I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
The one problem I have with this argument is that this:
You give your copy of the book to Jeff. You can't read it while he can.
and:
Again: true sharing always involves a loss on the part of the sharer.
does not gel well with this:
Jeff now has a copy of the book, and so do you. You can both read it at the same time. Neither of you has a need to pay six bucks for another copy.
and this:
This is exactly the same as if you walked into a Barnes & Noble store, took a copy of the book off the shelf, and walked out without paying.
The argument about whether piracy is theft has been raging for years, and it was initially stuck because the legal definition of theft in most places didn't know anything about copying (or indeed copyright).
I don't think you're helping the case with the way you've phrased these parts of your post.
My standpoint, for reference: yes, piracy as considered is morally wrong in most if not all cases, but it's not the same as theft... and it's not just pedantry on my part to say that.
The first two points demonstrate actual sharing, while the second two points demonstrate theft. So, I don't see your point. If you loan your copy of the book to Jeff, only one person can consume the material at a time - it's identical to loaning the physical book. If you make a copy of the book and give it to Jeff, that is identical to stealing another copy of the physical book, so you don't have to part with your own.
I know a lot of people disagree with that basic premise, but in my experience, they only do so to try and justify (mostly to themselves) the fact that they pirate regularly, instead of being honest and buying the book legally.
piracy as considered...[is] not the same as theft
You're gaining something by depriving someone of what they are legally entitled to. That is, quite literally, the essential definition of theft. I feel strongly about this because the word-mincing is how people justify piracy all the time.
As an author and a publisher, I personally observe (and even experience) the effects of piracy. If an author is entitled to $2 per book, and you pirate the book instead of buying it, that is in effect and intent no different than walking up to that author and taking the $2 out of their hand. You have gained something of value (the book) directly and solely by depriving the author of the royalties they are legally entitled to. (Now go and apply that same to the other 5-30 people involved in the book.)
Pedantry and self-justification (from others, I don't think you're trying to self-justify) are just smokescreens for the ugly reality that piracy is literally a form of theft. To call it anything else is to downplay the crime.
I guess his point is that copyright infringement is a different type of felony.
When you steal a book from B&N, you cause at least two losses:
1) They can't sell that same copy to anyone else;
2) Costs incurred in buying the book from the publisher won't come back;
When someone infringes copy-right by copy-ing the content from a digital book, they don't cause any of the two damages above.
I'm not saying copyright infringement is ok, you are totally correct, people must straight up and respect intellectual work. And infringement must be punished.
What I'm saying is that by labeling it as theft may make your augment loose power because, frankly, theft is a different type of felony.
It may make it look like you're trying to push something you don't really have a strong reason to support. In reality you do have all the reason to be mad at copyright infringement, so why use theft to make your argument stronger, when it already has strength?...
I validly compare it to theft because the pedantics have to stop. The differences are minute.
When an illegal copy is made...
1) They can't sell a copy to the person who received the illicit copy. (Loss of sale, same result as your #1).
2) Costs incurred in creating and distributing the book won't come back (Measurable financial loss due to #1, same result as your #2).
So, no, on an abstract level, it is still a form of theft. You're giving away something you don't have the rights to give away: an additional copy of an eBook.
I do appreciate your thoughtful response. I just see the argument of "piracy isn't theft" as flimsy, legally questionable, and existent solely as a pedantic means of justifying a crime. The person with the pirated material directly gained from a measurable loss deliberately and directly inflicted upon another person. That is the most distilled definition of theft possible.
I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
I broadly agree with you.
The one problem I have with this argument is that this:
and:
does not gel well with this:
and this:
The argument about whether piracy is theft has been raging for years, and it was initially stuck because the legal definition of theft in most places didn't know anything about copying (or indeed copyright).
I don't think you're helping the case with the way you've phrased these parts of your post.
My standpoint, for reference: yes, piracy as considered is morally wrong in most if not all cases, but it's not the same as theft... and it's not just pedantry on my part to say that.
The first two points demonstrate actual sharing, while the second two points demonstrate theft. So, I don't see your point. If you loan your copy of the book to Jeff, only one person can consume the material at a time - it's identical to loaning the physical book. If you make a copy of the book and give it to Jeff, that is identical to stealing another copy of the physical book, so you don't have to part with your own.
I know a lot of people disagree with that basic premise, but in my experience, they only do so to try and justify (mostly to themselves) the fact that they pirate regularly, instead of being honest and buying the book legally.
You're gaining something by depriving someone of what they are legally entitled to. That is, quite literally, the essential definition of theft. I feel strongly about this because the word-mincing is how people justify piracy all the time.
As an author and a publisher, I personally observe (and even experience) the effects of piracy. If an author is entitled to $2 per book, and you pirate the book instead of buying it, that is in effect and intent no different than walking up to that author and taking the $2 out of their hand. You have gained something of value (the book) directly and solely by depriving the author of the royalties they are legally entitled to. (Now go and apply that same to the other 5-30 people involved in the book.)
Pedantry and self-justification (from others, I don't think you're trying to self-justify) are just smokescreens for the ugly reality that piracy is literally a form of theft. To call it anything else is to downplay the crime.
I guess his point is that copyright infringement is a different type of felony.
When you steal a book from B&N, you cause at least two losses:
1) They can't sell that same copy to anyone else;
2) Costs incurred in buying the book from the publisher won't come back;
When someone infringes copy-right by copy-ing the content from a digital book, they don't cause any of the two damages above.
I'm not saying copyright infringement is ok, you are totally correct, people must straight up and respect intellectual work. And infringement must be punished.
What I'm saying is that by labeling it as theft may make your augment loose power because, frankly, theft is a different type of felony.
It may make it look like you're trying to push something you don't really have a strong reason to support. In reality you do have all the reason to be mad at copyright infringement, so why use theft to make your argument stronger, when it already has strength?...
I validly compare it to theft because the pedantics have to stop. The differences are minute.
When an illegal copy is made...
1) They can't sell a copy to the person who received the illicit copy. (Loss of sale, same result as your #1).
2) Costs incurred in creating and distributing the book won't come back (Measurable financial loss due to #1, same result as your #2).
So, no, on an abstract level, it is still a form of theft. You're giving away something you don't have the rights to give away: an additional copy of an eBook.
I do appreciate your thoughtful response. I just see the argument of "piracy isn't theft" as flimsy, legally questionable, and existent solely as a pedantic means of justifying a crime. The person with the pirated material directly gained from a measurable loss deliberately and directly inflicted upon another person. That is the most distilled definition of theft possible.
I still disagree, but I respect your position.