Piracy is NOT Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor

Ernesto
November 4, 2011
200
cybernormer,
research,
sweden
Print

When talking about piracy the entertainment industry and politicians often use the term “theft.” This is a huge problem according to the Swedish sociologist of law Stefan Larsson. In his thesis “Metaphors and Norms – Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society,” he explains that these metaphors are in part keeping the wide gap between people’s norms and the law intact.

stefan A few years ago best-selling author Paulo Coelho made a Russian translation of The Alchemist available without permission from his publisher. As a result the sales in Russia skyrocketed from 1,000 books a year to over 1,000,000.

The above is just one of the many examples which show that there are many positive sides to the act of ‘copying’. Despite these nuances, piracy is often referred to as theft. This is a problem according to Stefan Larsson, lawyer and socio-legal researcher at Lund University in Sweden.

Larsson addresses the issue in his thesis “Metaphors and Norms – Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society,” for which he just received his doctorate. Talking to TorrentFreak, he explains why copyright infringement isn’t theft, and how this problematic metaphor keeps the gap between public norms and the law intact.

“The theft-metaphor is problematic in the sense that a key element of stealing is that the one stolen from loses the object, which is not the case in file sharing since it is copied. There is no loss when something is copied, or the loss is radically different from losing something like your bike,” Larsson explains.

One of the obvious problems is that it suggests that every “stolen copy” is a lost sale.

“Following this conception, some iPods could be valued at millions of dollars and a file sharing service could aid in copyright infringements representing more value than the Gross Domestic Product of entire countries,” Larsson says.

And indeed, if we look at the court case against The Pirate Bay in Sweden, the renumeration model of the entertainment industry would mistakenly put the “value” of the site at billions of dollars.

Piracy vs. Theft

“I think that one important aspect lies in that the legal regulation is built on fundamentally different conceptions of reality,” Larsson told TorrentFreak.

The researcher explains that the public perception of the law, or social norms, is out of line with what the law actually says. In part this is because the “theft” metaphor is built into law, while there is no such thing as theft where piracy is concerned.

“In other words, this means that legal concepts can become metaphorical if their meaning expands into new areas, and the fixed conceptions that once ensured their legitimacy may seem unjust in the eyes of a reality that has moved on. This supports the gap between legal and social norms regarding parts of copyright today.”

This gap between the law and what people see, feel and experience in real life is a problem, one that lawmakers are now trying to address with even more draconian laws based on the same nonsense metaphors.

But are tougher laws the best solution? Will these change people’s norms? Larsson is not convinced.

“There are naturally many examples of when tougher laws change behavior, and there are also even examples of when tougher laws have made a substantial contribution in changing social norms. However, there are a few possible drawbacks when law turns repressive.”

He explains that these laws “would need to make everyone think differently about reality,” something that’s easier said than done. Another problem according to Larsson is that may people will simply find ways to hide what they do, such as using VPN services or proxies when downloading via BitTorrent.

Larsson doesn’t think that the current trends of stronger copyright laws and more surveillance of Internet users is the right path to take. These measures often violate the rights of the masses to benefit the interests of a few, which can never be a good solution.

Instead of changing people’s norms and twisting reality, perhaps society might be better off when copyright law adapts to the digital age?

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Truth

Great article. Makes me wonder about the accuracy of Pirates, who raid ships, copy the gold medallions and sail away with their copies.
- http://www.frontier-space.com Vested3
  
  This is a fantastic article and something I have been thinking about for a long time as someone who wants to make manga on the internet and eventually even games or anime.
  
  The facts are, when normal filesharing occurs which is what anti-piracy groups are targeting, copies are made of the original product that has been legitimately bought, this is NOT theft. If file sharers have committed any crime it is the circumvention of copy protection and the distribution of goods without permission of the owner.
  
  That said, if I have to choose between people being free to download anything they want or use it how they like and a rabidly controlled and poorly managed internet where you can barely do anything out of fear of being fined or put in prison I’ll choose the first. I don’t care what people have to say about me losing out on money if it means I lose out on my freedom, given the way these lawyer firms and corporations act it makes me wonder whether copyright artists truly get money from these schemes at all.
  - Floppy Copy
    
    Very well said, Vested3. :-)
    
    This article puts a voice to something I’ve been thinking about for a while now as well. Law can and does dictate social norms sometimes, but only when the positive effects outweigh the negative ones, exactly as it should be. Ideally laws should reflect social norms, which is what the intention and concept of law has always been about.
    
    When laws go one way and social norms another, the divide between them grows until it reaches a breaking point. I don’t think anyone would argue against the fact that it is far easier to rewrite law so it reflects social norms than it is to change the behavior of the masses. All you accomplish by attempting to do it the other way around is repression, and that never ends well for a country as history shows. In fact, I’d argue we’re already seeing the first warning signs, not just here but abroad as well. Governments would do well to heed this warning.
    
    I have to agree with this thesis; creating/changing laws in an attempt to force the masses to obey something they do not agree with, all so a small group of businesses can prosper, is the path of madness. When something no longer works, even partially, you throw it in the trash and replace it with something better. Hasn’t that always been the American way?
  - got teeth?
    
    “distribution of goods without permission of the owner”
    
    I though if i purchased something, i AM the owner :D:D:D
  - Anonynony
    
    Good comment but I would disagree about the ‘copies are made’ element.
    
    Since most shared files are uploaded after having been format-shifted this is not even a ‘copy’ of the information contained in the original. At best it is a derivative work. Frame compression, bitrates, audio conversion, even frame size all lead to the conclusion this alternative file is completely different from the original.
    
    In the case of a DVD it is altered so much (converted to avi for example) that it will not even play on a standard player.
    - Bla
      
      You’re wrong. Changing the extension or the encoding doesn’t turn “Shawshank Redemption” into “Terminator 3″. The content is what matters, not the form in which it’s presented. If you wish an analogy with a book to illustrate your fallacy, what you say is similar to changing the paper and font of a book and admitting it’s not a copy, even if the text is the same.
    - Guest
      
      @Bla
      
      He said it’s not a ‘COPY’ of as in file structure, file, type, play format, boxed and printed cover, sold as original. Everyone knows theses files are not the original and wouldn’t pay for them.
      
      I get what he means. He never said the content was altered.
      It all boils down to comprehension. You obviously don’t have any.
    - Guest
      
      @Bla
      
      He said it’s not a ‘COPY’ of as in file structure, file, type, play format, boxed and printed cover, sold as original. Everyone knows theses files are not the original and wouldn’t pay for them.
      
      I get what he means. He never said the content was altered.
      It all boils down to comprehension. You obviously don’t have any.
    - guest
      
      Guest, if you read, he specifically said that it isn’t a copy. He said ” I would disagree about the ‘copies are made’ element.”
      He then made it clearer by saying “this is not even a ‘copy’ of the information contained in the original”
      He then said that formatting makes the file “completely different from the original.”
      This would effectively be the same as using a photocopier to copy a book. So do photocopiers not actually copy things?
      It doesn’t matter matter what the format is, it is still a copy, even if it is a lossy copy. It still contains the same actual information (i.e. the movie, words of the book), it is just stored in a different format. People still get the same information from it, what you should have said is that it has different data.
      The only information that might be missing, is deleted scenes from a DVD, additional information stored in the file which isn’t presented while the movie plays, etc. If you say that doesn’t make it a copy, then if I copy all bar 1 page of a book, it wouldn’t be a copy.
      
      You were right about one thing:
      “It all boils down to comprehension. You obviously don’t have any” not him, you.
    - guest
      
      Guest, if you read, he specifically said that it isn’t a copy. He said ” I would disagree about the ‘copies are made’ element.”
      He then made it clearer by saying “this is not even a ‘copy’ of the information contained in the original”
      He then said that formatting makes the file “completely different from the original.”
      This would effectively be the same as using a photocopier to copy a book. So do photocopiers not actually copy things?
      It doesn’t matter matter what the format is, it is still a copy, even if it is a lossy copy. It still contains the same actual information (i.e. the movie, words of the book), it is just stored in a different format. People still get the same information from it, what you should have said is that it has different data.
      The only information that might be missing, is deleted scenes from a DVD, additional information stored in the file which isn’t presented while the movie plays, etc. If you say that doesn’t make it a copy, then if I copy all bar 1 page of a book, it wouldn’t be a copy.
      
      You were right about one thing:
      “It all boils down to comprehension. You obviously don’t have any” not him, you.
    - Guest3
      
      @Guest
      
      “This would effectively be the same as using a photocopier to copy a book. So do photocopiers not actually copy things?”
      
      Would you buy a photocopied book at retail price?
      
      No? Then it’s not good enough to be called a ‘copy’.
      
      The content is all there but it is not worth a carrot.
      
      First Guest was right. Comprehension, yours Guest2, is less than lacking.
- Anonymous
  
  Great comment. Makes me wonder how stupid someone is, who thinks that copying (with the nickname piracy) is the same as actual piracy
Twice Daily

If just 50% of the Judges could differentiate between a copy and a conversion we we might actually see some real justice in the ‘little man v. the Monopoly’ stakes.
- http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja
  
  Statistics say that in order to completely stall the advance fo the enmy you have to destroy half + one of the available paths. /anal
  
  Jokes apart, we need some real powerful judges and politicians to understand that. The change will come from both below (the ppl) and above (sane -!!!!- politicians, judges and influential ppl).
  - Anonynony
    
    Off topic I know, but just for information purposes and with an eye to justice,
    Righthaven the copyright extortion company reported by TF last month appears to have had the ass sued of it and maybe about to claim bankruptcy.
    
    http://paidcontent.org/article/419-marshals-to-seize-assets-of-deadbeat-righthaven/
    
    What a shame. Lol.
Nuirtey

if i use a online dictionary instead of one from the book store i do this illegally
- Danny
  
  Yes and wikipedia should be held accountable for britannica encyclopedia sales going down the shitter!
  - ayman
    
    So this is why britannica uses online ads for some income XD
- Danny
  
  Yes and wikipedia should be held accountable for britannica encyclopedia sales going down the shitter!
uredd

I’d say why call it “piracy” at all? When you say so you actually agree to play by corporate rules on their field. Call it honestly “sharing” or “copying” instead.
- Anonymous
  
  Most of us do call it “file sharing”. I personally prefer to keep the word “piracy” for when there is a commercial element involved.
  
  Most here would never use the word “theft” for such free advertising and preview.
  - No
    
    I like to use piracy for robbery and murder on the high seas, but to each their own.
  - No
    
    I like to use piracy for robbery and murder on the high seas, but to each their own.
- Gae
  
  The piracy/theft connection to file sharing is one made up by MAFIAA to make people feel like they are doing something wrong and to give file sharing a negative image.
  Again the same tecnique has been used when am industry sponsored vague and evidence-less report is presented to associate file sharing with terrorism.
  
  Again this continues more recently using peoples fears over the economy to push forwards with their claims that millions of people are losing their jobs because of sharing.
  
  The sad part is that so many people are still taken in by it all.
cyke1

yea its like how they call all the Laws aim’ed to stop p2p stuff online as ment for use to fight “child pornography”. Which is just their way to gain support for a law that is completely retarded.
cyke1

yea its like how they call all the Laws aim’ed to stop p2p stuff online as ment for use to fight “child pornography”. Which is just their way to gain support for a law that is completely retarded.
cyke1

yea its like how they call all the Laws aim’ed to stop p2p stuff online as ment for use to fight “child pornography”. Which is just their way to gain support for a law that is completely retarded.
http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

This article is pretty good. Will fall on deaf ears for sure on the MAFIAA side but there will be a point where they won’t be able to prevent the sunlight from going through their flawed cover.

Piracy is overrated ;)
- Anonymous
  
  You overlook that the copyright side love piracy. What better than out of control file sharing to give them the perfect excuse to impose draconian political measures and to impose their control over large parts of the Internet?
bob

Sooo, iPod capacity has gone up to multiple TB? Or has the price/track surpassed 60$? Exaggerate much?
- cyke1
  
  if you don’t remember when RIAA started their suits their base starting amount they were suing for was 150k $ per infringement.
- cyke1
  
  if you don’t remember when RIAA started their suits their base starting amount they were suing for was 150k $ per infringement.
John

It’s not theft of goods, pirating would be considered theft of services. It’s similar to how it would be illegal to sneak into a movie without paying for it even though sneaking into the movie didn’t cost the theater any money. Of course the man in the article is from Sweden where the law might be slightly different.
- whir
  
  therefore it’s not theft
  look it up, smartass:
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
  - John
    
    Except, I wasn’t talking about “theft,” I was talking about “theft of services.” Don’t worry, you’ll learn how to read eventually I expect, especially with all those great dictionary skills.
    - Anonymous
      
      I agree, John. This is why we need to make people sick. When will we, as a society, realize that healthy people are stealing the services of doctors and dieticians? If everyone’s sharing healthy food diets with their friends, there won’t be any dieticians left. We need to save health services from the Health Pirates! Do your part and infect someone with AIDS today!
    - http://ompldr.org/vYXc2MA/see-what-i-thought-id-do-was-id-pretend-i-was-one-of-those-slut-whores.html w3ts1ut
      
      Physical resources <– This is not what we're talking about.
      Digital resources <– This is what we're talking about.
      
      How blatantly silly do you have to be to use the word "Pirating" as you did in your original comment, in an article clearly stating how wrong that metaphor is? If anything file sharing is facilitating my network, my physical hardware resources, my uptime – and my peers.
      
      If creators don't like our free promotion, they can try wasting money on advertising (However, ad agencies aren't as passionate about their work as we are).
    - SebastienVettel
      
      No, you weren’t talking about theft of services, you were talking about aggravated trespass!
    - Guest
      
      @ulonesing – Out here, outside of mom and dad’s basement, “theft of services” is a well known legal concept.
      
      Not consuming services, as in your example, is NOT “theft of services.” It refers to consuming those services without paying for them and/or by taking unauthorized advantage of a service someone else is paying for.
      
      Common examples – tapping into someone else’s electicity or dumping all your extra garbage at the end of you neighbor’s driveway so HE gets stuck with the bill for YOUR trash.
      
      These things are still theft, even though your neighbor still has his “original” electicity or had his “original” garbage picked up.
    - Scary Devil Monastery
      
      @Guest
      
      “Common examples – tapping into someone else’s electicity or dumping all your extra garbage at the end of you neighbor’s driveway so HE gets stuck with the bill for YOUR trash.”
      
      Except those examples cannot be applied to filesharing either.
      
      More like if you copy your neighbors electricity setup without him losing a single watt or getting stuck with greater consmption.
      The garbage comparison is just trash.
      
      When you copy information you create a new copy, That’s all. No one loses anything, service-way or otherwise.
    - Darkwiz666
      
      No, sleeping in a Hotel is theft of services…
      
      COPYING A BEDPOST of said hotel is NOT theft, which more resembles our discussion/situation…
      
      Where the fuck were YOU going with your line of though…>__>
    - Guest
      
      Guest, do you not understand electricity at all?
      In your example of tapping into electricity, this is effectively stealing goods. You take energy from him.
      Electricity is a type of goods, providing electricity is a service. By tapping into his electricity supply, you are not stealing a service, you are stealing a good.
      A service is something like a blowjob or a massage or the like. I am yet to understand how anyone could steal this, except by simply not paying for it and running away. This crime isn’t theft, it is not paying a bill.
      As for your garbage example, that would be littering
- Weed
  
  Still not theft. Difference between sneaking into a movie – you’re using someone elses screen to watch it on – you’re using their electric etc. At my own house I’m not using other peoples resources when watching a COPY. It’s not like it costs money to make copies of files. Making a car costs to copy (as it has to buy more resources) that’s why I do go around cloning cars and not paying them. mehh
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Josh-Varner/100000024088209 Josh Varner
    
    You guys are forgetting that someone originally already most likely paid for a legit copy of the content and are just sharing it with others. No different then you making a copy of a music CD and giving it to a friend. Or someone recording a TV shoe or movie off the TV or radio. That’s all legal “privacy” that the record and movie companies tried to stop but failed.
    - Darkwiz666
      
      “You guys are forgetting that someone originally already most likely paid for a legit copy of the content and are just sharing it with others. ”
      
      EXACTLY. What these MAFFIA assholes are REALLY complaining about are POTENTIAL sales and profits going ‘down the drain’ (as if they need MORE damn money…) because people prefer to actually download a copy from somewhere and see if it’s worth the money or not.
      
      The MAFFIA would LOVE for you go to a store (or iTunes), listen to 1 track that they release on the radio/iTunes, shell out $17, and then REGRET that you can no longer return the compact-disc because the store doesn’t allow returns for opened electronic media…because bitch ass MAFFIA doesn’t like giving their ‘hard earned’ money back to anyone…
      
      I wish I had never had my mother buy (this was back in my HS years, so no way for me to have had a job anyway…so chill with the “haw, you can’t complain, someone else bought it” jack…) a Linkin Park CD JUST as they started sounding all hipster-emo…worst CD I heard in my life! Waste of money! $15 (at the time) GONE to NEVER be got again…
      
      FUCK MAFFIA, they can suck a sack of baby dicks…
- Danny
  
  Idiot!
  
  Walking into a cinema without permission is trespassing not theft!
  Double face palm!
  - John
    
    Walking onto any private property is technically trespassing. I never said it wasn’t. Although that’s really another issue. Sneaking into a movie theater specifically is legally recognized as theft of services. The fact that your so self-assuredly ignorant of basic facts is rather astounding. Double face palm indeed.
    - Anonynony
      
      What if you’re blind and wander in accidentally?
      Is that audio theft if you like what you hear and decide to stay?
    - Danny
      
      No John it isn’t, the police will throw you out for trespassing not for theft.
    - Danny
      
      No John it isn’t, the police will throw you out for trespassing not for theft.
    - Darkside
      
      The theater analogy is a good one. But if you are there your taking up space, absorbing energy from the heating/cooling system. Taking away a seat that an otherwise paying customer would use then perhaps I could see a case for theft of services. However let’s postulate that this theater had a window and that person simply watched and listened from outside? My point is this, the building and the amenities are the “service”. If you have been inside a theater in the last fifty years you would have to agree that they aren’t making much money on the tickets, but the concessions are making a killing. A very different situation then filesharing or downloading, as the original content provider has absolutely no increase in overhead every time someone on the web acquires a copy of whatever it is they supply.
- Danny
  
  Idiot!
  
  Walking into a cinema without permission is trespassing not theft!
  Double face palm!
- Steve
  
  Copying is _not_ like theft of service. In the examples you cite, your consumption of the service denies it to someone else: the service is “used up” – you consume time, physical space, etc. Coyping does not use up anything and does not prevent anyone else from using it.
  - Anonymous
    
    So by your reasoning it only becomes theft of service if the theater no longer has extra seats to sell because you’ve taken the last one for free.
    - Josh C
      
      From his logic, it’s theft of service because the theater has one less seat to sell
    - Steve
      
      Your “reasoning”… not mine.
    - Anonymous
      
      Theft of service does not apply in file sharing because of the definition of service in this law.
  - Anonymous
    
    Steve: you stated that something isn’t a theft of service if the service isn’t “used up”. Extending that reasoning to the movie theater example, as long as there are still empty seats in the theater it isn’t “used up”. Once the last seat is taken (because someone as sneaked in for free) it suddenly becomes a theft of service. With that logic then illegally copying music can never be a theft of service since there is never a shortage.
    - Steve
      
      The seat you are sitting in is “used up” whether it’s the last one or not. Your use prevents someone else from using it.
    - Steve
      
      “With that logic then illegally copying music can never be a theft of service since there is never a shortage. ”
      
      Bingo! :-)
XFaCE

Though I’m glad the difference between theft and copyright infringement is being firmly established in this article, I disapprove of that other nonsense metaphor of the term “piracy”. How exactly can one equate Somalia Pirates for example, with the common user of the “Pirate” Bay? “Piracy” when used in this context is just as bad and perhaps even worse. There is the unfortunate trend where completely separate and individual actions and laws get mixed in with this nonsense, and we end up with patent infringement being labelled “piracy” as well. “Intellectual property”, “piracy”, and other such glorifications should be also ignored where law is concerned. You might as well call cracking someone else’s computer “rape” or replacing someone’s desktop wallpaper as a joke “vandalism”.
- Anonymous
  
  Well that’s because it obviously is rape and vandalism costing possibly hundreds of thousands. Something was obviously entered without permission and there is a feeling of being invaded, clearly a form of digital rape. And if we count all the hours people spend putting back their wallpapers (+hours it took to come up with the idea and victims thinking of a way to get back at them) over a long period, worldwide, the figure could be bigger then the BPN of . Clearly the laws of rape and vandalism should be applied online as well if we want this to stop.
  - Anonymous
    
    I meant: (insert poorest country on earth)
    Note to self: don’t use <
  - Darkwiz666
    
    …yes, because getting an AV that can remove the crack (you’re an idiot for thinking “crack” as in the “SMASH” term and not the “I’m in your system due to an exploit”…I wish I could crack you too…) and finding a new Anime wallpaper is going to cost THOOOOOOOUSANDS of dollars…
    
    Dude, stfu. Seriously. People get onto buddies/spouses/siblings/co-workers desktops all the time and change wallpapers…doesn’t cost shit to fix it.
    And as for the hacking (cracking) part…yeah, you could call that rape, but it’s not like you shoved your dick in the USB port without Window’s OS’s knowledge and loaded a file without it’s consent…that’s why there is a word for hacking, and it’s not called…
    
    Rape : “the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.”
    
    So fuck you AND your computer…
    
    …call it rape.
    - Guest 53
      
      He was being sarcastic. Lighten up :-D
    - guest
      
      Right, so you can’t understand sarcasm?
      
      Additionally, piracy: “The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea”.
      So, what people are doing when they share files is not actually piracy. This is the point he was making. If you want to call that piracy, it is also fair to say other things such as what he did.
      For the rape analogy, you entered without permission (kind of like when your penis enters without permission). With the vandalism analogy, you defaced something (just like when you deface a wall by putting graffiti on it.
      
      People call this piracy to make it sound bad and introduce draconian measures to try and gain control of the internet. It should be called file-sharing.
    - guest
      
      Right, so you can’t understand sarcasm?
      
      Additionally, piracy: “The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea”.
      So, what people are doing when they share files is not actually piracy. This is the point he was making. If you want to call that piracy, it is also fair to say other things such as what he did.
      For the rape analogy, you entered without permission (kind of like when your penis enters without permission). With the vandalism analogy, you defaced something (just like when you deface a wall by putting graffiti on it.
      
      People call this piracy to make it sound bad and introduce draconian measures to try and gain control of the internet. It should be called file-sharing.
http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

@ Stefan L. (author of the thesis)
Major thumbsup for submitting this topic and I hope you get your Doctorate for this noble and worthy study OF THE FACTS.

By sheer coincidence, the wrongly-named pirates and thieves have been saying for years now what you found to be simply and blatantly TRUE.

Non-commercial filesharers who share for no cash, no profit and no personal gain have indeed been victimised, pursued and labelled with some awfully hurtful names by the very industry that we actually support.

Many of us have also suffered mental anguish and trauma from these wrongful pursuits of the industry, their bully-boy representatives who lie to Police, and their lawyer trolls who send out threatening letters of extortion.

For politicians to ‘blindly’(?) pass more laws in apparent support of that “content industry” is not only erroneous but terribly short-sighted and woefully undemocratic in a so-called free market economy. In fact, their actions and laws will merely dirupt human progress and restrict knowledge via censorship régimes that have no place in the 21st century.

Would you agree Stefan?
- http://www.cybernorms.net Stefan Larsson
  
  @Rob8urcakes
  Firstly, yes, I got Doctorate in Sociology of Law. :)
  Secondly, any area where law and social norms differ to the extent on this field is indeed worthy of studies due to the fact that we really need to understand why the laws are perceived as illegit by so many, and to see whatever consequences this brings.
  I have focused on the language based connections to how we conceptualise reality as a means to explain the great shift of so many processes into a digital arena, and therefore see that some of the conceptualisation that has governed copyright law originally simply does not fit well with the new constraints and freedoms of the digital. Furthermore, I believe that the representations of these conceptions – explicit metaphors – serves as tools for anyone who does not want to change the system. So, sure, there are elements of power in the game, as you focus (see ch 8 of my thesis – download it in the link in the article).
  
  However, I sense something Lawrence Lessig-like in your argumentation (future of ideas, free culture) Rob8urcakes, but I think that the real consequences of what the present situation will lead to is pretty hard to foretell right now. The feared is, however, what you describe (see chapter 9 in my thesis, about SOME consequences). I, right now, focus how Internet itself is changing in terms of anonymity and encryption (TF has written about it) as well as the mentioned problematic and underlying conceptions of copyright law.
  
  /Stefan
- http://www.cybernorms.net Stefan Larsson
  
  @Rob8urcakes
  Firstly, yes, I got Doctorate in Sociology of Law. :)
  Secondly, any area where law and social norms differ to the extent on this field is indeed worthy of studies due to the fact that we really need to understand why the laws are perceived as illegit by so many, and to see whatever consequences this brings.
  I have focused on the language based connections to how we conceptualise reality as a means to explain the great shift of so many processes into a digital arena, and therefore see that some of the conceptualisation that has governed copyright law originally simply does not fit well with the new constraints and freedoms of the digital. Furthermore, I believe that the representations of these conceptions – explicit metaphors – serves as tools for anyone who does not want to change the system. So, sure, there are elements of power in the game, as you focus (see ch 8 of my thesis – download it in the link in the article).
  
  However, I sense something Lawrence Lessig-like in your argumentation (future of ideas, free culture) Rob8urcakes, but I think that the real consequences of what the present situation will lead to is pretty hard to foretell right now. The feared is, however, what you describe (see chapter 9 in my thesis, about SOME consequences). I, right now, focus how Internet itself is changing in terms of anonymity and encryption (TF has written about it) as well as the mentioned problematic and underlying conceptions of copyright law.
  
  /Stefan
  - http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes
    
    I’ve already d/l your thesis Stef, and thanks for making it accessible for public view at no cost.
    
    Best of luck with your new project. I’d be awfully upset if you found that more and more people have to pay for privacy in the digital World simply to protect themselves against attack by businesses who fail to offer their goods at a fair price in a fair and free market-place, simply because of an archaic legal concept of copywrong law that no longer protects original authors, etc.
    
    But hey, you’re the expert. I look forward to your next instalment via TF :)
anonymous coward

I agree with your thesis. We call software copying – piracy. When in reality it is the same thing financial companies do when they have a stock offerrng. They dilute the value of a company by ‘inventing’ more shares. Are they copying the already existing shares and selling them? The already existing owners of shares always suffer by the dilution of the value of their stock. If copying is piracy, then so is the behavior of financial companies that issue stocks.
Gordon Harrison

Piracy is copyright infringement, copying without permission is piracy. Copyright law is well adapted to the digital age. Pirates morals are not adapted to any age, it is just old fashioned criminal behaviour, i.e. wanting something for nothing.

If a pirate can’t afford a product, then just don’t buy it. If the vendor has got his pricing wrong and can’t sell his product, then tough on him, he’ll either go out of business or he will review his pricing to a level that people will but at.

Buy or don’t buy is the moral choice. Copying without permission is unethical and immoral. No doubt pirates won’t like this advice, but frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. Discuss amongst yourselves. Bye.
- Muso2112
  
  Moron much? Ever hum a tune you didn’t pay for? Listen to someone else’s radio playing? Quote a famous writer while speaking? Have you ever taken a picture (copy) of ANYTHING in your life? If you don’t give a damn so much, why insult our intelligence with your opinion? Troll much?
  - Hedges29
    
    Jesus. You know piracy is illegal. Everything you mentioned would be fair use at worst. Free stuff is great, but stop deluding yourself that you’re not doing anything wrong.
    - Muso2112
      
      Fair use? Good plan man! But not according to the MAFIAA!
      
      http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-threats-against-compulsive-singer-withdrawn-091021/
      
      Are we talking about Piracy or file sharing? Piracy on the high seas, sure, it’s illegal. Copying, sharing, illegal? by whose standards? What country?
    - Hedges29
      
      There’s a huge difference in humming a song to yourself or taking a picture of ANYTHING and using a song in a business setting as a customer service. The example you provided isn’t even remotely similar to any of those other trivial examples you spouted.
    - Muso2112
      
      John, before you spout, I’d check the link I posted to see how remotely similar those trivial examples are. Yes, very trivial indeed, but people are still being harassed by the MAFIAA for such trivialities. And for the record, I totally agree with you that there SHOULD be a difference. Unfortunately, it’s not in the world of scumbag MAFIAA trolls. Singing in public = capital crime to them. They’d seek the death penalty if they could, I’m sure.
  - Gordon Harrison
    
    Lending a book to friend is one thing. Putting a digital product on a file sharing site for the world to enjoy for free, without the authors permission, is immoral.
    
    By whose standards is piracy illegal and immoral you ask? It is by the standards of anyone whose conscience kicks in when they know they are about to do something wrong, i.e. copy an artists work without permission. Their own innermost conscience will tell them what is right and what is wrong.
    
    Before copying an artists copyrighted work we would strongly advise anyone to write to them and seek the artists’ permission. If nothing else it is showing the artist respect and appreciating their creation. Respect and appreciation are hugely important for artists. If the artist says no, respect their decision.
    
    Which country you ask? Well, copying without the artists’ permission (unless it is in the public domain) is illegal (and immoral) in all countries to the best of our knowledge. Perhaps the pirate nation of Somalia is an exception due to the utter breakdown of law and order there, a physical manifestation of the digital pirates world.
    - Muso2112
      
      Lending someone a book that they haven’t paid to read is just as immoral. But you have just proved that it’s all in one’s own personal perspective on what is ‘NORM’al, or what a majority of the population is doing. It is the social NORM to share. It’s the few that think they are in power that try and have us criminalized for doing otherwise.
      
      Hypothetically…… I own a copy of a DVD movie produced by a famous unnamed children’s media conglomerate. My kids have played it to death, as youngsters will do with a fave movie. I bring it back to the store and we’ll pretend they replace it (not bloody likely, but we’ll pretend) simply because I have paid for the rights to use the material and the DVD has worn out. Now, this is out of pocket for said conglomerate. They must replace what they have given me the rights to use. Now, let’s pretend they DON’T replace the DVD. As I have paid for and legally retain the rights to view the content on the DVD, what makes it illegal for me to download a digital copy of that content? I have the rights. Let’s look at it. If they replace the DVD, they are out a second copy… physical. A second physical DVD. If I download a copy (which I have paid the rights for) and note the emphasis on COPY, then they are not out of pocket for the second DVD. Soooooo, they are actually SAVING money. Now, we move onto: what gives anyone the right to sniff my downloads and assume I am illegally ‘stealing’ anything?? In my country, it’s not against the law to download. But those that think they are in power think they have the right to snoop into my online happenings and accuse me of doing something illegal and then attempt to ‘extort’ money from me. Oh, yes, it will cost me money to get a lawyer to prove my innocence. But wait…. aren’t we innocent until proven guilty?? Yeah, right.
      
      Do you buy a car before you drive it? A house before you inspect it? A cd full of shitty music with only ONE good song? Who’s the sucker? You fall for it? Why?? You have the ability to make a difference by refusing to accept buying a car unseen, a house uninspected, of a cd full of shitty music. You have the ability to make a difference.
      
      And don’t get me going on media format shifts. How many copies of a song must I buy the rights to if I want to listen to it in my car, my living room stereo, my bedroom ipod player, my shower music player…..??? But I’m not allowed to copy. DRM. BS. I’ve paid for the rights (hypothetically!). Why is copying a crime? And the Somali hijackers have nothing to do with online media sharing. Does not equate.
      
      As hard as it is to break into the music business, how many new artists LOVE the concept of ‘share my music, please’!? Hate to say it, but an unnamed teen sensation from Canada got his big start how? Yup….. sharing works brother….
    - Guest 53
      
      I think you, the artists and the big corporations have to recognize that tecnical innovation has surpassed your outdated ways of production and distribution. This is the real paradigm shift.
      
      To circumvent this tecnological shift big corporations are trying to institute harsh laws unacceptable to a large part of the population. This is eventually domed to fail or lead to a police state.
      
      Since most people feel that living in a police state is not really that attractive my money is on the fail option.
      
      The real imorality is the pain and hardship of the few individuals punished as a scaretactic to boost profit of the corporations. This will eventually stop but unfortunally alot of people will have suffered needlessly until that happens.
- Muso2112
  
  Moron much? Ever hum a tune you didn’t pay for? Listen to someone else’s radio playing? Quote a famous writer while speaking? Have you ever taken a picture (copy) of ANYTHING in your life? If you don’t give a damn so much, why insult our intelligence with your opinion? Troll much?
- Artivision
  
  Is a human right for everyone to do anything they want with the available information, even copy it!!! There is no intellectual property and there is no material property right for anyone, those are society fictions for order in life and not chaos!!! Some of them are no good and must extinct!!! I am not a communist, I am ZEITGEIST, and humans don’t own the planet!!!
- Ezflip04
  
  “frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. ”
  
  Umm, did you not just “copy” this without permission and post it “for the world to enjoy for free, without the authors permission.”
  
  You sir, should be arrested and fined for your criminal and immoral act.
  - Artivision
    
    Yours behaviour is immoral act. I don’t have to except your immoral laws. Keep them for your selves!!!
- http://twitter.com/Mathew30 Mathew Lisett
  
  “Copyright law is well adapted to the digital age” well thats utter rubbish, and for an example. everybody that has owned a device allowing music to be played such as the ipod. anybody that has copied music to their devices has been breaking the law…even judges, yet it only came to light of this little known fact last year when an MP stated such a thing and even said the current law was a donkies arse .
- Anon
  
  Demanding the entire world’s communications are monitored and censored on your behalf is what’s immoral and unethical. Sharing is right. Enforcement of copyright monopoly is immoral and wrong. If you don’t want something copied, don’t release it in the first place, fine by me (you have an expectation of privacy for unpublished information after all).
  
  Copyright monopoly must be abolished, copyrightists are thieves stealing from us all.
  
  http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
- Anonymous
  
  “he will review his pricing to a level that people will but at”
  
  I get your point, but when the business is too greedy and wont adjust pricing to meet the idiosyncrasies of the media delivery system, cost of distribution, and actual physical product handling to the sales vendor. Well then what choice does the average user have but to simply borrow a copy from a friend many miles away.
- Darkwiz666
  
  “Copying without permission is unethical”
  
  Ethics : “moral principles, as of an individual”
  
  It’s UNETHICAL to force one’s own ethics on someone else…hence, why do I have to buy something that may be crap before I download a copy to see if it IS crap?
  
  “If the vendor has got his pricing wrong and can’t sell his product, then tough on him, he’ll either go out of business or he will review his pricing to a level that people will but at.”
  
  Vendors don’t set the price…the INDUSTRY sets the price and the local competition SLIGHTLY modifies the price from there…the industry made money by just selling the CD to the damn store…and if the industry sells it tot he store at $50, and the store buys it, the store has to up the price to the point where they aren’t selling anything because the price to too damn high…a price where no one is buying it at. It’s either keep the price the same, or lower it to the point where the store no longer has the potential of making a profit from selling it. So stupid logic there.
- Common Man
  
  Copying without permission is called freedom.
- Common Man
  
  Copying without permission is called freedom.
Roger

Piracy is the act of raiding ships and stealing goods, and usually crewmen are incapacitated and even murdered as a result.
Theft is the act of depriving an owner of their rightful property. This does not apply to copying.
Copyright infringement is the act of claiming someone else’s work as your own.
- Gordon Harrison
  
  The act of claiming someone else’s work as your own work is actually plagiarism.
  
  Copying without permission is copyright infringement, it deprives the creator of the remuneration they sought for selling a copy of their work.
  - Anonynony
    
    Depends. The only reason it is pursued is because of taxation.
    Other than that, I doubt the governments, or even the courts for that matter, would be bothered with with any of it. It would probably be a small claims issue.
    - Anonynony
      
      After writing my comment I just happened to go away and start reading the
      ‘Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property’, updated 11th October 2011.
      
      http://bit.ly/ukZP8E
      
      I’ve shortened the link because I Googled it and its huge!
      
      In it are these recommendations:
      
      We advocate
      • implementation of the recommendation for a small claims procedure for intellectual property cases
      • a programme of public education about copyright
      • a ban on placing advertisements on pirate websites
      
      It appears the courts are getting sick of the big court cases, which are essentially, a trivial thing inflated out of all proportion.
      
      +4 for common sense.
  - Anonynony
    
    Depends. The only reason it is pursued is because of taxation.
    Other than that, I doubt the governments, or even the courts for that matter, would be bothered with with any of it. It would probably be a small claims issue.
  - Anon
    
    You’re not entitled to compensation just because you want it. When you work on something, those were your costs to sink. You should do something else if you can’t make a profit without enacting a world police state that would scare the stasi, just to enforce copyright monopoly.
    
    Remember, things aren’t “worth” the work put into them -that’s the long-discredited labor theory of value fallacy.
    
    Plagiarism IS wrong, ethically. But copyright infringement isn’t, that’s just illegal.
    - Anonynony
      
      Agreed.
      
      The amount of monies wasted pursuing individuals who, even if charged and found guilty, will never in their lifetime pay it back, would have refloated the Greek economy.
      
      The amount of money involved in the monopoly, of these products, and the amount of money expended to protect the money they generate is mind-bogglingly immoral. It makes me sick watching the rich bicker so.
    - anonymous1663344
      
      clearly written by someone who doesn’t depend on creative works for a living. You received some value form the work (watched the show, listened to music, ate the candybar). You didn’t pay the creator of said work (the show, music, candybar has been assigned a value the creator wants in exchange for the use of the item). It doesn’t matter if the item is a movie or a candybar you didn’t pay for it, the creator demanded payment in exchange for it, you didn’t pay for it. That is theft.
    - Steve
      
      “It doesn’t matter if the item is a movie or a candybar you didn’t pay for it, the creator demanded payment in exchange for it, you didn’t pay for it. That is theft.”
      
      I demand payment to read this this post I have just created. Please send $100 to my PayPal account. No? That is theft.
  - Lordhoff31
    
    Hasn’t copyright been extended in the US to something like 90yrs now? its more than likely the creator will be long dead before this expires. Copyright law is not set up for the digital age, it lasts way too long.
    - guenthar martin
      
      That is 90 years after the authors death so if someone drew something when they were 8 (and since anything original you make is automatically copyrighted) and the person died at 108 then that drawing wouldn’t go into public domain for a total of 190 years.
Pingback: Piracy is NOT Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor | TorrentForce Blog
Charlie Pearce

One of the bigger problems I see with this type of language is that it further dilutes the perceived “authority” of the law and thus the police. We have entire generations who see nothing morally wrong with giving a friend a copy of a tape/cd/mp3 – and yet are constantly told by media advertising campaigns that they are “criminals” for doing so. This leads to the law being seen as somewhat morally illegitimate. And yes I know that it’s not just copying for friends going on – but many also see no harm in downloading from file-sharing sites either, for a lot (if not most) young people this is a normal way of life.

Much like trying to prevent the use and sale of drugs, I feel that trying to prevent people from doing what is widely believed to be “morally acceptable” is a doomed policy. It simply makes a large group of society feel persecuted and leads to an erosion of respect for the law, and the values of those who are persecuting them. Long-term -and especially if times are hard and government seems ineffective and even to a degree illegitimate- this could lead to a physical expression of this cultural frustration. Like for instance rioting in a capital. Oh wait a minute…..
- Gordon Harrison
  
  We have some sympathy with your views. From time immemorial people have shared music & books with friends. Criminalising such behaviour is a lost cause.
  
  However, unlimited file sharing, i.e. uploading a copyrighted work to the internet to be shared with the entire world is not only illegal, it is clearly morally wrong. Just because the internet (a great thing by the way) makes it easy to do does not make such behaviour morally right.
  
  People who engage in piracy feel that somehow what they do is ok, they are simply taking from mega corporations that can afford it, corporations who I would agree have milked the system in the past. However, they should stop and think about the denial of reward to the individual artists that their behaviour results in. Economic life for the vast majority of artists is very difficult.
  
  It is easy to go and buy music etc from legal sources, there are lots of them. If people think the price is too high, don’t buy it. If the product doesn’t start selling the price will soon drop. Consumer power is all, there is no need to engage in illegal behaviour.
  - Muso2112
    
    Morality. LOL! Uploading or sharing is morally wrong? What about a moral obligation. Let me take this opportunity to blur the lines again. It’s not so black and white as you make it appear. If you were privy to a private pamphlet that was by all sense, copywrited by the author, and that pamphlet has information pertaining to, hmmm, the destruction of society, for example, would you feel morally compelled to ‘share’ that info with anyone, if not to save society as we know it? What about national security? Sure, I’m pushing it, but for the sake of argument, and to really blur those morality lines, would it be acceptable, let alone an obligation?? Of course, we are all entitled to our very own opinion, but that doesn’t make them morally right. I’m not saying anything.. i’m just saying…. What’s the difference between BEING RIGHT and DOING WHAT’S RIGHT? Think about it.
  - Anon
    
    No, I’m not taking from anyone when I pirate. I’m copying. Copyright is not theft.
    
    You can’t use monopoly rent that only exists under copyright law to justify the existence of copyright law – that’s circular logic.
  - Lordhoff31
    
    In the UK downloading is not illegal, therefore my morals are safe. Uploading is the crime my friend
  - Anonynony
    
    We have some sympathy with your views.
    
    People who engage in piracy feel that somehow what they do is ok, they are simply taking from mega corporations that can afford it, corporations who I would agree have milked the system in the past.
    
    First off, who is ‘we’, second how patronizing are you to offer us sympathy.
    Thirdly, we, filesharers don’t ‘take’ from any corporations. It is not even a consideration. Nothing is taken. Information is exchanged at no cost, and no charge. Only the corporations believe something has been taken…from them.
    Since they never made the original conversion file, a second generation copy of that file was not from the original source, so that didn’t belong to them either.
    
    You agree they milk the system in the past?
    
    Really? When they make a bluray, with packaging and taxes, do you know how much they cost? At bulk rate discount about .70 cents. How much do they retail for? In excess of $40.
    
    I’d say they are doing a pretty good job of milking it now and, if they get to keep the monopoly, ie., it’s eventually a law set in stone that copying, in any form, is a crime, they will milk it for all it’s worth. The only ceiling on prices is what they set…because it is a monopoly afterall. Expect that bluray to double in price.
    
    You sir, are a 24 carat troll, of the copywrong-lobby type.
Justin

slow news day eh
- Anonynony
  
  This is the heart of what the piracy debate is all about, and you reckon it’s not news worthy?
  
  What’s the weather like on your planet?
Mad Max

Ah but they do steal something from you.

If you are selling your bike and someone steals your bike you are still without your bike in the end but also without the cash.

If someone copies your book and then re-distributes it to others who could have procurred it from you, while you still retain the original, you are out the monies owed for your work. This is the theft, not the item in question but the monies for the item in question.
- Anon
  
  Rubbish. You’re not owed anything for deciding to make something. Those were your costs to sink. And you still have the actual results of that work – the copy you made. Only physical things exist. Only copies exist.
  
  You can’t use additional monopoly rent that only exists because of copyright monopoly law to justify the existence of copyright law. That’s circular logic. In the absence of copyright monopoly law, you would be owed nothing, so the monopoly rent is not a justification for the existence of copyright law and its socialisti free-market destroying rewards to “help the poor starving artists” who “couldn’t compete” in a true free marke.t
Mad Max

Ah but they do steal something from you.

If you are selling your bike and someone steals your bike you are still without your bike in the end but also without the cash.

If someone copies your book and then re-distributes it to others who could have procurred it from you, while you still retain the original, you are out the monies owed for your work. This is the theft, not the item in question but the monies for the item in question.
Guest

Jesus. You know piracy is illegal. Everything you mentioned would be fair use at worst. Free stuff is great, but stop deluding yourself that you’re not
doing anything wrong.

There is no fair use right to lend a car against the owner’s will, but there is a fair use exception to copyright.

What does it tell us? That copyright infringement is not similar to theft precisely because fair use would not be permitted if it deprived the creator of his physical possession.
Fair use exactly permits what you argue against — someone using another’s work for free.

Thank you for arguing the opposite point of what you meant.
Guest

Jesus. You know piracy is illegal. Everything you mentioned would be fair use at worst. Free stuff is great, but stop deluding yourself that you’re not
doing anything wrong.

There is no fair use right to lend a car against the owner’s will, but there is a fair use exception to copyright.

What does it tell us? That copyright infringement is not similar to theft precisely because fair use would not be permitted if it deprived the creator of his physical possession.
Fair use exactly permits what you argue against — someone using another’s work for free.

Thank you for arguing the opposite point of what you meant.
Guest

If you are selling your bike and someone steals your bike you are still without your bike in the end but also without the cash.

If someone copies your book and then re-distributes it to others who could have procurred it from you, while you still retain the original, you are out
the monies owed for your work. This is the theft, not the item in question but the monies for the item in question.

So if I buy the book and let all my friends read it, I have deprived the copyright holder of money?

If I sing a song protected by copyright for my children, I have deprived the copyright holder of money?

There is no logically tenable distinction.
Attapem-910

If all you were doing was copying it, you would just copy it right?

Why would you use it or distribute it? Or by copying it did it suddenly become public domain?
- http://tinyurl.com/ANoiXioNA-personal-info ANoiXioNA
  
  Copying requires “distribution” from one device to another.
  So the two are the same.
  
  “”Public domain”" is ALSO a fabrication of imaginary property rights.
  It is part of the copyright monopoly.
  
  Anything that can be copied endlessly at near zero cost is worthless.
  That’s just reality…..
Pingback: College Oversold, Piracy is Not Theft, and The Verge – Links: 10/31 – 11/4 | Conduit
Anonymous

I would have to totally agree with that assessment! Makes pretty good sensee to me man. web-privacy.eu.tc
Tex83tex

This is a straw man argument. No one is arguing that piracy is theft. NO ONE. Conversion, theft and copyright infringement are all distinct violations of the law. Copyright infringement requires different elements and is subject to different punishments than theft. YOU are comparing it to theft to make the punishments for copyright infringement seem inflated. I really like jaywalking, so I’ve prepared a thesis called “Why does everyone keep comparing jaywalking to murder?”
- https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber Guest
  
  Riiiiiiiight. No one argues that piracy is theft. Well, except every major copyright monopolist, including the MPAA and RIAA. Obvious troll is obvious.
  
  Rights holders use propaganda to blur the distinction in the mind of the general population between unauthorized file sharing and theft (or actual piracy). Their semantics would have us all apply the same kind of ethical reasoning to both kinds of crime, which is ludicrous.
Guest

This is a straw man argument. No one is arguing that piracy is theft. NO ONE.

Wrong, Google for +copyright +theft and see how many results come up.

Troll.
- Steve
  
  “This is a straw man argument. No one is arguing that piracy is theft. NO ONE.”
  
  well, um…
  
  “We used to have a problem in this town saying this,” Biden told reporters Thursday at a press conference in Washington, D.C. “But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It’s smash and grab. It ain’t no different than smashing a window at Tiffany’s and grabbing [merchandise].” … Joe Biden
  
  Then again, he’s probably as close to nobody as you can get :-)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1661890427 Cristina Cadornigara

Does it mean therefore, that piracy isn’t a crime at all? Is it legal then? In my country, law makers have established piracy as an iilegal act and is punishable. But Larsson has a very good argument on this matter and I agree.
- https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber Guest
  
  Christina,
  
  In your country, piracy probably is a crime, and most likely so is copyright infringement. Distinguishing between these two terms is the point of Larsson’s thesis.
  
  Of course, the Free Software Foundation has discouraged the use of this term for quite some time now:
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today
Memegenerator

“I hereby agree that the song I illegally downloaded is a song I would not buy if I had to pay for it, therefore I caused no harm to the music industry.” CASE CLOSED.
- https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
  
  You undoubtedly catch a bunch of people in your sweeping generalization, but you leave out so many other common patterns that your post is rendered nearly ineffective:
  
  “…the song I downloaded is a song I already bought…”
  “…the song I downloaded is a song I already bought, but I lost the original medium…”
  “…the song I downloaded is a song I already bought, but it came with DRM that prevents me from enjoying it when/where/how I like…”
  “…the song I downloaded is a song no one sells in authorized venues anymore…”
  “…the song I downloaded is a song I honestly don’t know if I would have bought…”
  “…the song I downloaded is a song I definitely would not have bought…”
  
  And, of course, the perennial favorite, tried, true, and accurate:
  
  “…the song I downloaded is a song that I definitely am going to go out and purchase…”
  - SonofASDF
    
    Reason 1-4 is fair…
    5 is a bullshit argument – if You don’t like it and don’t know if You wanna buy it then why do You even have it?
    6 is true for 5-10%… what’s the argument for the last 90%?
me

I guess, sooner or later, the MAFIAA will sue us for stealing THEIR oxygen (a.k.a. breathing).
http://www.facebook.com/francismatic Francis Matic

piracy is file sharing then making money out of it.
Steve

The problem is that piracy _is_ theft. The nonsense metaphor is using the term “piracy” for making a copy of something. The “pirate” community shoots itself in the foot by continuing to use this term to describe itself. It sounds clever and rebellious but to the average person (voter, lawmaker, judge) it screams “theft” and the argument is lost before it even begins.
- https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
  
  No, the two are different crimes and are governed by different sets of laws. Copyright infringement, which is what you call “piracy,” is not the same thing as theft. You shouldn’t try to apply the exact same reasoning to both acts, and you definitely should not try to force everyone to believe the same as you by using a propaganda term. Not everyone has swallowed that pill, yet. ;)
  
  Copyright infringement, of course, is a crime. I’m not arguing its criminality, or even ethics. I would defend to the end that it is *not* the same thing as theft, and that’s a sad commentary, because I believe it would be obvious to most.
  
  http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft
  - Steve
    
    You are missing my point. Words and labels make a difference. Imagine if we chose to call copyright infringement “murder” and then tried to argue that murder in this case wasn’t killing. To chose a word to describe copyright infringement who’s primary meaning is “to steal” is cede the argument to the other side. As long as we continue to use “piracy” to describe copyright infringement and “pirate” to describe the infringer, we are playing into the copyright lobby’s hands.
    
    Copyright is a fiat law which is of recent invention and could be removed tomorrow. Intelectual “Property” is statutory property just as a Corporation is a statutory “person”. They have no existence outside of laws.
    
    Stealing, on the other hand, violates a timeless, universal ethical standard and would be wrong whether there was a law against it or not.
    - https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
      
      Ahhh, you’re right, I totally misread your post. You were talking about true piracy and how filesharers shouldn’t embrace the term. I agree with you all around. My apologies.
    - Anonynony
      
      It is a good point, and one I have argued myself.
      What I came to realize is that the only constant in life is change.
      Piracy still conjures up images of theft and the Jolly Roger, but that could all change tomorrow if the Pirate Parties become a force to be reckoned with and are elected to positions of real political power.
      
      Consider the word ‘gay’. Used for centuries to denote a bright or showy thing, or a merry mood, or a social occasion/person. It wasn’t until the late 1970′s that it became THE power word for describing all things homosexual.
      
      I wouldn’t worry too much. If the message does get across, the word Pirate will probably be synonymous with Freedom. Fingers crossed.
https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber

Correction: I would say instead “Piracy is unauthorized file sharing of copyrighted content, then making money out of it.”

Let’s not forget that some licenses allow other people to redistribute works and even profit from redistribution.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
http://creativecommons.org/choose/
Billybob

Theft/Piracy/copyright infringement. Call it whatever you want will not change the facts. Simply put society will continue to “copy” digital material such as movies/music/games until the industry stops inflating the price of their electronic goods. If a DVD/BlueRay wasnt 25-35 bucks a pop I would buy more. If video games were not 40-70 bucks a pop i would buy more.

People do not want to pay such high prices for something they may end up not enjoying.

I am a firm believer in try before you buy. I have done so and will continue to do so.

Games/Movies I actually enjoy I will make the purchase. Most of my physical copies of Games and Movies come from the 5 dollar bin at walmart, and I buy the stuff that i have seen before and enjoyed watching. If the music/movie/gaming industry want to stop “piracy” then add a satisfaction guarantee on the movies/music/games or drop the price so it doesnt feel like customer is the one getting robbed by handing over hard earned cash for something they thought would be enjoyable when in fact it wasnt.

That actually brings me to the theft,piracy,copyright infringment arguement.

Couldn’t one argue that paying for a movie/game/music cd that you find no value in to be theft by deception. You were lead to believe this would be worth the money you are spending on it when in fact it wasnt worth the medai it was printed on.
- Whydoyouneedit
  
  Back in the old days Your options for “trying out an album” were limited to listening to it in the store, at friends or some of it in the radio – God knows I bought some shitty LP’s and CD’s on that account. But… that is not the case in 2011, so if You don’t like the album it should not be part of Your collection of mp3/flac/whatever.
  
  The fact that You think something is overpriced or inflated gives You the right NOT to purchase the product. Instead people tend to argue: yeah, we’ll keep copying it until the price drops – well, price has dropped, considerably, and yet people still download their “free” copies.
  
  I agree that this is not stealing as defined – but the action sound like what a gigantic freeloading hypocritical asshole that couldn’t care less about the artist and music in general would do…
Anon

laws “would need to make everyone think differently about reality,”

Like how it’s apparently ok for a judge to commit domestic violence and child abuse and get off scott-free.
- https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
  
  Do you suggest we eliminate statutes of limitations?
- Muso2112
  
  He won’t get off scott-free. What what society does. He’s about to lose his job, he was voted in afterall! He’s been removed from cases. Keep your eyes and ears open. Society will speak. Just as we are with this sharing issue. The monopolies with the money are fighting society speaking with everything they have. It’ll happen.
Anonymous

This guy’s thesis seems to rest on the idea that it’s not theft to illegally copy music because the person doing the copying wouldn’t have bought it anyway. By this logic people who sell knockoffs of name brand handbags are doing anything wrong because the people who buy them couldn’t afford a real one.
- Steve
  
  No, you are setting up a straw man. His thesis is that although a crime has occurred, it is not the crime of theft. It is the crime of copyright infringement. And that the two crimes are fundamentally different.
- Steve
  
  No, you are setting up a straw man. His thesis is that although a crime has occurred, it is not the crime of theft. It is the crime of copyright infringement. And that the two crimes are fundamentally different.
- https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
  
  I don’t think so. His thesis, repeated again, is that copyright infringement is neither theft nor piracy, so we shouldn’t keep mindlessly equating them.
  
  As for the handbag argument, here are some thinking points:
  
  1) There was a time when imitation was considered the sincerest form of flattery.
  2) Why, by default, defend the makers of the original, extremely overpriced bags? Sure, try to find reasons to defend their practices, I would support that, but *by default* we should support competition.
  3) Luxury bag makers get no sympathy from me: http://torrentfreak.com/louis-vuitton-sues-darfur-fundraiser-for-copyright-infringement-080425/
  - Anonymous
    
    The value of the handbag is not the bag itself but the brand and what that brand conveys. A Gucci bag is not functionally different than a no-name brand bag but people will go out of their way to buy a knockoff because it conveys wealth and style to those that see them with it. The companies behind these brands work hard to maintain the brand’s image. Vendors that make and sell the knockoffs are leaches.
    - https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
      
      Yep, Bill, it must be hard work suing artists…. errrr, “maintaining the brand’s image.”
      
      I’ll leave this here again:
      http://torrentfreak.com/louis-vuitton-sues-darfur-fundraiser-for-copyright-infringement-080425/
Pingback: P2PTalk » Piracy is NOT Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor
ScytheNoire

Music and Movie industries have always been too stupid to embrace new technology and changes. They fought against casettes and VCR’s, even though they ended up making them even more money. If only they embraced the internet age and learned to adapt, they would make even more money than ever before (which they are still doing currently, but could make more). Instead, they bribe politicians to change laws in a hope to destroy the entire internet. It’s only going to get worse. Copyright needs to go, it just doesn’t work.
Anonymous

Here is a good test for readers of this article.

VP Joe Biden told reporters in June 2010 “But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It’s smash and grab. It ain’t no different than smashing a window at Tiffany’s and grabbing [merchandise].”

Your test is to spot an error in the VP’s statement.

We can then go on to speculate that him ordering the DHS ICE to attack the Internet on their domain seizure plan may have been done on false beliefs.

The correct answer is that VP Joe Binen is not a stupid person when I am certain that his many meetings with the copyright cartels shortly before managed to secure many large political donations. He then said and did what they paid him to do.

Welcome to political corruption US style and all lawful.
- Anonynony
  
  Hmmm…karma’s a bitch though. Let’s hope so.
My two penneth

I see it from a slightly different angle, although I can understand the arguments from many sides.

I ask myself – would I have gone out and bought it? Meaning, would I have paid for the content I downloaded from P2P/NewsGroup.

In some cases yes and 99% of the time NO. For the few I ‘would’ have bought, in most cases I would have felt ripped off as it was rubbish, there is so much hype and advertising of products that DO NOT DELIVER (this is where alot of money is added to the purchase price)

Also on the occasions I do think a product is worth buying then I do – but ONLY IF I CAN AFFORD TO pay for it.

So in the main, the companies are not being deprived of a major loss of revenue even though IT IS THEFT.

Sharing really does make it a better world to live in, this isnt a ‘rose tinted’ view of life, this is survival for humanity, humane society and the future.
- Anonynony
  
  Putting it in caps doesn’t really make it so.
  If I went into a shop or somebody’s home and took a DVD without their permission or payment then, and only then, is it theft.
  
  I would prefare to look at it as ‘acquiring’. Nobody gained, but nobody lost from the acquisition.
Anonymous

@Lovely………….I can’t beleive…..My friend’s sister makes 96/hr on the internet. She has been unemployed for 10 months but last month her income was 8253 USD just working on the PC for a few hours. Go to this website……http://alturl.com/cw97n
- Anon
  
  Working with a webcam?……legs spread?……..fuck off spammer.
http://web.ncf.ca/shawnhcorey/ Shawn H Corey

Of course, it doesn’t help if sites like your inaccurately call downloads of unofficial copies things like “piracy” and “theft”.
- Steve
  
  Amen, brother. A point I have tried to make to Ernesto many times :-)
- Ven
  
  TF labeling people pirates is nowhere near the setback that the Pirate Party embracing publicly such a pejorative word to describe their value is.
- Ven
  
  TF labeling people pirates is nowhere near the setback that the Pirate Party embracing publicly such a pejorative word to describe their value is.
Steve

The problem some people in this thread appear to be having (on both sides of the argument) is the false assumption that if it isn’t theft, it isn’t wrong. Copyright violation is ipso facto against the law. Is it OK to disobey a law? Under what circumstances? Is it a good law or a bad law? People will support laws they perceive to be good and circumvent those they perceive to be bad. That’s the discussion we should be having.

One can argue for the legitimacy of Copyright laws without equating their violation (falsely) to theft… it just makes it harder and forces you to question why we have such laws in the first place.

I think the current Copyright laws have been exploited by the megamedia conglomerates resulting in a grotesque distortion of what the original framers of these laws intended: to be a way for artists to make a living. As such they don’t deserve to be obeyed and should be changed. That’s what we as a society should be arguing about, not the red herring of whether or not it is theft and whether or not the theft is justified.
- Anonymous
  
  the same people who scream it’s wrong cos it violates copyright, all scream even louder about taxes, which they have been brainwashed into thinking are theft. so, THOSE are laws THEY don’t like and circumvent, who is gonna decide which one is correct or wrong?
- https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
  
  Steve, I’m all for having the kind of discussion about modern copyright law that you propose, but it seems that the vast majority of people screaming from the other side against copyright infringement proclaim it is theft.
  
  I’d love to have a debate about copyright duration reduction, extension, or abolition with someone but we can’t have rational conversations when people refuse to use accurate terms.
Uinsds

“The theft-metaphor is problematic in the sense that a key element of stealing is that the one stolen from loses the object, which is not the case in file sharing since it is copied. There is no loss when something is copied, or the loss is radically different from losing something like your bike.”

While I appreciate that assuming good faith is an essential prerequisite to objective debate, this conflation is entirely intentional. It’s called social framing.

What the record companies’ PR departments are doing is using social framing to influence people’s base emotions and attitudes. As Dennet points out in his lectures on the origins of religion, “Repeat after me: Every time you read it or say it you make another copy in your brain.”

Each time you process the very idea, the concept is activated in your brain. You’re thinking about it, making connections to other concepts and connections with those concepts are strengthened, which is called spreading activation.

Due to the way the brain works, you’re more likely to accept any idea premised on that concept every time those connections become stronger.

That is entirely MAFIAA’s aim. They’re not stupid. They’re cold, calculating and completely unethical. Much like a psychopathic killer, whether they’re wrong or not doesn’t matter. All that matter’s is what they want, how to get it, and how to excuse it. Don’t ever think they believe what they spout is true.
Anonymous

Best sentence:
“One of the obvious problems is that it suggests that every “stolen copy” is a lost sale. ”

Which is of course BOOL SHYTE!!! I would NEVER have bought even ONE of the CD or movies i downloaded.
before the internet, I bought maybe 3 CD’s in my entire life. Oh wait, those were gifts! Now, I download, spread films and fuel sites like youtube with my downloaded films and songs, which now has income thru commercials. Which I don’t see, cos I use firefox, so ….
And your stolen film doesn’t even generate traffic on youtube, it wasnt’ good to begin with, and you wouldn’t even have sold even one copy in the DVD store.
MacHerb

This is another example of the failure t make distinctions. I might accept the term “pirate” as applied to someone who copies and then distributes 1000′s of copies of a piece of work. Since pirates, in effect take away the distribution or return of your goods (when they steal a ship), then this analogy might apply. However it is totally in appropriate to apply it to a14 in his home downloading the work. With software, music and movies, many cases have shown that obtaining a non-pad for copy often leads to the person buying a copy and many more from the artist or company. Also sharing with friends and family also tends to lead to increased sales. It is only when distributed to 1,000′s or millions that the artist or company begins to lose out. The other reality is that a percentage of those copying or downloading were never going to buy anyway. So most cases of copying are not lost sales often they a “loss leaders”, that is while there was no money from that individual copy it does lead to sales of others.
Gordon Harrison

I seem to have upset you Muso2112, not intended, but you are getting so angry you are calling me names, that’s not very nice, is it?

Before I buy a car I take a test drive, if I like it I buy it. Now you may not believe this but way back in ancient times we went along to the record shop and asked the man if we could hear a sample, usually of music we had already heard on the radio, and if we still liked it we bought it. Same with books, we’d go along to the book store, skimmed bits here and there and thought, hey this is good, or hey, this crap. If the former it was bought and if the latter it was not. I mention how things worked in ancient times just to show we were not dumb even back then. You can do exactly the same thing now, but digitally.

Oh, by the way, the ‘we’ I use is the royal ‘we’, an unfortunate/annoying habit of mine, always causes confusion you know, sorry about that! Anyway, I am Gordon Harrison, an artist, and I’m from Scotland where we eat pirates for breakfast. Could you tell me your name? If we are ever to become friends I can’t keep calling you Muso2112, it’s not very nice, is it? You can call me Gordon, but please don’t call me moron or troll, as you have done already, it doesn’t reflect well on you.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. So you’ve bought a DVD or CD or whatever and your kids have broken it somehow. This is the problem with kids, they do tend to break things, I have kids myself and know how it is, damn nuisance at times, but they are great despite the problems. Now lets just consider this for a moment. We’ll try an analogy and see if your argument still stands up. You’ve just bought a TV and a week later your kids are playing some game and by accident they smash the TV screen with a ball. I can’t imagine the shop will listen to your plea to have it replaced because it got broken somehow. No, they wouldn’t, that’s just fair wear and tear. Same with a broken DVD, nothing lasts for ever, even a physical artwork to hang on your wall will fade to nothing eventually due to the impact of ultra-violet light, and it won’t be replaced either!

But here’s the answer to your DVD problem, you could have made a ‘personal’ copy on your computer before it got broken. Wow, that was simple, are you shocked I said that? I (we) have no problem with personal copies, I’ve already paid the artist so its ok, and here in the UK we are about to change the law to make format shifting for personal use legal. But suppose I hadn’t made a copy, what would I do then. First of all I would accept it was my fault for not looking after my DVD, it’s certainly not anyone elses fault it got broken. I’d go and buy another DVD/Blu-Ray/CD if it was important to me, I would NEVER seek out a pirate copy, its illegal, its just plain wrong and disrespectful to the artist. My conscience would not let me do that, I would feel bad.

I made a point earlier which you didn’t respond to and I’d like to hear your view. I said that if you wanted a free copy of the artists work you could always write to the artist and ask his permission. You would get an answer from the artist and by complying with the artists wishes you would be showing him respect as another human being. Is there any good reason why would you not treat another human being with that kind of respect?

The essence of this argument as far as I’m concerned is about how we treat each other as human beings.
- Twice Daily
  
  Ok. So you’re an artist. That makes you biased at the outset,
  Having a vested interest, in itself, is not a bad thing.
  If I was a pig farmer with prize pigs I wouldn’t want anyone to clone my pigs.
  
  “The essence of this argument as far as I’m concerned is about how we treat each other as human beings.” Quoting you there. You will see why.
  
  Suppose I came along with a product that looked like bacon, smelled like bacon, tasted like bacon and was every bit as good to eat as a prize pig.
  Suppose though I gave it away for free. This I am entitled to do you might say.
  There is nothing the pig farmer can do, right?
  
  Suppose the pig farmer had friends in government, and those friends had friends in the legal and ‘justice’ system who were able to block the distribution of that product. They can’t, you might say, because it’s your product you can pretty much do what you like with it. And I would like to agree with that but it simply isn’t true.
  
  To circumvent, and effectively block the distribution of my product those pig farmer friend’s twist the rules and look for cloned pigs instead. They find enough incidences of the cloned pigs to close the redistribution networks down so I can not provide my product for love nor money. Now just shifting my product by the traditional methods has become untenable. I have a free, legitimate product that is impossible to move.
  
  That is what copyright has done. Lots of people use free distribution networks to increase other peoples awareness of their art. Musicians, film producers and software engineers who offer their products gratis have been blocked because the courts ruled the method of distribution is illegal, that it’s only purpose for existence is illegal. Newsbin, Newsbin2, and soon The Pirate Bay, and later the cyberlockers will all be deemed an unfit source from which to obtain any material at all. They will have become inaccessible. Only establishment sources, those deemed fit by the courts, will be able to provide what you want, and even then, they will be ‘products’ or ‘services’. These will be owned and will have to be paid for. The internet becomes a shopping mall. Art for art’s sake becomes impossible because nobody can access it legitimately.
  
  This is what copyright has done. It has twisted the free internet into a device for profit. Copyright is being used to endorse and legitimize censorship.
  
  How ‘artists’ (perhaps unwittingly) treat people is like pigs.
  
  The laws which protect them (artists, rights holders) have become corrupted and have removed other peoples freedoms.
  
  That’s what site blocking for the sake of copyright holders has managed to do.
  
  Some people do bad things, but because a murderer kills somebody doesn’t means we have remove the liberty, and choices, of the entire human race.
  
  Similarly, some people share illegal files…but not all files have illegal content.
  
  Copyright limits artists like you in it’s present form, and is destroying freedoms and people’s lives left, right and center.
  
  Who gives a shit about backing up a DVD when whole sections of the internet are being censored worldwide?!
  - StevO
    
    This is how Monsanto has taken over the corn industry. You could actually use facts for your argument.
- Paul Mercer
  
  If I paid for a DVD (and am allowed a personal copy), why am I breaking the law by downloading somebody else’s copy if all it does is save me time?
  
  Also, if you look at the small print on a DVD it doesn’t transfer the ownership of that product to me. I paid good money for it. It should be mine to do with whatever I like. But, it’s not mine to even ‘legally’ watch with anyone, or to resell, or even give away. All I actually pay for is a licence to watch it. Getting it yet? I paid for a ‘product’ and surreptitiously got sold a ‘licence’.
  
  To use your car analogy, it’s like paying 20 grand for something I can can look at, drive, but not resell, or even show it to a group of enthusiasts.
  
  Next comes the legend. As an artist, everything you produce is unique, it’s made by hand, it takes a considerable amount of time to finish every piece you produce, but it’s the unique aspect I want to concentrate on.
  
  If I buy a DVD copy of ‘Bertie’s Birthday’, for an example, at $12 dollars, what they don’t tell you is you are actually buying a reduced quality version. Why? Because that version is a low bitrate copy of the Hi Def version. It’s a bit like paying for watered down whisky…they keep the good stuff under the counter and save it till you get a taste for it. Blurays are the ‘proper’ quality at which ‘Bertie’s Birthday’ was filmed but it doesn’t appear until the market for the DVD has dried up. Then they charge twice the price for the ‘good stuff’. That to me smacks of a rip-off. Why not just produce the true quality version straight away? The price difference for the manufacturer is about 20 cents per disc but another $12 to the consumer. And they are all mass-produced. Not a single one is hand-crafted.
  
  The unique quality of sites like Newsbin and The Pirate Bay is the wealth of material available. This goes against the grain of the monopoly. If everything is available at once for free, then they cannot introduce artificial scarcity into the market. This is what frightens them the most. If they cannot dictate how much it sells for, when and even where, then their product becomes worthless.
  
  But a true videophile, an avid collector, is always going to be disappointed by this. They may have the money, the want and desire to purchase a particular movie, only to find it’s not available, it’s out of print, or they will have to wait and pay more when the special edition (another version of the same thing!!!) is released. Another scam. Bit again!!
  
  For most people over the age of 25, it’s a case of ‘twice bitten, thrice shy’. The gloves and all bets are off. They are sick and tired of feeling ripped-off for something they feel passionate enough to want to invest in in the first place.
  
  To conclude: you sound like a genuinely nice guy, but don’t ever judge you’re art by the standards of Hollywood, not unless you want people to label you a cheat and a thief, and a corrupter of legal process. I hope you remain successful to the end of your days, but before my end of days, I hope to see Hollywood burned to ash. As, I suspect do most of the people on this board.
  
  Don’t expect to be treated well here if you endorse copyright on TF.
  
  But I wish you well. Stay lucky.
  - Paul Mercer
    
    you’re art = your art. My spelling is atrocious! lol.
http://mzl.la/n9FAit Needlez™

Ok, so I guess I have to make another point to random people who are wasting time trying to point out things that aren’t facts… First off piracy isn’t copying. And copying isn’t theft. Piracy actually comes from when you pirate, or steal something. Since we are filesharing, it isn’t piracy. Seriously different words, please look into them. Also if you think its theft of services, or something as stupid as that statement might be you are partially right. NOTICE I SAID PARTIALLY! That doesn’t make you 100% right, you get like a 5% the other 95% is to point out that while it maybe taking away business from a person who performs the task for that object that you shared, you must realize that somewhere someone did buy that product, and then he shared his copy with everyone. So think of it this way I go buy a CD and give it to a friend after I back up the cd to my computer. I can do that cause I bought it. Then I gave it to a friend, and now he owns it. So he can back it up and give it away to someone else. And the cycle just keeps going and going. Get the picture? See if you could people could figure out that by copying there isn’t a lose of a product this would simpler. And as for lose of service, how stupid do you have to be? Yes, he lost service cause I didn’t refer the friend to him directly, but he gained service because my friend now has a CD by that person and is more likely that if he likes it to maybe donate to him. Does that clear things up for some of you? We’ll I hope this explains things, its late and I need to sleep you people exhaust my brain.
- Darkwiz666
  
  Oh and check this out…
  
  They may as well say that you can only grow 1 cherry tree and any cherry seeds that fall to the ground and grow are illegal and must be chopped down because they owned the tree and any seeds that come from it…
  
  Better yet, if I make a cover of a song, and they claim my voice…even when no profit was lost on their part (if anything someone would be more indulged to purchase the original track to compare the 2…).
- Darkwiz666
  
  Oh and check this out…
  
  They may as well say that you can only grow 1 cherry tree and any cherry seeds that fall to the ground and grow are illegal and must be chopped down because they owned the tree and any seeds that come from it…
  
  Better yet, if I make a cover of a song, and they claim my voice…even when no profit was lost on their part (if anything someone would be more indulged to purchase the original track to compare the 2…).
  - https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber
    
    Your cherry seed metaphor reminds me of the terminator seed technology.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
- Darkwiz666
  
  Oh and check this out…
  
  They may as well say that you can only grow 1 cherry tree and any cherry seeds that fall to the ground and grow are illegal and must be chopped down because they owned the tree and any seeds that come from it…
  
  Better yet, if I make a cover of a song, and they claim my voice…even when no profit was lost on their part (if anything someone would be more indulged to purchase the original track to compare the 2…).
Anonymous

ta.gg/5jo
Pingback: Copyright and metaphors : Cybernorms.net
Pingback: Metaforernas makt : Cybernormer.se
Pingback: La piratería no es un robo | Tecnocápsulas
Pingback: Vmxx.net » Pir?tisms NAV Z?dz?ba: probl?ma – absurda metafora
Anonymous

tinyurl.com/3j5ovpk
Anonymous

http://phlpn.es/ahdxct
https://launchpad.net/~bluebomber BlueBomber

I guess those two spam messages signal an end to this thread, eh?
Anonymous

The word is “remuneration” not “renumeration.”
Piracy is theft

Piracy is theft of intellectual property.
- Steve
  
  “Piracy is theft of intellectual property.”
  
  … and war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
  - Piracy is theft2
    
    “… and war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.”
    
    This seems like a nonsensical deliberately inflammatory response. Whilst ‘Piracy is theft’ may be wrong can you care to elaborate on your view points as to why piracy the act of ‘making a copy’ of somebody’s intellectual property is not in fact thieving the IP?
    - Steve
      
      “can you care to elaborate on your view”
      
      Asked and answered. Have you even bothered to read the previous replies?
      
      You jump into a thread that has 150 replies, many discussing the issue intelligently in depth, apparently having read none of them, make an arbitrary jackass statement, and expect people to take you seriously?
      
      As far as your simplistic assertion: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are dismissed.
- Common Man
  
  Property is theft – Proudhon.
- Common Man
  
  Property is theft – Proudhon.
- guenthar martin
  
  If piracy was theft of intellectual property then it would be taking all knowledge and everything else of the intellectual property and as a result you would have nothing left of it and then no way to distribute it anymore. So since the intellectual property is still with the creator it can’t be theft. I don’t know of anyone who can rip the memories out of a persons mind so do you?
Pingback: Miért nem ugyanaz a lopás a kalózkodás? | Kulturális Iparágak
Bottom of the Thread

Congratulations, you made it to the bottom of the thread!

Please enjoy this free video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

Have a great day!
Baronluigi5

Its more simple:

- The way of bussines of the audiovisual Industry is selling copies of their products. Computers can make copies of equal quality for free. If you use a copy, there is no need to buy it from the stores if it does not have something more.
Pingback: A Short History of File Sharing « Celtic Ryouma
Twilight Sparkle

pure and simple if the stupid dumb asses wouldnt charge so fucking much there would be no goddamn need to get it for free i have seen the prices for shit and i have to say RIP OFF! i mean why the hell would you pay 50 bucks for a cd boxset? or let alone 500 for a program its just Stupid! plain and simple Its the industries faults for over pricing there shit
Pingback: LATW Episode 11, (October 1–November 15, 2011) « shahriar

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Piracy is NOT Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor

Piracy vs. Theft

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Search TorrentFreak

Piracy vs. Theft

Related Posts

NewsBits

MostDiscussed

CopyQuote

PopularArticles