would only be left with a tool. I'm the final part of the equation and I can't be copied. That's the right way to do software.
What people don't mention is that the software industry was first. Before music, before movies, before books, before any of that ... the software industry was forced to change, more than that, it was born changed, because digital "piracy" was born with the software industry.
If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics.
Oh, absolutely. JBoss was long held up as the only viable model for being successful with open source and the inevitable model everyone would fall into. Give away the software, charge for support. The problem is support just isn't very scalable. There's room for both: different strokes for different folks.
But I still think the ideal in software should be for a tool that just works and is intuitive enough to not require training. There are a lot of tricky problem domains where that's unlikely to ever happen. Such is often the case with ideals.
You are a fine demagogue. You recognize exactly what I meant.
> There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service.
And then assume I meant something else.
> But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it.
Shame on you, sir.
> I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics.
I think this is very much the wrong way to have a civilized discussion, despite your wit.
That's a shame - I was fond of the HTML pun. And I was legitimately unsure what you meant by your definition of service. Apologies if hedging my bet there irked you. I'm not a freelance/contractor/consultant and have no desire to be one, so the presumption that that's the only proper model for software development is one I don't take as a given.
For what it's worth, I don't agree you should be downvoted. But you also have made it hard to have an actual discussion by casting everything as right/wrong type of situation and then clearly dictating what is right or wrong. That really makes it hard to have a civilized discussion because there's no seeking of understanding, just refutation.
if you own a car, you own it forever and without limits.
No you don't; the car must be titled, road-legal, emissions tested, insured, and you must be licensed to drive. Those are some of the limits on owning and using a car. Physical possession doesn't constitute a natural right.
More generally, you shouldn't pretend like you can divine human law from physical constraints. Human law serves humans. Property law serves humans. Laws might want to take into account the nature of intellectual property as bits, or they might not, depending on what is practical and desirable; but the bits are an implementation detail.
I'm pretty sure you need a license to own a car in most jurisdictions, but that's not the point. (And you definitely need a title to own a car because that's how you own a car. In some jurisdictions merely possessing the physical copy of the title implies ownership of the car, which is why you always keep the title in a safe place.)
Actually, you made my point for me. The point is society limits the way people can use property for practical reasons. There's no reason you can't do that on intellectual property because "omg it's made of bits".
The title is one way to recognize the rightful owner. If the title is destroyed or missing, those who believe in natural rights would still recognize ownership. Those who believe in state-given rights might not.
Also, you mentioned earlier that mere possession does not imply rightful ownership. I totally agree, as would anyone who has been the victim of theft.
Please don't conflate tangible goods with intangible goods. Intangible goods are patterns. You can't steal a pattern, because a pattern can't be "owned" in any sense that a physical object can.
Now, you can have rights to a pattern and that right stops others from exploiting that pattern commercially, but you don't own the pattern. Even our current laws recognize this. After all, your right will expire, but if you own a car, you own it forever and without limits.
So enough with this "theft" bullshit.