[There is ] definite monetary loss [when copyright infringement takes place]

Except that it's not definite. Someone who is broke wouldn't have been buying it anyway. I'm NOT being apologetic I'm not trying to say it's right. However in the case of stealing there is always loss.

However the loss of control was understated and is indeed one of the more serious reasons copyright cases are pursued.

Letter from Gary Larson to a fan site where he describes how he feels about the loss of control. You can decide whether to believe him or not.

It is not simply semantics to differentiate theft and infringement. As was mentioned in the preivous thread, that copyright infringement incurs no direct tangible loss-- only the loss of exclusive control over production and distribution. Again which I believe is unfairly downplayed by filesharers and at times overly dramatized by artists(Larson, for instance).

[...]

But again, it is important to reinforce the point that the differences between stealing and unauthorized reproduction don't necessarily swing the argument in favor of one side. While a stealing analogy is not appropriate: What about a currency analogy? Counterfeiting money is somewhat like filesharing. The only real difference there is the inherent dishonesty in actually using the money. A counterfeit is actually fake, it's not really money. There is no corresponding lie when it comes to listening to a song you didn't pay for, and the copy of the song isn't fake-- it's the real thing. However the economic results of counterfeiting are serious, and I think most people would agree to that.

______________________

As far as I know, never in the history of the world has there been the potential for every single potential consumer to duplicate essentially infinite quantities of copyrighted work. This is really an entirely new situation.

Photocopies are limited and of lesser quality. Cassette tapes are the same way.

Large scale print/phonorecord piracy is damaging, but that problem is solved by going after the pirates, who must have a decent degree of organization to be succcessful. They must have some means of mass manufacturing and distribution, as well as ways to convincingly duplicate the copyrighted material.

Even with ROMs and Emulators, the demand for outdated games was relatively small. Game companies pursued legal cases when they could, however it was a matter of protecting their assets out of principle than emulation really being a serious threat to their business.

The ability for a single file to self-replicate infinitely is simply amazing, and essentially unprecented by anything in the history of music. Both physical production and distribution are paid for entirely by each individual user. I really don't think anything like that has ever been seen by economics, period. (Though I welcome contradiction as my knowledge is certianly not comprehensive)

C:Stealing is the act of taking something away, so the something isn't there anymore.

W:That is a definition you made up on the spot isn't it?

G:"No, he's actually exactly right. The word stealing does indeed imply something being taken. Additionally, if I recall a comment from one of our resident Lawyers, in a legal sense for something to actually be stealing it must be "taken without intent to return.""

Intellectual property is still just a made-up concept. "Intellectual property" such as it exists at all, has always existed and we've never needed to use the word "theft" to describe it before, except as a colorful metaphor.

Something doesn't need to be considered theft for it to be wrong. If we wish to be precise, we should avoid using the word theft to describe copyright infringement. Theft is an oversimplification.

Q:The only people that have to worry about key validation are people who stole their software, or are using stolen software...

No, not really. Stealing software is different from using software produced illegally, or producing software illegally, which is copyright infringement. Penalties can be severe, more severe than for stealing. But it is not the same thing. In fact, unless a particular key is reported stolen, people using stolen software don't have to worry about this at all, because the unique key is stolen right along with the rest of the software.

Furthermore, as in C's example, key validation may protect against more than just the copyright infringement you called stealing. You may have agreed in the license agreement to only use the software on one motherboard, however copyright doesn't generally give that much power to the owner. Once the work is sold, the new owner has all sorts of rights to it, including the right to sell it to someone else. If there is a restriction like using it only on one motherboard, that is part of a contract. Breaching a contract isn't anything like stealing, and usually has nothing to do with copyright either. In fact, if the contract cannot even be read until after you've purchased the software, copyright CANNOT apply (if you've heard the term shrink-wrap license, that's where it comes from).

Proliferation of encryption and keys to protect sales will have undeniably negative effects on the industry. Whether the positives outweigh those we'll have to see. Note that one of the world's most successful software companies, Oracle, doesn't cripple their own software with license validations (at least nothing that I have used).

Quote: If you steal something from a shop, I think what makes it stealing is that you didn't pay for it, not that the shop doesn't have that item any longer.

What makes it stealing is that you didn't pay for it, and the store owner doesn't have it anymore. If you see a computer in a store for $1500, and decide you'd rather assemble an identical one yourself for $500, is that stealing?

Quote:But if considering yourself a copyright-infringer or whatever instead of a thief makes you feel better, go for it.

1. I don't use BitTorrent or download anything illegally. Lately, I've listened to several Mozart Piano concertos, all downloaded using my subscription to www.classicalarchives.com, and Handel's Messiah conducted by John Eliot Gardiner, which I purchased. I have no personal stake in the matter.

2. I have never suggested that being a copyright-infringer is better than being a thief. Thief is just not the right way to say it (unless you're saying "copyright thief," which is not usually the intent.)

Which is worse, illegally copying 100,000 CDs and selling them cheaply, or stealing a loaf of bread from Wal Mart?

Of course, I don't think stealing is inherently worse than illegal copying. (Aug 2007 - But that's a different matter)