Exactly. These should be considered two different things. Both are illegal and have their own consequences, but they are not the same things. This is coming from someone who wrote a copyrighted book.
Thank you.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is copyright infringement theft?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
Thank you.
That was not my definition, that was the dictionary's. Copyright infringement would be a form of stealing. You are taking something that's not yours. It would be like saying that if I hacked into your bank account and took money out that it wouldn't be stealing money from you. Just because I didn't take the physical money doesn't mean that it isn't stealing. When you download something illegally, then you are getting the song without permission. you are taking money away that they should have had if you had paid for the song.
there are differences in how the courts look at these two things(taking a material object, taking a non material object). But in reality, they are both stealing by definition.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you hacked into my bank account you would be "depriving me of the use" and "denying me possession" of the money. That's theft.
No, theft is a crime and so is copyright infringement, but they are not both stealing, by definition.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Stealing doesn't say by definition "denying you possession." 2. It would be denying you possession of the money since you now don't get the money that you would have received.
By definition they are, I have already quoted you the definition. So you cannot say "by definition." Only I can say that. You are looking at how the courts treat them, I'm looking that the definition.
" to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"
"the illegal act of taking another person's property without that person's freely-given consent"
"To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
" to take something that belongs to someone else without permission"
And you mentioned this earlier
it depends on if the items in a garbage can are still considered my property. i believe that once I've placed a garbage can at the curb, it's no longer considered my property. Otherwise, it would be stealing if it were still my property.
Suppose I'm a musician in a band. I hear a song on the radio that I really like. I hear it enough that I can reconstruct the song. My band has also heard the song enough times to recreate it using our musical instruments. I record the song and play it in my car, at home, etc. for my personal consumption.
Is this stealing?
Is this stealing?
The only reason certain people don't consider it theft is because of the low price tag and seemingly innocent actions of themselves since technically somebody else already broke the law by offering it to them.
Think of it in higher dollar amounts though. Your argument doesn't hold up. Say you are in your place of work, or even at church, and several people need a copy of Microsoft Office. The problem is that you're short on funds, and Office Pro costs several hundred dollars per copy. So, you illegally download a copy, or borrow a physical copy from a buddy, and install it on 10 PC's.
You mean to tell me that this isn't stealing? Microsoft is now out thousands of dollars. If you think that's ok, then why doesn't just one person buy the first copy of Office, put it on a server, and the entire world can just download it for free. Microsoft would make like $400, total, for dozens or perhaps hundreds of the brightest programmers on the planet, laboring away for years polishing this product. Yet you think that's perfectly ok.
What's the difference between this and downloading a song? Absolutely nothing, other than the dollar amounts involved. You think you are innocent since the song would only cost 99 cents. So you download hundreds of them. Pretty soon you have stolen more intellectual material in the terms of a dollar amount than just blatantly ripping off Office.
Think of it in higher dollar amounts though. Your argument doesn't hold up. Say you are in your place of work, or even at church, and several people need a copy of Microsoft Office. The problem is that you're short on funds, and Office Pro costs several hundred dollars per copy. So, you illegally download a copy, or borrow a physical copy from a buddy, and install it on 10 PC's.
You mean to tell me that this isn't stealing? Microsoft is now out thousands of dollars. If you think that's ok, then why doesn't just one person buy the first copy of Office, put it on a server, and the entire world can just download it for free. Microsoft would make like $400, total, for dozens or perhaps hundreds of the brightest programmers on the planet, laboring away for years polishing this product. Yet you think that's perfectly ok.
What's the difference between this and downloading a song? Absolutely nothing, other than the dollar amounts involved. You think you are innocent since the song would only cost 99 cents. So you download hundreds of them. Pretty soon you have stolen more intellectual material in the terms of a dollar amount than just blatantly ripping off Office.
Assuming you would actually want to listen to yourself just for enjoyment, which no serious musician would do, according to US law it comes down to whether you're making money. If you record it yourself and only play it to yourself, then it's ok. Upload it to youtube or sell it or perform it for others and that's a different story.
Who's argument are you referring? Mine?
Legally, it's copyright infringement. It's a crime. It's wrong. But by legal definitions it's not theft. That was the question asked in the OP. Lawyers make the distinction.
Again, are you responding to me? Because it's not perfectly OK, it's a crime.
I don't know who the "You" you are talking about, better not be me!
Years ago I bought and installed Office 2003 on my computer. Last year I got a new computer running Windows 7. I was going to re-install Office 2003 on that computer but I couldn't find my CD's. Looked everywhere. I ended up borrowing a copy from a friend that was no longer using the 10 year old software suite. Theft? Copyright infringement?
And you know the thoughts of all serious musicians?
And supposing I did perform it for others. Theft? Or copyright infringement?
Yes, pretty much. No serious musician could be so vain as to listen to their own stuff for enjoyment purposes. They do so for self critique but not to just jam to it.
Depends on if you're equating violation of US law or not with sinning or not, which has been done a lot here. Technically and legally the mere act of it is a copyright infringement, but in reality, upon doing so, you are basically refusing to pay them their royalty fees in which they are entitled to, so that is theft in my opinion.
Here's the thing. If you let somebody clean your house and they do so expecting to get paid, then you refuse to pay them, are you really going to say that's not theft? You're stealing from them. In the same manner, if you perform a copyrighted song, you know good and well you can in fact do that, you simply have to pay a royalty fee. If you play it anyway but then refuse to pay, you are no better than the person who refused to pay their house cleaner. Many people worked very hard and invested in tons of equipment to create that song so for you to refuse to pay them is no different than the above example.
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends on if you're one of those people who think that downloading a song is ok because it's only 99 cents.
You seem to equate US law with whether you are sinning or not, which was the original topic here. Well, US federal law says that you cannot be in possession of a short lobster. No, really. Is that a sin? It's illogical and irresponsible to couple the two together and equate them as one and the same. Yes you're supposed to follow the law of the land and whatnot but it's not the same.
Ha, and what if it is? I was speaking in general, but you are obviously feeling guilty, you're awful worried about whether I'm talking about you or not.
Ah so that's why you're nervous. You can nitpick things like this but I don't see how it does any good. Bottom line is that if you blatantly use something that somebody created while never paying for it when you know good and well the creator of the product expects compensation but you refuse, from a moral standpoint that is straight up theft, regardless of the intricacies of U.S. law.
I'm a software developer. If I create something that you borrow from somebody else then upload online so half the world can get it for free, and I never get paid for any of it, do you really not think that's stealing from me? I basically worked very hard for nothing because your actions directly cheated me out of fair compensation. You can justify it however you want, but the Bible doesn't ever say it's ok.
1 Timothy 5:18, luke 10:7 "The worker deserves his wages."
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour"
Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Jeremiah 22:13 Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages,
Blatantly downloading things without payment is in fact making your neighbor serve you for nothing. You can only justify it by saying your action is only a drop in the ocean, but what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?
Last edited by a moderator:
You are ascribing things to me that I do not do.
If you did not pay for it, receive it as a gift with permission, or get it from the public domain, you possess stolen property whether you think so or not.
Copyright and patents are only as good as their enforceability. One must get a lawyer and file suit to get recovery. The lawyers do pretty good.
Truth is Truth whether we believe it or not.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Copyright and patents are only as good as their enforceability. One must get a lawyer and file suit to get recovery. The lawyers do pretty good.
Truth is Truth whether we believe it or not.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I'll continue to be pedantic, downloading music or software is not theft, it is copyright infringement. It is a legal distinction.
If I enter your unlocked house and no one is at home and I take your silverware, what is that? Robbery? Burglary? Larceny?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about criminal trespass? That can get one shot--without due process.
What if the silverware was stolen property?
A thief is a thief is a thief.
Consider: someone loses or has stolen a piece of U.S. govt. property for which he/she has signed as custodian. Individual makes restitution and the property is found six months later--who owns the property? Yep, U.S. Govt. The property must be returned to proper authority.
Keep the treasures in heaven and do not worry about it.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Arguing over whether it is "theft" or not has turned us all into lawyers. In other words, it's an argument of semantics and that's what lawyers do -- argue over words.
The argument over applying terms like "theft" to copyright infringement is not about whether the comparison is legally appropriate, but about the similarities between the two in the colloquial sense of the word. This is where the opponents of the word begin to falter – attempting to prove their point by using the legal definition of the word to trump the colloquial definition. In other words, the argument goes, since the legal meaning of theft differs from the legal meaning of copyright infringement, any comparison between the two is invalid.
By itself, this argument is barely worth refuting, but it has unfortunately been bolstered by the misuse of language from an otherwise inconsequential Supreme Court decision. This type of quote-mining from case law is prevalent in many debates -- sort of a cross between an appeal to authority and context -- a practice that merits further discussion. If we want to learn what the law means, it sometimes help to understand common errors in understanding the law.
It reminds me of the story of the pilot who suffered an electrical systems failure while flying a traffic helicopter for a Seattle TV station. Due to the clouds and haze, the pilot could not determine the helicopter’s position and course to fly to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the helicopter’s window. The pilot’s sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters.
People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign read: "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at her map, determined the course to steer to SEA-TAC airport, and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded "I knew that had to be the Microsoft building because, like their technical support, online help and product documentation, the response they gave me was technically correct, but completely useless."
It’s technically correct that "copyright infringement" and "theft" have distinct legal meanings, but so what? The idea that the legal distinction between the two terms forecloses any colloquial comparison is invalid. "Theft" in the legal sense has always meant something far narrower than "theft" in the everyday sense.
In early English common law, for example, the crime of theft only included the taking of another’s property by force or by stealth. It didn’t include the taking of property by deception or trick, and it also didn’t include the taking of property by someone in whom the property was entrusted. While today we would have no problem saying a delivery truck driver engaged in "theft" if he kept a package instead of delivering it, earlier courts had to jump through several hoops before reaching the same conclusion.
In short (bet you were wondering when I'd get here) United States v. Dowling was overturned as a theft conviction against a man who sold bootleg duplicates of Elvis CDs. But SCOTUS did not say copyright infringement is not theft. Justice Marshall wrote for the majority:
It was a very narrow ruling, and Marshall went on to say that the proper charge would have been violation of the copyright laws, under which the exact same evidence would have resulted in a conviction. The court simply ruled on the narrow legal definition of what constitutes theft, while acknowledging that in the everyday, colloquial usage, copyright infringement is nothing less than theft.
Sourcing for some of this information comes form http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-copyright-infringement-theft/
The argument over applying terms like "theft" to copyright infringement is not about whether the comparison is legally appropriate, but about the similarities between the two in the colloquial sense of the word. This is where the opponents of the word begin to falter – attempting to prove their point by using the legal definition of the word to trump the colloquial definition. In other words, the argument goes, since the legal meaning of theft differs from the legal meaning of copyright infringement, any comparison between the two is invalid.
By itself, this argument is barely worth refuting, but it has unfortunately been bolstered by the misuse of language from an otherwise inconsequential Supreme Court decision. This type of quote-mining from case law is prevalent in many debates -- sort of a cross between an appeal to authority and context -- a practice that merits further discussion. If we want to learn what the law means, it sometimes help to understand common errors in understanding the law.
It reminds me of the story of the pilot who suffered an electrical systems failure while flying a traffic helicopter for a Seattle TV station. Due to the clouds and haze, the pilot could not determine the helicopter’s position and course to fly to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the helicopter’s window. The pilot’s sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters.
People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign read: "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at her map, determined the course to steer to SEA-TAC airport, and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded "I knew that had to be the Microsoft building because, like their technical support, online help and product documentation, the response they gave me was technically correct, but completely useless."
It’s technically correct that "copyright infringement" and "theft" have distinct legal meanings, but so what? The idea that the legal distinction between the two terms forecloses any colloquial comparison is invalid. "Theft" in the legal sense has always meant something far narrower than "theft" in the everyday sense.
In early English common law, for example, the crime of theft only included the taking of another’s property by force or by stealth. It didn’t include the taking of property by deception or trick, and it also didn’t include the taking of property by someone in whom the property was entrusted. While today we would have no problem saying a delivery truck driver engaged in "theft" if he kept a package instead of delivering it, earlier courts had to jump through several hoops before reaching the same conclusion.
In short (bet you were wondering when I'd get here) United States v. Dowling was overturned as a theft conviction against a man who sold bootleg duplicates of Elvis CDs. But SCOTUS did not say copyright infringement is not theft. Justice Marshall wrote for the majority:
"While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose -- 'stolen, converted or taken by fraud' -- to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment § 2314 makes criminal."
It was a very narrow ruling, and Marshall went on to say that the proper charge would have been violation of the copyright laws, under which the exact same evidence would have resulted in a conviction. The court simply ruled on the narrow legal definition of what constitutes theft, while acknowledging that in the everyday, colloquial usage, copyright infringement is nothing less than theft.
Sourcing for some of this information comes form http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-copyright-infringement-theft/
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said starting out, I don't see how you can say downloading a song illegally is the same thing as shoplifting for instance.
They are distinct legally, however they both are violations, though in different manners, of the same one of the Ten Commandments.
Lusting and adultery are not the same thing, yet they violate the same commandment.
Hating and murder are not the same thing, yet they both violate, to differing degrees the same law.
Shoplifting and software piracy, etc are not the same thing, yet they violate the saw commandment.
It comes down to this: You can say that copyright infringement is theft without saying that it is the same thing as common theft.
They are distinct legally, however they both are violations, though in different manners, of the same one of the Ten Commandments.
Lusting and adultery are not the same thing, yet they violate the same commandment.
Hating and murder are not the same thing, yet they both violate, to differing degrees the same law.
Shoplifting and software piracy, etc are not the same thing, yet they violate the saw commandment.
It comes down to this: You can say that copyright infringement is theft without saying that it is the same thing as common theft.
Quite honestly, downloading hurts more people than swiping the CD. If you steal the CD, you hurt the retail store, but they've already paid for it. That has to be counted as a sale. Best Buy can't go to the record company and artist and say well those were stolen so we're not going to pay anybody for it. No, that falls on them, and the artist, label, and cd manufacturer does not take a hit.
On the flip side, downloading a song illegally vs. not paying to download through iTunes directly hurts the record label and the artist. The record label actually makes about 7 times what the artist does on an iTunes download, yet you are depriving them of that income when you download. Doesn't deprive them at all when swiping a cd though.
Last edited by a moderator: