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:
Aug '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Jeff Younger
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. · Jan 19 at 8:32am
An idea, good, bad or indifferent, cannot be copyrighted. Only the unique realization of an idea may be protected by copyright. Let's not confuse the issue.
May '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Sure Jeff, I get it. If I invent electricity for example. I shouldn't prevent you from inventing the light bulb. But, if I spent years inventing the light bulb, you shouldn't be able to exactly copy what I invented. Otherwise why would I go to the effort in the first place. I also still think good ideas are scarce. Boy this if my first Ricochet dustup. Its fun.
Jeff Younger
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. · Jan 19 at 8:32am
Aug '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Jeff Younger,
My "labor theory of value" comes straight from Locke's Second Treatise, but apparently you've never read that.
Those who advocate that the desire to acquire without limit outweighs the right to compensation for labor are the socialists here. They can argue that it is for a public good, thus advocating abrogation of rights to the Species Being (that's Marx's term in "on the Jewish Question" for society). They can argue for it because it's just stuff they want, in which case they are poorly justifying greed. They can argue for it because, "it isn't really property" in which case they are lying or misled.
Read the Second Treatise and read Madison's "On Property." Property rights, including intangible ones, are the root of classical liberalism. Without them, there are no rights.
Aug '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Michael Pate
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. · Jan 19 at 8:59am
Michael:
As I said, it was "one of the reasons." So, explain why my children shouldn't benefit from the music I've written after I'm gone?
I began writing when copyright was 28 years plus an additional 28. US Copyright Law has changed (thankfully) to mirror International Copyright Law, so that US creators weren't at a disadvantage to the counterparts around the world.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
DrewInWisconsin
Do you really mean to say that work has no value? · Jan 19 at 9:09am
I would like to define value if we are going to go down this route. I am imagining value to be a purely economical term in this case, synonymous with price. In this case nothing has an intrinsic price to it. It can only be priced by markets and in markets the price is set by the desire for the item (demand) and then its scarcity (supply). Would you agree with this?
Aug '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
"Steals from the general public to give to a favored group of contributors."
That's what all protection of any property right is. The whole "property is theft" argument is predicated on the fact that property is a "public good." You -- and believe it or not Jeff who has apparently not read Das Kapital, Wealth of Nations, or Locke's Second Treatise -- are the ones advocating that works of creative effort are ever "public goods."
I will agree that there is likely some point at which things should be considered public, as they become so deeply embedded in the culture as to be so constituted. That is quite different than saying it "belongs" to the general public. The general public owns nothing. There is no species being. There are only agreements between sovereign individuals. Violations of these agreements lead to a State of War.
But you go ahead and download copies of other people's research papers and turn them in as your own work. After all, you're not depriving anyone of their use. There is nothing wrong there. There is no plagiarism.
Heck, I'm just going to use your house while you're on vacation.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Nathaniel Wright:
I will agree that there is likely some point at which things should be considered public, as they become so deeply embedded in the culture as to be so constituted. That is quite different than saying it "belongs" to the general public. The general public owns nothing.
Excellent! A point of agreement between our two sides. Let us build upon this. How do we determine when this point is reached? Rationally I would say you take it on a case by case basis, but that is not practical from an administrative point. Thus we must set up an semi-arbitrary line at where we say things on this side are public and things on the other are not yet public.
When I first wrote on this issue one of the things I argued was that the more popular a work of art becomes the quicker it becomes public (as you define it). Thus at that point does the artist really have more claim than any other person in the society to that work and its use? I say no. All members of the society have equal claim on that societies culture.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Sounds like quite a job, emory. Maybe you should post a photo! :-)
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Nathaniel Wright: Jeff Younger,
My "labor theory of value" comes straight from Locke's Second Treatise, but apparently you've never read that.
Those who advocate that the desire to acquire without limit outweighs the right to compensation for labor are the socialists here. They can argue that it is for a public good, thus advocating abrogation of rights to the Species Being (that's Marx's term in "on the Jewish Question" for society). They can argue for it because it's just stuff they want, in which case they are poorly justifying greed. They can argue for it because, "it isn't really property" in which case they are lying or misled.
Read the Second Treatise and read Madison's "On Property." Property rights, including intangible ones, are the root of classical liberalism. Without them, there are no rights. ·
Huh. My defense was based on mistaken assumptions. While Locke, Madison (and Smith, and others) did work from a labor theory of value, and did lay the foundations for liberal civilization, we can see further than them, at least on this topic, because we stand upon the shoulders of giants. Do you really reject the exchange theory of value?
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Songwriter
As I said, it was "one of the reasons." So, explain why my children shouldn't benefit from the music I've written after I'm gone?
Will you leave them no money? I mean if you consider other forms of work. Like brick laying vs. song writing. The brick layer leaves to his children the money he earned in life, something a song write does too. The song writer though also leaves the money the songs still generate. The brick layer can not leave the money the building he helped build generate to his children. In fact he is never given any share of that money at all ever. He is paid one time for his singular act of labor thus he is forced to perform that act again. You the song writer can perform one act of labor from which you expect to generate repeated revenue in perpetuity.
If the brick layer could be paid every time some one sleeps in a house he build he would want that too, and would want to pass that profit to his children as well. We though do not grant him that privilege.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Nathaniel Wright: [1] My "labor theory of value" comes straight from Locke's Second Treatise, but apparently you've never read that.
[2] They can argue for it because, "it isn't really property" in which case they are lying or misled.
[3] Read the Second Treatise and read Madison's "On Property." Property rights, including intangible ones, are the root of classical liberalism.
(1) Locke claims that labor adds utility-value not exchange value. You argue that utility-value implies exchange-value. That's false. You say you've read Locke, and I say you've misread him. But you can be forgiven in this because Locke is vague about his meaning of 'value'.
(2) Your counter-argument is calumny. I'll take the advice of James in England, and let that bit of hubris stand on it's own.
(3) Poor Achilles! Some of us have read Madison besides you. One of the things we discover in his so-called Detached Memorandum and his Vices of the Political System of the United States is his recognition of the dangers of intellectual property. He wanted these intellectual "monopolies" to be temporary because they are so frought with abuse.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
I believe he does, sir.
Aug '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Valiuth
Songwriter
As I said, it was "one of the reasons." So, explain why my children shouldn't benefit from the music I've written after I'm gone?
Will you leave them no money? I mean if you consider other forms of work. Like brick laying vs. song writing. The brick layer leaves to his children the money he earned in life, something a song write does too. The song writer though also leaves the money the songs still generate. The brick layer can not leave the money the building he helped build generate to his children. In fact he is never given any share of that money at all ever. He is paid one time for his singular act of labor thus he is forced to perform that act again. You the song writer can perform one act of labor from which you expect to generate repeated revenue in perpetuity.
What if the brick-layer had a brick-laying business? Surely that business could be left to his children, and would not be confiscated by the government upon his death like a songwriter's songs would be under your model.
May '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
valiuth,
Your analogy is flawed because the brick mason doesn't build the house. He helps build the house. The songwriter is like the architect who designs the house and yes, if you use his plans he is to be compensated every time that plan is used unless you pay him for a multiple use copy.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
DrewInWisconsin
What if the brick-layer had a brick-laying business? Surely that business could be left to his children, and would not be confiscated by the government upon his death like a songwriter's songs would be under your model. · Jan 19 at 10:02am
Yes, but the business will require the children to continue to perform work to maintain its profitability. One song written once, recorded once, but continuously copied and sold is not the same as an artist that continues to generate new work. If the children of the artist wanted to continue themselves performing the song or continuing the band that is more analogs to the business analogy.
Emory, there are problems with the my analogy no analogy is perfect. Neither is yours of the artist to the architect. For the song writer is paid every time the song is played publicly but the architect is not paid every time the build is entered. If I buy a song. I can't play it on the radio with out paying the artist again and again every time I play it. The architect is not paid every time a new person moves into the building.
Aug '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Valiuth
DrewInWisconsin
What if the brick-layer had a brick-laying business? Surely that business could be left to his children, and would not be confiscated by the government upon his death like a songwriter's songs would be under your model. · Jan 19 at 10:02am
Yes, but the business will require the children to continue to perform work to maintain its profitability.
Or hire people who can. The point remains. Why should the government be able to confiscate someone's creative output "for the public good" but not someone's (literally, in this example) brick-and-mortar business? I'm sure there are those in government who salivate at the notion that all property is public property. As a small business owner whose trade is in the creative realm, I would like to think that the fruits of my labor can be passed on to my children just as those whose labor is of a different sort of material.
Aug '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Valiuth
Will you leave them no money? .... You the song writer can perform one act of labor from which you expect to generate repeated revenue in perpetuity.
If the brick layer could be paid every time some one sleeps in a house he build he would want that too, and would want to pass that profit to his children as well. We though do not grant him that privilege. · Jan 19 at 9:52am
Where to start?
Unless I agree to write a "work for hire," I don't earn one dime for writing anything until somebody decides to record it/publish it/distribute it. What i leave my children is a royalty stream that generally dribbles in twice a year. I am not paid an agreed upon wage for the labor of writing.
And if a bricklayer wanted to negotiate a royalty for his work - more power to him. He probably wouldn't work much, though.
Your analogy is severely flawed. Writing a song is not an act of labor. It is an act of creativity. Once again, as in the previous thread on copyright, you are speaking about a world you apparently know nothing of.
Apr '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Government does not take the artist out put. It merely stops preventing other people from copying them. When the copyright expires the government stops giving that protection. Government does not prevent anyone from starting a competing brick laying business. It does stop one musician from competing with another musician by playing the same music as them.
You can say that the second musician should compete by playing different music. How is that different than saying that a person should compete with the brick layer not by laying bricks but by being a carpenter instead? People want to hear "Back in Black" why can there be two bands that play that song for people? People want brick houses therefore there are many brick layers.
Oct '10
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Claire owns a number of particular and unique groups of words--books--that she sells as paper objects or electronic data. When someone copies this without payment or consent, they have taken/stolen the unique quality--that is, the particular arrangement of words--that gives value to her efforts. Nothing physical is taken, if that's your quibble, but this is a metaphysical discussion. Natural Law/Rights is a metaphysical concept.
Edit: I'm on the run today, busy, but I did take the time to glance at the Wikipedia entry on the labor theory of value. Not being conversant in Locke, Madison or Marx, I'm in over my head here, but I'd like to hear a rebuttal to what seems to me to be a common sense position (my comment above.) Jeff? J. of E.?
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 9:15pmJan '11
Re: James, oh James: Copying is not stealing!
Good post. If there was a Like? button, I'd have clicked it.
The comments here are thoughtful, and have me thinking. I've learned a lot about what would seem to lay people, such as myself, a clear-cut matter. And, they made me think of other, related issues. i.e., is eminent domain a form of theft? Is taxation theft? Is any form of coerced deprivation theft? Are governments constitutionally privileged thieves?