Theli

Is violating copyrights, stealing?
Can anyone argue for this?

jordandandersen

Copyright violation is not stealing. It may or may not be unethical but relabeling it "stealing" just obscures the issue. The real question is whether copyright violation is unethical.

The question ultimatly comes down to whether ideas can be owned or, more fundamentally, whether ideas are created or discovered. That's where things get real complicated. The notion that ideas can be owned doesn't have any strong arguments for it that I'm aware of.

I've heard some decent Untilitarian arguments but they assume a huge burden of proof because the economics at work are so complicated.

Mageth

The question ultimatly comes down to whether ideas can be owned or, more fundamentally, whether ideas are created or discovered.

A common misunderstanding. Copyrights don't protect ideas; they protect particular embodiments or expressions of ideas (e.g. a written work, or a song) which are sometimes defined as "original works of authorship." One could produce a new, novel written work that expresses the ideas in another form without violating the copyright.

From the USPTO website:

What Is a Copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing [emphasis mine]. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.

For more information, see:

U.S. Copyright Office Site

Mageth

And I would say violation of a copyright may very well be stealing if, in so doing, one avoids paying royalties or fees for use. [edited to add: or implicitly or explicitly claims the work as your own, esp. if for sale or some other personal benefit]

Mageth

Let me ask this: if you wrote a novel and, before you could publish it, an acquaintance you had asked to proofread the novel submitted and published the novel under his/her name, and made a couple of hundred thou in the process, would you think the acquaintance had stolen the novel from you? (I admit this is an extreme case, but it is an example of copyright violation; you had an implicit copyright to the novel you wrote).

jordandandersen

In responce to Magdeth's question: No, I would not think that was stealing. I'm not saying I wouldn't be angry. I'm not saying I wouldn't feel like I had been treated unethically. I would most certainly press legal action. Nowhere in that process would I give the label "stealing" to what had taken place.

Same thing. This is just like saying, "Seatbelts don't protect people. They just protect their bodies."

No matter what your position on this topic is I think we can all agree on one thing: Copyright law in the United States is not perfect. There are some time-tested laws that work well and have for a long time. Some more recent law (such as Digital Millenium Copyright Act) favor large companies while effectively screwing both the artist and the consumer.

Jagged

Not the same thing. It's true that ideas cannot be owned. Superstring theory cannot be owned, and noone can be charged for using it. However rights to publish "A Brief History of Time" can be owned. The former could have been discovered or invented at any time by any number of people as the result of the progression of our collective knowledge. (At least two different people did independantly invent calculus, for instance). However no matter how long people live on the Earth, noone else could've written "A Brief History" but Steven Hawking. Someone else may have described similar ideas, but noone in exactly the same way as Mr. Hawking. Books, music, and other works of art are not discovered, nor are they invented (damn Bach anyway); they are created.

mr. anderson i theorize you may be attempting to justify some behavior to yourself. now before you get all huffy let me admit i am an avid gnutella user at the same time as I defend copyrights on my own work (i am a photographer). i certainly agree copyright law is complicated. Money-grubbing publishers and distribution companies are often the most adamant defenders of their right to a share of the dough, however they did not have anything to do with the actual creation of the work, only its production and marketing. But the concept of copyright itself is not too tough. imho.

jordandandersen

That's not cool. I get enough of that kind of rubbish from theists. Your assumption on my behaviour couldn't be further from the truth. I work in the video game industry where more than half of the profits from the products I produce are lost from piracy. This is actually my livelyhood.

This is where I have to disagree with you. The trouble comes in implementation. While it is easy to have an abstract notion of copyright it becomes a lot more complicated when it comes to actually writing laws. You simply cannot have a discussion about the ethics of copyright with out discussing the law of copyright.

There is actually a school of thought that disagrees with you here. While it is fantastically improbable for someone else to accidentally write ABHOT it is theoretically possible. It is possible because the notion of ABHOT (in the Platonic World of Ideas sense of the term) exists and has always existed.

Mageth

No, I would not think that was stealing. I'm not saying I wouldn't be angry. I'm not saying I wouldn't feel like I had been treated unethically. I would most certainly press legal action. Nowhere in that process would I give the label "stealing" to what had taken place.

What legal action would you take? What would the charges be? Would you want recompensation for your "loss", even though the accused did not "steal?" If the defense attorney asked you, "Did this SOB steal the novel from you?", would you say, "No, I don't think so. He just treated me unethically."

[bi]I work in the video game industry where more than half of the profits from the products I produce are lost from piracy.[/b]

And software piracy is a copyright violation, and a form of theft.

Same thing. This is just like saying, "Seatbelts don't protect people. They just protect their bodies."

Not the same thing. As a simple example, say I wrote and copyrighted the following:

A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet.

And you later wrote:

A rose has the same sweet smell no matter what you call it.

You have not violated my copyright, although you've expressed the same idea, it's a new expression of the idea. Now, I might accuse you of plagiarism.

As another example, suppose Jagged gets the idea to photograph a bunch of dogs playing poker. She sets up the scene, photographs it, and copyrights the image. Then someone else gets the same idea, and generates and copyrights similar, but of course not identical, photos. The second person has not violated any copyrights, since they've created new expressions of the idea.

There is actually a school of thought that disagrees with you here.

So what? If two people independently and creatively produce substantially the same work (i.e. one does not plagiarize from the other) and can establish that the work was thus created, neither under the law has committed a copyright violation, nor have they plagiarized.

Of course, it would be so astronomically unlikely for two people to produce identical drafts of a work as complicated A Brief History of Time to be published that it would be ridiculous to assume that one had not stolen the draft from the other. No court in the world would not reach the conclusion that there had been a theft. Laws and courts deal in reality, not in Platonisms.

dshimel

www.m-w.com
steal:
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Therefore, to take and use without leave, which is exactly what copyright violation is, is stealing.

Clearly, words and musical notes can't be owned. However, when those words or notes are aranged into an identifiable "work", such as a song or a book, the creator of the work has the right to determine who gets to access the work and for what purpose. Access without leave or wrongful use is stealing the creator's rights to determine access and use.

Further, it is immoral. The person that copyrights their work desires to control the access and use of their work. It is immoral to treat people in a manner that they do not want to be treated, assuming they have not performed an immoral act that justifies said treatment.