James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
I love you James Lileks, but I had to stop listening to Ricochet #102 for a moment and punch this out. Breaching copyright -- for personal use, anyway -- is not theft! As a former policeman in a common law jurisdiction, I can tell you that there are eight very specific elements of the crime of larceny that must be proved in every case. One of those elements, with regard to the stolen property:
depriving the owner of the use therein
That is, if I take your iPad, you don't have it any more. That's stealing. That is what might be called a natural crime. Any society that has improved itself beyond rule of brute force recognises this. Steven Pinker lists 'Property' amongst the human universals in The Blank Slate.
But if I copy some music you downloaded from the iTunes store, you still have the music. So does iTunes and the copyright owner. What we are talking about is breaching a recently invented law in the same category as, say, smoking a cigarette in the wrong place in New York, or breaching a provision of Dodd-Frank.
Illegal, yes. Wrong, arguably. A widely and naturally recognised sin? No!
- Comment (172)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Here! Here! I personally have come to favor a system of copy right that charges larger and larger fees for extension. Were every five years the price increase by a powers of 10 so that after 30 years it would cost 1,000,000 dollars to renew the copyright.
May '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
In regard to Jeff Younger, you are right ideas aren't scarce but good ideas are.
Aug '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
HalifaxCB
Brian Watt
"Lmited times" seems to be the issue. .... · Jan 19 at 7:21am
Re. copyright, I'd be happy to go back to the definition as it held in 1800 - books, maps, charts, and with a 14 year protection, renewable for another 14. Prints weren't added until 1802, music in 1831, dramatic works in 1856, works of art in 1870. (More here, about halfway down the page).
PracticalMary's post #40, and the links from it, really seem to point to the level of unworkable complexity that arise as everybody seeks to have the government protect their assumed rights. Personally I prefer a much more wide open market, it keeps you on your toes. · Jan 19 at 8:06am
One of the primary reasons the copyright term was extended was because creators were outliving their creations and being deprived of the income from their work.
Mar '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Can we make a new rule that anyone commenting on copyright has to have read Digital Barbarism? If I had the money I would buy everyone a copy--it's only $6 on Amazon (the price of a Broadside). If that's still too steep for you, there's probably some website you can pirate it from...
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Nathaniel Wright: People who want file sharing -- "Look, [blah,blah, blah, blah]."
That sounds like a sound way to guarantee a stable social contract. Yes, yes it does.
Copytheft is copytheft. It is the labor that gives a thing value. Labor isn't "abstract" it isn't "imaginary" and it takes hard work. [...]
You are either a morally corrupt user who doesn't care about others, or you believe that there is no such thing as property outside the SpeciesBeing.
Outline: start with a caricature, and then state a long refuted theory of value, and then give a false dichotomy to slime your opponents. What a sorry piece of work, sir.
Your labor theory of property rights is a restatement of Marx's Surplus Labor Theory of Value. Your theory leads to the abolition of property and the extinction of human productivity.
A pitiful effort.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Why did Claire leave this discussion? I still want to know what she owns and what is stolen.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
No, they are not. They are rare, which not the same thing as scarce. By discovering an idea, you do not thereby prevent anyone else from discovering it or using for their own purposes.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
I'm actually in the process of reading the book as we chat here. I got it after the long post I initially started on this issue. I did not buy it though, I borrowed it from the Library, which I hope no one views as theft. Once I finish it I will post my review of it. I just have had so little time to read lately, and its not even that long of a book...
I would ask that if you make a demand of me to read a book that supports your views that you give me the same courtesy I have given you and read a book that supports mine. Her is a link to Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella. It is free. Thanks you Gabriel Sullice for the link.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:41pmAug '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Indeed. And I will say again that I think Helprin would be an excellent guest for Peter's Uncommon Knowledge. Get on it, Peter!
May '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Sorry Jeff, Just don't see how labor doesn't give something value. Or how skill doesn't. If I want someone to sod my bare back yard I don't just pay them for the cost of the sod. The effort and time associated with laying the sod has a value. So if you want to hear a great song write one yourself or pay someone to write it for you. I love bluegrass but have no musical ability. If i want to hear a song on my Iphone I buy the song because I know the artist who recorded the tune worked his or her butt off to acquire a skill I do not have. If I take it without compensation, I have stolen their skill and the effort needed to do that which I cannot or would not do. Its theft. Justify all you want but its still theft.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:43pmAug '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
I think if we place "ideas" and "creative works" in the same category, we're probably going to muddy the waters. A lot of people arguing against copyright are using for examples the notion of copyrighting an idea. This is far different than a book or a film and conflating the two will get us nowhere.
May '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
The woman has to sleep some time.
Oct '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Nailed it, Will. Did you see yesterday's unfortunate ruling in Golan v. Holder? Breyer's dissent, which Alito joined, brings up a similar point.
For those arguing that effort -> property: property is a system for efficiently allocating resources. Once you start bringing fairness into it, you run into a host of problems. The best we can do is make a fair set of exchange rules, but creating new property over pre-existing and better established property rules is asking for problems, especially when this new "property" is created through artificially restricting non-scarce resources. There are good reasons for having intellectual regulation, but it isn't natural and that "added value" needs to be framed in the context of regulation.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Value comes from the desire you have for something. Not the effort it takes to produce that thing. What is a can of coke worth to me? Well its value changes for me based on the the situation. If I have already drunk 5 the value of the 6th is nearly zero. If on the other hand I haven't had one in weeks (because I went to Europe and their soda is terrible) the value of that can is really high I might just pay as much as 5 dollars for it. The price in a market is the average value to the average person at all times. Not the true value to an individual. The work required to make that can is always the same regardless of how I value it. Labor is immaterial to value.
In the sodding example the price one pays is for the result of sodding, not the effort the worker put into it. As long as the job is done for a price you think acceptable why should you care how hard they work or don't.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:55pmOct '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Songwriter
One of the primary reasons the copyright term was extended was because creators were outliving their creations and being deprived of the income from their work. · Jan 19 at 8:24am
Actually, that was only part of the reason.
"I like that extension of copyright life to the author's life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take care of his children. Let the grand-children take care of themselves. That would take care of my daughters, and after that I am not particular." - Samuel Clemens, 1906
Of course, now it is 75 years so his grand-children would be able to live off the royalties as well.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Stu In Tokyo
James Of England
It's difficult to know from your examples. In purchasing a copy of the music, you purchase both the physical item and limited property rights. Contracts vary, but many allow for copying for personal use. ·
I buy an album, I make a copy for personal use, that is or is not stealing? I think it is not. If I buy said album, make a copy and keep the copy and then sell the original album, I think that is theft. ·
That depends on whether you have the right to do so. Copying it and keeping the copy and copying it and selling the copy are both property rights (both involving a "duplication right") that you may or may not have. Likewise playing it in a public space, using it in your commercial, and any number of other things that owning a physical copy enables you to do. You can generally buy licenses for all these things, and doing them unlicensed is theft.
DVDs are more protected, btw, than CDs, for which all owners have duplication rights under the Audio Home Recording Act. Legislation encoding your view has repeatedly been introduced, but has not passed.
Aug '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Do you really mean to say that work has no value?
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Jeff Younger
Outline: start with a caricature, and then state a long refuted theory of value, and then give a false dichotomy to slime your opponents. What a sorry piece of work, sir.
Your labor theory of property rights is a restatement of Marx's Surplus Labor Theory of Value. Your theory leads to the abolition of property and the extinction of human productivity.
A pitiful effort. · Jan 19 at 8:28am
The labor theory of value is a poor approximation of the exchange theory, but is much simpler to explain sympathetically. If you go back to Mr. Wright's arguments and apply a better theory of value, you will see that the argument holds up just as well. He who steals IP, steals something of genuine value.
As an aside, I don't believe that either "What a sorry piece of work, sir" or "A pitiful effort" added to your argument. You were clear in your condemnation (caricature, slime, false dichotomy, long refuted, Marx) without descending into pure insult.
May '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Valuith, I don't care how hard they work, (though I know they work really hard because I sodded my back yard this summer and used the example cause I wanted to brag). My point was simply that labor has a value. That value is different for every person obviously. The value I placed on having someone sod my yard was zero. I did it myself (bragging again). For another who doesn't want to lay 16000 pounds of sod it might be quite high. My point was simply that if someone goes to the effort to produce a product be it physical or intellectual, then they market said product, then you should pay them for the product if you use it.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Good point.