Copying is not theft

[OldAtarian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&NR=1

[Brian O]

Hard to argue w/ that logic.

[godslabrat]

Hard to argue w/ that logic.

 

It's fair, but it's also oversimplified. All copying is not the same. There is copying without theft. There is theft without copying. And there are times when copying is very blatant theft.

 

If I make a repro of an unreleased Atari game from 30 years ago, is that theft? No. The person with the cart still has it, the original owner can still release it, if that is even possible. But if I decide I want to buy a just-released CD from a major artist, and instead settle for a CD-R from my neighbor who also just purchased the CD, that is absolutely theft. I may not have deprived a store of inventory, but I did deprive the music label and artist of money to which they were totally entitled. I'm not even a big fan of the RIAA, but what's fair is fair.

 

There is more to theft than physically removing something by force when that something does not belong to you. If the person who makes the above argument wants to really get into semantics, when you copy something, you take from the other person the ability to sell you that thing you copied. That's actually pretty significant. Just like there is a legal value on physical property, there is a legal value on having the option to do something. By copying something without the owner's consent, you are depriving them of that option... and taking that away does have substance in a court of law.

 

This is why I laugh at people who try and legitimize "sharing". Even when I can agree with their motives, the arguments they put forth are just indefensible when it comes down to the real world. Sure, it feels better to tell yourself you aren't physically stealing, but that doesn't really cancel out the fact that you ARE making life more difficult for the people who made the product you're copying.

[tz101]

^

Agreed, but copying for personal archival reasons is not illegal in the slightest.

 

Nintendo's lawyers would like to scare you into believing otherwise.

[StanJr]

I wish I could find a reason to copy that video and call it my own work and distribute it. THEN we'd see if copying is theft or not...

 

Maybe the irony that it says "official version" is enough....

Edited December 11, 2010 by StanJr

[godslabrat]

^

Agreed, but copying for personal archival reasons is not illegal in the slightest.

 

Nintendo's lawyers would like to scare you into believing otherwise.

 

Indeed. After composing my post above, I wish I had used backing up purchased DLC as the "good" example. But either way, there are tons of ways in which copying is fine, and tons of ways in which it is not. The video, while cute, is too simplistic.

[Reaperman]

Both duplication and theft are simple, but very different, topics. This is a simple video.

 

Copying by itself could never be theft.

[Tursi]

If I make a repro of an unreleased Atari game from 30 years ago, is that theft? No.

 

Correct.

 

But it IS copyright infringement if you didn't acquire the rights to reproduce that title.

 

By equating copyright infringement with theft the publishers have only weakened their own arguments.

 

(Looks like ReaperMan got the same point in before me, hehe )

 

Video's cute.

[HammR25]

I only copy test answers.

[Hatta]

But if I decide I want to buy a just-released CD from a major artist, and instead settle for a CD-R from my neighbor who also just purchased the CD, that is absolutely theft.

 

No, it's copyright infringement. Still unethical and illegal, but not the same thing as theft.

 

There is more to theft than physically removing something by force when that something does not belong to you. If the person who makes the above argument wants to really get into semantics, when you copy something, you take from the other person the ability to sell you that thing you copied.

 

By that argument, anything that interferes with someones business model is "theft". Open up a competing business? That's theft. Tell your friends not to shop someplace. That's also theft. Even just educating myself as a consumer could take away someone's ability to sell me something. This is clearly an untenable position.

 

By copying something without the owner's consent, you are depriving them of that option... and taking that away does have substance in a court of law.

 

Yes, and by copying you might find yourself in court defending against a copyright infringement case. But you will never find yourself defending against charges of theft.

 

This is why I laugh at people who try and legitimize "sharing". Even when I can agree with their motives, the arguments they put forth are just indefensible when it comes down to the real world. Sure, it feels better to tell yourself you aren't physically stealing, but that doesn't really cancel out the fact that you ARE making life more difficult for the people who made the product you're copying.

 

This is all fairly reasonable. Copying may be as bad as theft. It may even be worse than theft in some circumstances (e.g. industrial espionage). But it's clearly not the same thing as theft.

[Mirage]

Wow, that video is really simple-minded. Amazing someone could go through the long process of creating that thing, but not just stop for a second to realize how absolutely ridiculous their argument is.

[HammR25]

Isn't the semantics game fun?

[Reaperman]

I only copy test answers.

You should steal them instead, you get a much better product that way.

[AtariLeaf]

But if I decide I want to buy a just-released CD from a major artist, and instead settle for a CD-R from my neighbor who also just purchased the CD, that is absolutely theft.

 

No, it's copyright infringement. Still unethical and illegal, but not the same thing as theft.

 

There is more to theft than physically removing something by force when that something does not belong to you. If the person who makes the above argument wants to really get into semantics, when you copy something, you take from the other person the ability to sell you that thing you copied.

 

By that argument, anything that interferes with someones business model is "theft". Open up a competing business? That's theft. Tell your friends not to shop someplace. That's also theft. Even just educating myself as a consumer could take away someone's ability to sell me something. This is clearly an untenable position.

 

By copying something without the owner's consent, you are depriving them of that option... and taking that away does have substance in a court of law.

 

Yes, and by copying you might find yourself in court defending against a copyright infringement case. But you will never find yourself defending against charges of theft.

 

This is why I laugh at people who try and legitimize "sharing". Even when I can agree with their motives, the arguments they put forth are just indefensible when it comes down to the real world. Sure, it feels better to tell yourself you aren't physically stealing, but that doesn't really cancel out the fact that you ARE making life more difficult for the people who made the product you're copying.

 

This is all fairly reasonable. Copying may be as bad as theft. It may even be worse than theft in some circumstances (e.g. industrial espionage). But it's clearly not the same thing as theft.

 

If I steal a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid. If I copy a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid.

 

It may not be the same thing in a court of law, but its like arguing that getting shot in the left leg is not the same as getting shot in the right leg. In the end does it really matter? Either way, you have a hole in your leg.

[Mirage]

 

If I steal a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid. If I copy a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid.

 

It may not be the same thing in a court of law, but its like arguing that getting shot in the left leg is not the same as getting shot in the right leg. In the end does it really matter? Either way, you have a hole in your leg.

 

But whomever owned the CD you stole no longer has the CD, whether that be a store or an individual. So obviously copying and stealing are not the same thing.

[+wood_jl]

Wow, that video is really simple-minded. Amazing someone could go through the long process of creating that thing, but not just stop for a second to realize how absolutely ridiculous their argument is.

 

Agreed, completely! But it is kind of funny.

[Reaperman]

 

If I steal a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid. If I copy a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid.

 

It may not be the same thing in a court of law, but its like arguing that getting shot in the left leg is not the same as getting shot in the right leg. In the end does it really matter? Either way, you have a hole in your leg.

There's are some ideal circumstances where a copyright owner does get paid.

However there are other (legal) ways to obtain an item where the copyright owner gets nothing too.

 

I guess that means that copying reduces the amount of extremely hypothetical money a copyright owner could have, but never did have to start with. It's pretty different than theft, but can certainly be illegal in its own way. Really the distribution of wrongly duplicated materials is usually where the crime part happens.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Reaperman

[Reaperman]

edit: messed that up, double post trying to fix spelling hours later.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Reaperman

[AtariLeaf]

If I steal a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid. If I copy a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid.

 

It may not be the same thing in a court of law, but its like arguing that getting shot in the left leg is not the same as getting shot in the right leg. In the end does it really matter? Either way, you have a hole in your leg.

There's are some ideal circumstances where a copyright owner does get paid.

However there are other (legal) ways to obtain an item where the copyright owner gets nothing too.

 

I guess that means that copying reduces the amount of extremely hypothetical money a copyright owner could have, but never did have to start with. It's pretty different than theft, but can certainly be illegal in its own way. Really the distribution of wrongly duplicated materials is usually where the crime part happens.

 

I see what you and Mirage are saying. I'm just looking at it from the copyright owners point of view. If Joe Blow was on his way to the store to buy a CD and on the way to the store his buddy calls him and tells him not to bother, he'll make him a copy, that's a lost sale due to copying. To me that's theft of copyrighted property. I don't see theft as simply taking a physical thing nor am I concerned with legal terminology as to what constitutes theft and what doesn't. To me its a moral issue and when you take something, anything, without permission from the copyright holder, that TO ME constitutes theft.

 

If its not, I'll make copies of one of the homebrews sold here, put up an ad here in the marketplace and give them away. How do you think that would go over? I won't ask any money and even pay the shipping so its not theft and the homebrew programmer, and Albert, should be fine with it right? *

 

* No I'm not going to do this, just making a point

[the.golden.ax]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When they quote how much X industry is loosing due to copies, they never factor in the fact that the kids / adults doing it that either A) never had the money to spend in the first place and wouldn't have paid even if they didn't copy it (not making it ethical, but still very true) or B) people who actually collect and OWN the products they have copies of.

 

Example. I've got a Bing Crosby Greatest Christmas hits CD. I've had it for over 15 years. The sucker is so scratched that I couldn't get a good rip on my dvd drive just last night. So I downloaded it. Now I get to listen to my old Christmas music again. Also, my several sealed games, would never get played without such a wonderful loophole, since I won't generally open sealed things.... Example. Sealed Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 for Genesis. This game runs $50 - $100 in this condition, $12 open. I get to play it on my Everdrive anyway, I fully own the right to do so.

 

AX

[mckafka99]

Interesting Copyright articles at www.copyhype.com. 1st of 2 part article re: theft and copyright at http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-copyright-infringement-theft/

[Reaperman]

To me its a moral issue and when you take something, anything, without permission from the copyright holder, that TO ME constitutes theft.

 

If its not, I'll make copies of one of the homebrews sold here, put up an ad here in the marketplace and give them away. How do you think that would go over? I won't ask any money and even pay the shipping so its not theft and the homebrew programmer, and Albert, should be fine with it right? *

 

* No I'm not going to do this, just making a point

Well it'd certainly be copyright infringement, but it's pretty far from theft. Everybody else would still have the rights and products they're entitled to but some schmoe would be illegally distributing bootlegs. ...And everybody would be 'willing AIDS' upon him.

 

However copyright infringement isn't such a great topic to bring up around *some* homebrewed carts. The process you're describing sounds a lot like how 'reproduction' carts come into being. Also 'hacks' may fall into the same boat since they're new creations often substantially based on established works. Other commercially available homebrews 'borrow' trademarked or copyrighted content that doesn't belong to the author.

[the.golden.ax]

To me its a moral issue and when you take something, anything, without permission from the copyright holder, that TO ME constitutes theft.

 

If its not, I'll make copies of one of the homebrews sold here, put up an ad here in the marketplace and give them away. How do you think that would go over? I won't ask any money and even pay the shipping so its not theft and the homebrew programmer, and Albert, should be fine with it right? *

 

* No I'm not going to do this, just making a point

Well it'd certainly be copyright infringement, but it's pretty far from theft. Everybody else would still have the rights and products they're entitled to but some schmoe would be illegally distributing bootlegs. ...And everybody would be 'willing AIDS' upon him.

 

However copyright infringement isn't such a great topic to bring up around *some* homebrewed carts. The process you're describing sounds a lot like how 'reproduction' carts come into being. Also 'hacks' may fall into the same boat since they're new creations often substantially based on established works. Other commercially available homebrews 'borrow' trademarked or copyrighted content that doesn't belong to the author.

 

This and 9/10 homebrew authors share the image for free. Even if I can play something on my CC2 I still buy the real thing.

 

Ain't I stupid.

 

AX

[AtariLeaf]

To me its a moral issue and when you take something, anything, without permission from the copyright holder, that TO ME constitutes theft.

 

If its not, I'll make copies of one of the homebrews sold here, put up an ad here in the marketplace and give them away. How do you think that would go over? I won't ask any money and even pay the shipping so its not theft and the homebrew programmer, and Albert, should be fine with it right? *

 

* No I'm not going to do this, just making a point

Well it'd certainly be copyright infringement, but it's pretty far from theft. Everybody else would still have the rights and products they're entitled to but some schmoe would be illegally distributing bootlegs. ...And everybody would be 'willing AIDS' upon him.

 

However copyright infringement isn't such a great topic to bring up around *some* homebrewed carts. The process you're describing sounds a lot like how 'reproduction' carts come into being. Also 'hacks' may fall into the same boat since they're new creations often substantially based on established works. Other commercially available homebrews 'borrow' trademarked or copyrighted content that doesn't belong to the author.

 

All valid and true points. And as Ax pointed out a person should be able to make a backup or archival copy of their own purchases as the money has been properly paid. That I have no problem with, its when said copies are either sold or given away to other potential buyers that it becomes an infringement issue.

 

Its a very muddied issue and my problem with the video is that it presents a very gray issue as black and white.

[AtariLeaf]

To me its a moral issue and when you take something, anything, without permission from the copyright holder, that TO ME constitutes theft.

 

If its not, I'll make copies of one of the homebrews sold here, put up an ad here in the marketplace and give them away. How do you think that would go over? I won't ask any money and even pay the shipping so its not theft and the homebrew programmer, and Albert, should be fine with it right? *

 

* No I'm not going to do this, just making a point

Well it'd certainly be copyright infringement, but it's pretty far from theft. Everybody else would still have the rights and products they're entitled to but some schmoe would be illegally distributing bootlegs. ...And everybody would be 'willing AIDS' upon him.

 

However copyright infringement isn't such a great topic to bring up around *some* homebrewed carts. The process you're describing sounds a lot like how 'reproduction' carts come into being. Also 'hacks' may fall into the same boat since they're new creations often substantially based on established works. Other commercially available homebrews 'borrow' trademarked or copyrighted content that doesn't belong to the author.

 

This and 9/10 homebrew authors share the image for free. Even if I can play something on my CC2 I still buy the real thing.

 

Ain't I stupid.

 

AX

 

Not at all. You took advantage of something free from the author. If they specifically said they didn't want the rom distributed it would be a different story.