of course there are competitors,, dont you think GOOGLE will lose some revenue if they are expected to cut sites that are pirating ? Yet Google and other INTERNET moguls also make significant contributions to the politicians making the decisions...

so there is no ABSOLUTE buy out when there is such diversity in campaign money,,,,,

it would be obvious that google wouldnt support the bill, google's primary focus is as a search engine, and affiliate marketing gets them most of their money. they arent part of hollywood. what i mean when i say no competitors is that a company in hollywood that supports the bill ordinarily isnt going to change their stance just because their business competitor will benefit from it as much as they will. also google is only political opponent of hollywood. when it comes to business as a whole, google does an immense ammount of marketing for them. the entertainment industry wants to be sole distributor as well as to be responsible for the creation, thereby monopolizing the slot for a purchasing source. piracy forces them to keep their prices in check in order to make it more convincing to not break the law and pay the meager amount rather than break the law because they would otherwise pay an insane amount.

furthermore, i never said there would be an absolute buyout, but rather to be wary of the representatives who have cast there lot on the side of greed so that they can get their o so precious campaign contributions, rather than do what is in the best interest of the people. im not saying google isn't guilty of buying reps, it just so happens that google's goals match with the best interests of the people

like i said earlier, people have been stealing others ideas and property since the dawn of humanity. everything anyone creates or owns WILL BE STOLEN. it doesn't matter if it is protected legally of not, there are no exceptions.
if you don want others to have your property, intellectual or otherwise, without paying for it, than your only option is to not let it leave your head, because once it does, it no longer actually belongs to you no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

im going to go illegally download some music from one of the 500 sites i use to do so, just to spite this distasteful turn from what was once a decent topic.

GOOD DAY TO YOU MADDAME

PS. extra long post, MUST... SMOKE... CIGARETTE

Yes, except no one is even 'robbing them blind'. The act of piracy itself doesn't directly cost the content owners anything, since the data is hosted and copied using other peoples storage and bandwidth. Also, there is no guarantee that those who are pirating their work would have paid to consume it, so not all acts of piracy are actually a 'loss of potential sale' for the content owners.

A few steps on the technology ladder made it possible for these companies to become supremely wealthy, and now, as that same technology changes the landscape underneath them, they are using their wealth to coerce greater wealth.

This is a problem with the way our form of capitalism operates. When it comes time for large companies and industries to die of natural capitalist causes, they buy influence in government and coerce people to keep them alive.

isnt this argument similar to a bank robber saying he doesnt cost anyone anything because their money is covered and there is no proof that everyone with money in the bank was going to use all of it?

stealing is stealing, its what (as far as I know of anyway) taking something that 'ISNT YOURS' without permission,,,,plain and simple

people get kicked out of colleges for taking things that came from other peoples heads, and just because they could retrieve it for free off of a page in a book or an internet, doesnt make it theirs to claim as their own,,,

people get kicked out of colleges for taking things that came from other peoples heads, and just because they could retrieve it for free off of a page in a book or an internet, doesnt make it theirs to claim as their own,,,


some professors win prizes for ideas they stole from students. no, it dosent make it ok to steal just because you can, but it is not going to change. piracy is still going to happen in force. the negative effect on the rest of the webernets is what we need to avoid.

The first paragraph above is not 'an argument' for anything, its a collection of factual statements. Draw whatever conclusion you like, you cannot argue with the essential facts presented.




You are wrong on both counts. Normally you seem to put more thought into your posts, but the PIPA/SOPA topic seems to be one where you won't hesitate to argue without thinking it through. Many of the comments you've made regarding SOPA/PIPA are just wrong. I've noticed other people calling you out on it, make a small effort to show you this, and then quickly give up.

There is a finite amount of money in the world. Every year, and finite quantity of money is printed. A finite quantity. This money directly represents real value, and directly has purchasing power. If you rob a bank, you are shifting a portion of this finite quantity into your possession. You have taken it from other people. If its insured, you simply shift the loss from the bank to the insurance company - you are still directly causing a loss.

None of this applies to piracy. This is not an advocacy for piracy, its just a factual statement about how piracy is different from theft.

Its a fact that not all piracy represents a loss of income to the person whose work was illegally copied. This fact is especially relevant when you consider that the act of piracy itself also does not directly cost the content owner anything - pirates use their own electricity and hardware to make the copies, and they usually pay (along with other entities) for the bandwidth. The only circumstance in which piracy can be said to cause a 'loss' for the content owner is when it is done in place of purchasing the content. I'm not making an argument for anything, except that its a lie to tally the value of pirated goods and say this was a 'loss' for the company. That would be just stupid and wrong.

The first paragraph in my quote, above, has nothing really to do with your comments on robbing a bank.

Oh, and of course the money in a bank is in circulation. The 'parallel' argument you present (about unused bank money) is simply idiotic, and is unrelated to the fact that not all pirates would have paid to legally obtain the content that they pirate.




Stealing may be stealing, but copyright violation is not stealing. It is copyright violation.



Violating other peoples' wishes can be a serious thing. If your daughter left her secret journal in home office next to the photocopier, and you photocopy a page from it, I'd most likely think you did a terrible thing (extenuating circumstance?) in violating her trust and not getting her permission. But you didn't steal anything.

Copyright violators are violating the trust of the content providers. You can argue that this is immoral, but you can't sensibly argue that its 'theft'. Copyright violation is not theft.



Woah, and now we're talking about plagiarism! Yet another tangent that's unrelated to the facts that:

o Copyright violation does not directly, necessarily, cost the content owners anything

o Copyright violation is not theft

You are right. Copyright violation is not theft.

I stand corrected.

argument: 2a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3a : the act or process of arguing : argumentation b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion


steal: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice


property: a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) who is under contract and whose work is especially valuable



I will let others engage in semantics discussions

if its not yours and you take it without permission, ITS STEALING

the only debate is what people wish to consider 'property', one definition is an exclusive right, which a copyright IS,,,


copyright infringement: What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.


WITHOUT THE OWNERS PERMISSION,,,synonymous with STOLEN,,,

Yes. And just because content owners invented the phrase "intellectual property" to confuse people about the nature of copyright, trademark, and patent violations doesn't make information comparable to material goods. Stay away from the kool-aid. Content owners already wield an incredible amount of self-serving, anti-social power - you don't know to help them play their game of manipulation through equivocation. No, worse: manipulation through misleading terms.

Copyright violation is not theft. Its copyright violation.



Yes, if I take it. But not if I copy it. Then its not stealing at all. Its copyright violation.

Failure to get permission is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an act to be stealing. If you walk on my property without permission, you are not stealing, you are trespassing. Similarly, if you copy my work without permission, you may be violating my copyright, but you are not stealing.

Don't drink the koolaid.




No, that is not the only debate. We are debating what property is, but also what 'taking' is. Clearly, copying is not taking. I mean, that just so obvious. Unless you are immersed in the doubletalk of the content-providers.




Do you see how far into incorrect thinking you have to reach to justify this view?

Copying without permission isn't stealing. Its copying. Without permission.

in the digital age

if I create it, and you find a way to duplicate and disperse it, without my permission

you have STOLEN it, just as much as if you took a car that I paid to use for myself, and were able to use it without me ever knowing and thus not KEEPING me from using it for myself but still haven TAKEN what I paid for without my permission,,,

Well it turns out that the people who create laws define their terms in very precise ways. The way they define their terms, at least in America, you are, very simply, wrong. There is no other way to put it.

You keep bringing in these examples that miss the point. If I borrow your car, then during the time that I am borrow it I physically have it and you do not. Regardless of whether you are aware that I have it, I have still taken your property from where you left it. During that time, I have it, and you don't. This is completely unlike copying.

So right there, are you are already using a false analogy.


You are really insistent.

Does "copyright violation" just not carry the degree of moral indignation that you'd like to convey when talking about it?

Do you want a more emotionally charged, accusatory term to use when speaking about acts that are, in fact, simply copyright violations?

...that is such semantic nonsense.

Imaginary Rule:

Can't call it theft because it's not prosecuted under theft statutes?
If we are being that literal, toss out the Websters Dictionary.

Concept:
It is mine.
You take(copy) it.
Thus 'theft'.
But since it 'doesn't' cost me anything to get it back, it's not actually theft?

So, if you got a whole bunch of things that cost you nothing.. and I took them.. what's that? It never cost you anything to begin with, thus, that can't be theft either... but it's not infringement, because you didn't blast it on the net. Hmm.

So, I'm assuming there is only one definition of theft?
Some states, like Virginia, don't even have a law 'against' theft. They call it either Grand or Petit Larceny. Depending on the value of the property...

"Theft" in terms of the criminal concept is used to describe:
'Depriving someone of personal property'.
I wrote it. It's mine. My personal property.
You take it.
Theft.

I don't care if you change the definition of it, or classify it differently; infringement/theft.. same thing. Whether it costs you money or not, regardless of what a lawyer has to refer to it as in order to defend you.

Further note.

Here's some knowledge.

The United States Criminal Copyright Infringement is codified under the heading, "Stolen Property"

Justices Breyer, Stevens, and O'Connor agree:

"Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."

Maybe you know something people that spent their lives in the Justice system don't know?

no, I can just agree to disagree

I know legal definitions, I know manslaughter and murder describe two different crimes that are both killing

and you rarely hear people say 'he manslaughtered her'

I also know copyright violation describes a specific crime that involves unlawful use, or as some of us would say,, STEALING,,,

Like, for example..

How about the theft of a famous poet's writings.
Posted only a day a part.
Two people post a poem.

One person: Renowned and beloved poet worshiped by many.
Other person: A nobody in the poetic world just trying to make a name.

The two see each others work. Infringement comes into play.

Even if it is proved that the famous poet was the one who wrote it first; this would still ultimately tarnish his spotless reputation.

So, now what's this all classified as?

He just lost his image. Can't exactly buy that again, it's not for sale at Wal-mart...

Does that not count as 'damages'?

If you consider the factual use of language 'nonsense'.

Or maybe you are mis-understanding my statements here?




You may have confused two different parts of the conversation.

Claim 1) Copyright violation is not necessarily financial harm to content owners.

Claim 2) Copyright violation is not theft.

Claim 1 is a fact, claim 2 is true by definition.

If I have material goods, and you steal them from me, then you are stealing them from me regardless of how much I paid for them.





No, thats wrong. Where did you get that from? Nothing I said, for certain.




No, there are many. Copyright violation is not theft.




I'll accept that as true. Copyright violation is also not larceny.




Okay.



Did I take it or copy it?




Clear logical thinking requires that we properly differentiate. If we confuse two separate things as being the same thing, we loose the ability to reason properly.







Oh, yes, the people who want to redefine theft just love that quote, and bandy it about whenever they can. A single statement by a few judges does not a definition make!




Oh, no, they most certainly know that copyright violation is not theft. It doesn't mean that every statement of theirs is in perfect accord with this knowledge.

I'm pretty sure you think I'm making arguments that I'm not making.

Like MsHarmony, it looks like you've gone far afield into plagiarism.

Its no doubt that both copyright violation and plagiarism can cause losses. That's not being debated. If you think otherwise, please reread my posts.

No.

Theft has definite moral overtones to it.
Infringement is capable of avoiding any moral concerns.

Copying in school - theft of another's work.

Maybe you are just hoping that straining semantics you don't have to confront the very real harm that infringement can cause to creators and to the public?



"Violation" - A term for criminal activities.
"Theft" - A criminal activity

By definition?
Using legal or Websters?



This was from my example.




Yes, it is.




You know...
It's people like you, that make law makers waste hours specifically giving each 'crime' a category. It's the reason the two have different 'titles' yet are still classified under "Stolen Property" So.. yes.. it is.


As if there's an actual difference.
A copy is taking it from me.
Taking it is taking the original.
Either way, your copy, my original.. both mine.

Even in school they teach you that copying is stealing.



True as that may be..
There's no defining difference that actually requires these to be classified separately.

Whether you copied it or stole it from me..
You stole my idea, my work, etc.
Thus. It is still theft.



Oh, yes, the people who want to redefine theft just love that quote, and bandy it about whenever they can. A single statement by a few judges does not a definition make!


Redefine theft? So, why is it called Identity Theft?
An identity itself doesn't even have a 'form'.

Theft, as far as I know, means:

The action or crime of stealing; usually involving another's property and is taken without consent.

You TOOK my work by COPYING it.
You TOOK my key and COPIED it.

Same concept yet one is deemed theft because it has a physical form?
That's the main defense?




No, but I'd listen to three supreme court judges over a faceless person on the net.

After all, who would you choose to defend your case?

Its evident from your words that you have.



You are oversimplifying. I have known thieves for whom the word theft did not carry moral overtones, and I have known pirates for whom infringement did not carry moral overtones.

Infringement is infringement. If you think a particular kind of infringement is wrong, then you think its wrong. It has exactly the moral overtones that you give it.

Incorrectly calling infringement theft wrongly and irrationally attempts to confuse the particular moral overtones that you have for theft to the moral impression of infringement.




This is where you have gone completely wrong. Please, do the intellectually honest thing and re-read my words while making a sincere effort of not putting words into my mouth.




I'm not sure if you are agreeing that you are straw-manning me.








Have you really given this matter much thought? I mean... did you just imply that lawyers and law makers waste their time by being precise?

Being precise in our thought process is an aid to justice, in exactly the same way that being precise is an aid to a scientists investigation of material truths.




I know you can see the difference. It's an important, actual, difference.

The view that "infringement is wrong" doesn't require conflation and equivocation. If it did, no intelligent person would find infringement wrong.





No, at all of the schools I attended they actually taught me to try to use language correctly.




Well I'm relieved to see that you can at least see the importance proper differentiation, in general.



Oh, yes, the people who want to redefine theft just love that quote, and bandy it about whenever they can. A single statement by a few judges does not a definition make!




I'm glad you mention that. Identify theft is also a misnomer - a better term is identity fraud.

If someone commits identity fraud, you do not accuse them of theft, unless they also committed an act of theft along with the identity fraud.

You wouldn't say that someone who committed identity fraud engaged in larceny. Impersonation isn't larceny. The distinctions are important.




Yes, you are correct. Identity theft is a misnomer.




You are making my case for me. If took your key and copied it, I engaged in two separate actions. 1st, I took your key. Then, I copied it. Since you stated it properly, these actions are not being confused, one with the other.




I'm not sure if you are taking into account the filter that this phrase was put through. This didn't come about as a result of someone saying: "Hey, judges, in general, is copyright violation the same as theft? Are they, by definition, the same?" A vast number of statements have been made by a large number of judges, about cases like this. Most of those statements are in accord with the legal definitions. These judges made one error, one among the entire body of all statements by all judges, and the people who want to believe that copyright is theft seized upon that one statement and regurgitate it anywhere they can.

I do agree with you that you shouldn't just accept my claims. Go research the matter.

No, its not.



..and I'm the one oversimplifying.




No, I'm not putting anything anywhere.
You made it 'clear' you've had this debate before.
Denoted also by the fact you you enjoy it.

After all, aren't we taking words literally ?



No, this clause you broke into two parts and answered them individually when, in fact, they were linked.



Look.. I just stole your laugh.
>.>

I'll accept that as true. Copyright violation is also not larceny.


Have you?
If this is what you call justice , what's equality?


No, I see no difference.
If you view 'theft' as wrong.
Why would you not consider infringement 'wrong'?



I can see that that is working out well for you..


Yes, but not in this case.
Especially when they are classified and codified in the same section.
Which you keep skipping..


..but it is still called Identity Theft .

Wow.. no I'm not, cause if I am, I made my own case.
I never mentioned I 'knew' you took the key.
In fact, you could return it, and I wouldn't know.
Does that make it now infringement as you like to call it?
Or is it still theft?

Either way.
I was defining the word 'took'.
Which there is no separation between the two ideas.



I'm not accepting your claims.
I did research it.
As a writer, who's had people try to steal my work.

Theft is to steal another's property.
Whether that 'property' has form or not.
It is still theft.

Even if you choose to call it another name.

You can call your dog Sparky..
..but he's still just a dog.

Sin,

This is what I gather from your posts. You are a writer, and you are opposed to copyright infringement. You've had people violate your copyright. Presumably this makes you unhappy. You don't like to see anyone say anything which seems to you to reduce the moral significance of copyright infringement. You've accepted, for yourself, the notion that 'copyright infringement is just as bad as theft'.

I respect your feelings, as I understand them (as stated above).

Several of your comments suggest the following:

That, to you, considering copyright infringement to be theft is equivalent to seeing copyright infringement as the moral equivalent of theft. This isn't necessary. We can have an properly discriminating, intelligent process (be it a private analysis, or a dialog) in which we properly acknowledge that copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing, and still arrive at (or argue the case that) copyright infringement is 'as wrong' as theft. To do this honestly, however, would require that anyone who has this view present that case on its own terms, rather than using equivocation or emotional-misdirection to achieve their desired end result.


You say:



Some of the reasons that one might consider theft wrong would also apply to copyright infringement. Some of those reasons do not. Also, the reverse is true. There are reasons that one might consider copyright infringement wrong which would not apply to theft.

Incidentally, I have only enjoyed parts of this conversation. Based on the intelligence and care-in-thought that MsHarmony has demonstrated in other posts, I expected more from her in this conversation. It can be frustrating to me to have to explain things which I feel shouldn't need to be explained.



Yes, thank you. I've been wrongly accused by ignorant (or corrupt?) police of many thousands of dollars worth of crimes, all of which I challenged in court, and won. If I hadn't been taught the value of precise language use, I might have been wrongly found guilty and possibly lost that money.





I'm not clear on your point. You used language properly in your key copying example. Key-copying is not identical to copyright violation, but the example you gave illustrates that copying and taking are two different acts. Both of those acts are necessary to illegally copy a key.



I didn't consider it worth responding to. My work has required that I familiarize myself with the municipal code, so I've seen how those laws are categorized. They are grouped into sections for convenience, and the titles of the sections do not imply that everything in that section would meet the legal definition of the terms used to reference the section. Being placed in the same section has no bearing on a conversation about definitions.



I'm not clear on your point.



Yes, yes, yes. We agree! You cannot turn copyright infringement into theft just by calling it theft.

If you feel that copyright infringement is wrong, that's fine. Make your case. Earn the respect of your audience by acknowledging the similarities and the differences between such infringement and theft. Focus on those differences which actually make infringement worse, in some ways, than mere theft.