RIAA President Decries Fair Use 486
triskaidekaphile writes, "Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, has an editorial on CNet responding to the Consumer Electronics Association's support of the Digital Freedom campaign for fair use. Sherman proclaims, 'The fair use doctrine is in danger of losing its meaning and value.' Like a true spinner, he indicates that fair use is indeed important, then states 'Let's be clear. The CEA's primary concern is not consumers, but technology companies — often large, multinational corporations which, like us, strive to make a profit... But to seize the mantra of "consumer rights" to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous.' Slashdotters, trollers, and pollsters one and all, what say you? Disingenuous or dissembling?"
But... consumers *do* care about fair use (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiiiight! (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why RIAA has gone for a lot of soft targets http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35 669 [theinquirer.net]
No Need to Poison the Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the guy make his points and disagree where you feel appropriate. But there is no need to preface it with a comment. You could say that about anyone trying to make an argument.
Let me fix that (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let's be clear. The RIAA's primary concern is not artists, but themselves -- a large, quasi-multinational corporation which strives to make a profit... But to seize the mantra of "artists rights" to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous.'
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, fair use is being able to backup my cds onto my harddrive and encode them in any format I please for my mp3 player.
If it were up to the RIAA, they would determine exactly which format I would purchase and keep my music on, and that I would have to buy the same music over and over again everytime the next best thing came out.
Given their history, their hypocritical actions against artists, I have very little reason to believe they are arguing anything in good faith, hence I have very little reason to listen to them at all.
Sherman uses incorrect terms.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it), he has no idea what he is talking about. Either that, or he is intentionally lying. He also quotes a Grokster judge who said that Grokster was theft, and says that this judge is tech-savvy. How can he be? If he knew a thing about Grokster, he'd know that no theft ever took place on it.
Disingenuous how? (Score:4, Insightful)
classic ad hominem attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Fair use isn't about making personal backups (I'm talking putting the song on your favorite player not copying for your friend).
2) CEA is self interest, but the RIAA is better than that..
Also he never said that fair use rights "must be respected" he acknowledged they exist. But the RIAA and MPAA have shown disdain in the past for research and other fair use rights when they require breaking encryption to achieve them.
Anything similar to "fair use" outside of media? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything else you can buy in the world, where there are such restrictions placed on its use? Stuff that's reasonably easy to duplicate, and has potential for such abuse, that it has protections?
Looking around my (typically messy) desk, I see... hmm, my camera. Ok, I can pay $1300 for a lens on my DSLR.. Canon doesn't say "dude you can't put that on any other camera". Nope. Of course, there's no other camera to put it on, but I knew that when I bought it, and canon doesn't say that I can't do what I want with the results of the pics.
Ah, there's a clip loaded with .22's (well, this is the country, and the other day a coyote tried to get at my chickens!). Remington doesn't say that I can only put these in their rifle. I bought the bullets, I can do what I want with them, as far as the originating company is concerned (Uncle Sam may disagree with me, of course, but you won't see Remington getting involved in that).
So, is there anything produced where the manufacturer places specific use restrictions (not "suggestions", like a recipe which calls [let me exercise "fair use" in an excerpt here] for "1 bar (8 oz.) NESTLÉ CHOCOLATIER(TM) 62% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate Baking Bar, broken into sections" or "2/3 cup LIBBY'S® 100% Pure Pumpkin" as though something else is going to ruin the recipe - they're not denying you the right, or ability, to use their recipe unless you use their product!) other than media?
Perhaps the special thing about media is that the company wants to sell you not "listen to this song" or "watch this movie" but "listen to this song only on this one thing". There's a clash between what the consumer believes himself to be buying, and what the company claims to be selling.
Re:Sherman uses incorrect terms.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not spin to point out abuse of words and encourage accurate usage in accordance with actual definitions. Copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. No one has ever shown even one example of anything being stolen via p2p.
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, their history sucks. But is what they're saying now unreasonable? If you push your opponent against the wall and he finally relents and gives you what you need (not saying he's giving everything, but he is giving something) do you just scoff at him?
Hell, we need to be taking notes on what he's saying now and we need to stick him to his word. He says things should be balanced. Yes, they should. He says we should have some, but not unlimited fair use. Yes and yes.
When your enemy gives you ground, you don't go hide in your bunker and call him names. You advance. I consider this an opportunity.
TW
Where the difference lies (Score:3, Insightful)
But, unlike you, the CEA does not seek this profit through monopoly control over the products they sell (OK, with the possible expception of Sony...). A CD player is a CD player is a CD player, no matter who manfucatures it, but a new Death Cab for Cutie CD can only come from Atlantic. Because the electronics manufacturers don't have nearly the same amount of federal legal power to fall back on to protect their profits, they are far more inclined to (day I say it) cater to the whims of the customer (insert previous Sony caveat here).
While there is always the danger of manufacuring cartels getting together to limit consumer choice in the realm of hardware (DVD-CSS), these cartels don't have the same kind of legal protections that copyright holders do, and are always susceptible to competitors making cheaper yet more functional devices (Wal-Mart won't try to sell bootleg movies, but will be more than happy to sell you a region-free DVD player).
Re:I think he has a point (Score:4, Insightful)
The other problem with Mr. Sherman's statements is that it serves mostly publishers and not the artists -- while the goal of copyright law is the encourage the creation of artistic works, not to maximise the profits of publishing houses. Whether downloading is illegal or not ignores the real question, which is does it help artists and should it be illegal?
What a lying sack of !@#$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh huh. And the RIAA's primary concern is
The IP Crusades (Score:3, Insightful)
On one far side of the IP continuum, you treat intellectual property almost EXACTLY like physical property. Lifetime ownership, lifetime copyright etc... This situation probably grants excessive monopoly power to the IP creator and creates inefficiencies.
Extreme #(2)> ... This situation creates a variation on the classic tragedy of the commons. [wikipedia.org] Everyone has an incentive to use the common IP resources; no one has an incentive to create them. (And no, communism does not work and the broad population will not create free stuff for the benefit of mankind without compensation.)
On the other side, you have absolutely no rules whatsoever. Everyone is free to use/steal/whatever anything.
(3) The Fuzzy Middle
Then there is some position in the middle that grants a time limited monopoly (copyright) with certain exceptions for "fair use." Where "fair use" has a strict definition. A brief quotation is "fair use," while a larger excerpt is not. the Anti IP group (2) people want to redefine "fair use" as "all use." (Switch US system from (3) to Extreme #2 by stealth.) Not that I'm an RIAA fan, but the opinion piece here has a point.
Best Case Scenario: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, this guy is playing good cop. While another part of the organization litigates the end-user into oblivion.
The goal remains, Greater control for higher revenue, which naturally entails drastically limiting consumer usage.
Microsoft's goal, RIAA members goal. All of them.
That this is even being considered as thoughtful by some is just... astroturfing.
What a terrible analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.... which has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
"You can say "I just made a copy" but that does not change the fact that you accessed something I should have been paid for to enable your access"
Accessed? Like in your wallet example? Theft is theft. Period. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period. Sounds like you are discussing some sort of unauthorized access. There are other forms of unauthorized access which are also not theft (such as trespassing). The person who has "just made a copy" is guilty of copying, not stealing.
If you can't win the argument, redefine the terms (Score:3, Insightful)
The effectiveness of this can be demonstrated by the conservatives' redefinition of the word "liberal", which nowadays is used pejoratively. Originally, the word had a positive meaning (one with liberal views, supporting individual liberty).
Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. The question should be about respecting private property of all kinds, no matter who it belongs to. The alternative is a slippery slope on which the government tells you what you are allowed and aren't allowed to own.
Re:I think he has a point (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, look who we're dealing with. The RIAA. The same people who claim letting a friend borrow a cd is the same as attacking a ship.
Yes, what he's saying is unreasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact the copyright balancing is the interests of the content producers versus the interests of the content users (of a number of types - including the content PURCHASERS who want to format-shift their property in order to player-shift or space-shift it, whom he carefully ignores).
The makers of the equipment, software, and other insturmentality that enables the content users' exercise of their fair-use rights DO benefit. So they have a financial incentive to support the content users' position. (Indeed, the industry's activity is an effective way for the content users to fund the defense of their own rights.) And their profit is indeed part of the overall social benefit intended to be promoted by the copyright law. But (despite Sherman's FUD) the copying-equipment industry's interest is NOT the other side of the "balance" of fair-use.
I think you're walking into a trap... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not arguing that I should be able to get my music for free, but once I pay for it I can do with it whatever I want, as long as it's fair use. I'm not going to accept his version of "fair" - probably no media shifting, no format shifting, if possible no time shifting and hardware-locked to a specific player - I want the rights I deserve for having paid.
You make the mistake of accepting his framing of the argument: he isn't "giving in" in the slightest, he makes an outrageous demand, and, when no one will fulfill it, backs down a little. It's the same as if I asked you to pay me a million dollars for using the same air that I breathe, and if you aren't willing to pay, well, I can back down to a payment of one dollar a month. I guess you would consider that a great deal, since I "backed down" so much...
(I'm not accusing you personally, but every time I see something like this I wish people were more aware of basic manipulating tactics - these are old tricks, and, sad as it is to see, they still work).
Re:I think he has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
NO!
Fair use is fair use. Either you have it, or you don't. Why do you think the word "fair" is in there? If it shouldn't be allowed, then it's "unfair".
Fair use should absolutely be unlimited.
By your logic, if the government starts advocating severe limits on free thought, you'd think it would be a good thing if we complained and complained about this, and they relented, allowing some free thought, and you'd be here on Slashdot saying that it's right that we don't have unlimited free thought.
If you push your opponent against the wall and he finally relents and gives you what you need (not saying he's giving everything, but he is giving something) do you just scoff at him?
Yes. If he doesn't relent completely and surrender, absolutely.
When your enemy gives you ground, you don't go hide in your bunker and call him names. You advance. I consider this an opportunity.
Right. You advance until you destroy your enemy utterly or he surrenders unconditionally. When your enemy's position is completely unacceptable, you don't settle for a compromise.
Re:I think he has a point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Social Contract (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. 10-20 years is all they should be given a copyright for. Its the expiration of income from a given work that inspires one to produce more works. If I come up with a good idea and got paids for it for the rest of my life, what's my inspiration for creating even more works? None. If I know that gravy train is going away soon you best believe I'll be working my butt off on coming up with a new idea to sell.
That's how copyright came into existence. What we have today is an abomination and is in serious need of correction.
Time/Format Shifting (Score:3, Insightful)
What I buy is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
IS that to hard to understand?
Re: Speaking on their history (Score:5, Insightful)
I once dug up an early 'mix tape' that my father had made this way, in the late 60s...format shifting is not a new idea, and it's fairly recently that its been attacked and called "stealing."
The previous upgrade cycles mostly happened because there was some perceived consumer advantage. 'Cassette tapes' sucked less than eight-track (cassettes), particularly for use in cars. CDs were superior to vinyl in terms of damage resistance (or so they said at the time, anyway), not wearing out, ease of FF/REV and SKIP, and sound quality. People chose those upgrades. Anyone with a decent home stereo could go from LP to cassette tape pretty trivially, and some people did (I know I did, for my car), but it was time consuming and most people didn't bother.
With the CD to MP3 format changeover, moving one's music oneself is trivial. Put the disc into iTunes, hit Rip. Thus, a lot of people aren't repurchasing their music as they did in the past, because this changeover is easier than any in the past. This drives the record companies crazy, because they've been used to getting a huge influx of cash every time one of these changeovers has happened in the past -- in fact, they think they're entitled to it. That is their critical mistake. They are not.
Frankly, I think it is this sense of entitlement that really aggravates me about the RIAA and its member companies most of all.
Re: Speaking on their history (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought the media content on those 8-track and cassette tapes. The medium which conveys the media matters little in this argument.
Without the content they are just blank tapes.
When I purchase the music I will listen to the music on the original -or- a copy of that original as I know all too well that any mechanical carrier wears out with time and the medium is not the message, the content is.
My library content goes back to reel-to-reel tapes and yet I have no reel-to-reel machine anymore. It died in 1989 after I copied the content to cassettes, then when computers came out I encoded those cassette tapes to mp3.
My original purchase of the content allows me to continue to listen to it to this day. That's what I call 'fair-use'!
You know what? he's right... but doesn't say all. (Score:5, Insightful)
He also makes a couple of interesting points: first, that downloading is illegal and immoral (the opposite view being an "extremist position"); and second that the new fair use will stop artists from producing content because there would be no economic advantage. And IMHO both of these points are flawed and misleading.
For the first one, there is no mention of what makes it an extremist view (other than his obvious agenda), and the opposite view is just as extreme. Downloading is not illegal everywhere, and it certainly is not immoral - there is no morality on the reordering of a bunch of 0 and 1s on magnetic storage. Nothing was lost on the other side.
But the second one is more interesting. It is simply not true that artists will stop producing content if people are free to use the technology as they see fit. This is already happening, and the attempts to outlaw it is a proof of that. But the impact won't necessarily be worse than today if allowed to happen.
I think that these are hiding another, deeper, threat for content companies: the fact that technology companies serve both consumers and content creators, and it scares the crap out of them because of the implications.
In other words, technology massively lowers the barriers of entry for new artists. Massive distribution technologies allow users to bypass the traditional and oligarchic "means of production". Cheaper equipment means more talented people can reach the eyes and ears of listeners, which will cause money to be distributed more broadly, and more fairly - at the expense of the traditional players of the content industry. An example of this is how, given a specific content, some illegal copies manage to release something of a better quality (no ads, multiple subtitles in different languages, better size/quality ratio, etc).
Content industries have a history of perverting technology for their own economic ends. DVD zoning is an example of this. I can understand the marketing drives to do it - artificial market segmentation, and so on. But in a increasingly global world they become as annoying as they are obsolete.
So yes, the technology companies have a lot to profit from this. But guess what - their best economic interest is to allow the people (artist and consumers) to be able to do more with their gear, not less. So if I have to choose my side, I'll go with the technology companies, not with the people who would like to "license" things to a given item of hardware and still charge as much as possible.
Some people are getting it... these guys [mariposahd.tv] are trying to offer a free HD TV show on the net. In other areas such as gaming, there are many examples [sourceforge.net] of freely available software [sourceforge.net], which are free yet fun to play [romhack.net]. This is the future, IMHO, and is arriving sooner or later. Yes, in part, I like it because I get a free ride, but that's because I'm given one by people who have the means of doing so. And those means are given by technology.
Warfare analogies (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, we need to be taking notes on what he's saying now and we need to stick him to his word. He says things should be balanced. Yes, they should. He says we should have some, but not unlimited fair use. Yes and yes.
When your enemy gives you ground, you don't go hide in your bunker and call him names. You advance. I consider this an opportunity.
Since you're using this warfare analogy, lets look at this a little more closely.
For a long while, the countries of Listeneria and Distributeria lived side by side in a peaceful trade agreement. The Distributers sold products (imported from distant Musiciania) that the Listeners wanted to buy, and so the they bought them and everyone was happy. Then along came technological advances which allowed the Listeners to domestically reproduce the products they previously had to purchase from Distributeria, and other advances that would allow the Musicians to sell their new products directly to the Listeners, completely bypassing the Distributarian trade routes. So, fearing for their livelihood, Distributeria invaded Listeneria and tried to halt and reverse their technological progress, plunging them back into a more primitive way of life where they would again be dependent on Distributeria.
But, banned by international treaty from the sorts of weapons they would need to use to successfully conquer Listeneria, the Distributers found a long, drawn-out battle that they could not hope to win, as Listeners fought a guerilla war against the Distributers. The Listeners knew that in the end they could never be conquered, but the Distributer invasion was seriously disturbing the peace in their lands.
Fast forward to today, after this hopeless battle has been continuing for many years, and suddenly the Distributers say "you know we don't really want to hurt the Listeners at all, we've always liked them and just want to live in peace with them again." They haven't pulled out of the country, haven't stopped their attempts to destroy the Listeners' technological infrastructure that let them be free of dependency on Distributeria. They're like the Martians of "Mars Attacks!", running about and shooting their ray guns shouting "do not run, we are your friends!"
Would you expect the people of Listeneria to just walk out into the open and say "oh ok, they didn't want to hurt us in the first place!"? Or would you imagine they would tell the Distributer to "fuck off and get the hell out, and then we'll talk about getting along peacefully"?
You're right that when your enemy gives you ground, you don't just hide and call him names. But when your enemy just says "I'm putting down my guns now, you can come out, I promise I won't hurt you", it pays to remain suspicious, unless he's saying that because you've just pointed a bigger gun at his head. We the consumers don't have such big guns to point at the RIAA's head, so there's no reason to think that they would just happily give up the fight.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
So you think that MORE restrictions are a good idea?
You've got to be trolling.. Copyright *IS* more restrictions!!!
My personal test is: "property is what you can defend with a gun". Imagine a lawless world. You've got your fence, your belongings and your rifle. How do you defend it? Easy! When someone comes near, you shoot them. How do you do that with a copy of a song that somebody has inside THEIR fence?
Tell people that they don't own the art they create, and how much art are you gonna get? What is the quality of what you're gonna get?
Who cares? Seriously, is there some "inalienable right" to an endless stream of quality art? Have you already experienced, studied, and enjoyed all the existing art? Hell, I've got CDs in my collection I haven't listened to more than 1-2 times.
But your argument is silly anyway. 1) We already have a ton of art out there. Even if, hypothetically, the laws that support copyright were repealed, we have plenty of "back inventory". 2) There are plenty of people producing art TODAY who don't get paid, and don't ever expect to get paid. They wouldn't know the difference! 3) You can profit from art without actually selling the art itself. Ever heard of a museum? A rock concert? A book-binding service?
So let's say that getting rid of copyright is a good idea... Would you like to see people who don't want to give it up imprisoned, tortured, or killed?
You've totally gone of the deep end now, sorry, I have no idea where you get this. If copyright were repealed, people who don't want to give it up would lose THEIR ability to imprison OTHERS, which is kinda why we would repeal it in the first place.
How much power do you really want to give our government over what you are allowed to own?
The government doesn't "allow" me to own things. It only 1) defines what "own" means more precisely and 2) allows me to direct the force of government toward people who have violated that definition.
You really need to sit and think about this for more than 30 seconds.
Private property? (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright is not private property. Copyright is a limited-time government-granted monopoly on the reproduction of intangible works.
I own a bicycle. I own it forever -- my ownership of the bicycle never lapses.
I own the copyright to this message. 70 years [or whatever the Disney Corp. manages to extend it to] after I die, the copyright expires and this message automatically goes into the public domain.
Nonsense. With copyrights, the government is controlling what I can do with the book I already paid for. And the government already says you are not allowed to own some things -- like other humans.Re:I think you're walking into a trap... (Score:3, Insightful)
But hell I won't even buy the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator because once you've activated it twice online and once by phone you have to buy it again (unless you want to risk jail over a simulator/game)
Apparently that's fair according to this knucklehead. Then you have people who insist that these guys are just trying to protect their revenue and it's not their fault that people pirate. I bet I could sell them a license to a few bridges.
Re:A dare (Score:3, Insightful)
"Without content, the market for technology designed to deliver it will dry up quickly."
How can you say that when you've been claiming enormous losses from widespread online piracy for a decade? Obviously you do not hear the CEA's clients crying uncle (an observation you make in this very article!), so obviously all that piracy isn't hurting them in the least.
Of course, you may have a point insofar as you, considering yourself the exclusive font of all content, are still supplying the lion's share of the content that's being infringed. Again, I assure, should your doomsday scenario come to fruition, the world will continue to "make do" with what's left of our creativity in sufficient quantities to fill up every iPod and Tivo the CEA's clients can sell.
Don't fool yourself. And most importantly, don't fool us.
Re: Speaking on their history (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry but I doubt my copies of the Marx Brothers or Futurama get any better in HD. Will future movies look better? Yes. Do I see a reason to upgrade my collection? No. There is plenty of old music that is only in Mono, but we buy it on CD in quality formats... because it's cheep and we already own a CD player. When HD formats become as prolific as the CD, I'll buy it. Until then I'll stick with my 'cassette tape' called DVD.
And frankly I don't think that day will come. CD's were an infinite improvement on Cassette in more ways than just recording quality. DVD's were a great improvement on VHS. HD... just looks prettier and holds more. I don't need a LotR level of special features with every movie I rent or buy.
Anyway format wars aren't the topic. I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned when you buy a CD to upgrade your music you're buying the convenience. The average consumer doesn't see it as a re-purchase of their licence. If they wanted to upgrade formats themselves, they should be allowed too.
Re: Speaking on their history (Score:3, Insightful)
you obviousally haven't look at hddvd and dvd side by side. We demoed a HDDVD player to a big client on HIS home theatre.
you could not tell the difference between the regular DVD through his $30,000.00 video processing system and $55,000 projector and the HDDVD of the same movie.
HDDVD is not that much better, most people that would benefit from it 120+inch screens usually bought good video processing gear and ended up with a fantastic picture from regular dvd and therefore see a marginal or in the case of what we viewed no difference.
HDDVD is capable of fantastic, the studios are not giving anyone anything fantastic to play.
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice to hear different reasoning, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm much more comfortable with the argument that piracy is stealing from the (mostly well lined) pockets of record companies and artists. This at least holds water when directed at those who could have/would have otherwise paid for the content.
By your logic, artists could sue for the pain and suffering their loss of exclusivity caused them.
Re:I think he has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's very unreasonable.
I should be able to take music I purchase and move it anywhere. To my iPod, to my server, to my stereo, anywhere I want. Period. End of sentence. That's what I have now with CD's. Why would I give up anything? Who am I being unfair to when I buy a CD and move it to my iPod?
Same with the MPAA. I should be able to take a DVD and copy it to my HD. That's not being unfair.
Ask this guy..."When I take a CD that I bought and move the music to my ipod, do you acknowledge that is a legitimate fair use?" He won't answer that question. I promise you he will dodge it. And the only reason to dodge it is because he thinks you're being a pirate when you copy a CD that you bought to your computer.
So no. He has given nothing. He is saying that he believes Fair Use is unfair. And do you know why he thinks it's unfair? Because he thinks we should pay a fee to the RIAA members everytime we move from CD to PC to iPod to whatever. To him, that's 3 copies, we owe him for 3 copies of the music. That's how they think. He's being ridiculous and unfair and then when he concedes on a tiny point, you think he's giving something back. Sorry, he's given nothing except evasions and half truths in his response.
Re:It's nice to hear different reasoning, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not (only) the duration of the copyright, the form itself hinders the creation of art. Copyrights (as well as patents) have turned from a tool that should encourage to publish and produce into a tool to monopolize the market. And that has never been the intention of its creation.
Quite the opposite!
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
While some may point to the vast quantities of works created the past century in the USA as proof that copyright works, I'll respond with two points:
- Copyright is a coupl'a hundred years old. It is really only in the last 50-100 yrs that there has been an explosion in the publication of works.
- I suggest as an alternate theory that the creation of works is tied directly to available leisure time (both as creator and consumer), and at no time in history have more people had more leisure time than the USA in the same last 50-100yrs.
Provable? nope, but it's at least as plausable as the copyright theoryLastly, what those that are proponents of copyright never talk about is the damage that it does - I've read estimates that some 70% of all published music is unavailable for purchase. It's locked away under copyright, and the 'owner' doesn't feel that it's profitable to release it. So anyone who looks at the shear quantity published, without taking into account the works that copyright renders *unavailable* is being dishonest... ... when in reality it is necessary only in terms of ensuring their profits.
It's the RIAA/MPAA et al that have everyone believing that copyright is necessary to us
Yet, no exclusivity is stolen (Score:4, Insightful)
Let us return to that place where those who abuse the definition of "theft" fear to tread: the dictionary. Definition of theft "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
Aside from the gross inapplicability of the idea of "carrying off" to a possible diminishment of a right, let's look at the "taking" requirement. You are arguing that exclusivity is stolen, right? If this is true, then how come the copyright infringer does not gain any exclusivity???. If he's taking it, he'd gain it, right? Of course he doesn't.
The word "theft" once again is proven inapplicable. Even if we assume that this right is a property, the act of infringing on it does not constitute the right being taken from one person by another. Rather, it constitutes the destruction or damage of the right.
In a real-world analogy, crimes where you wreck something but don't steal it are often called "property destruction" crimes. They are never called theft. A vandal smashing a window is doing something similar (in the analogy) to what you describe when talking about damage to the exclusivity right. The vandal certainly can't be accused of stealing a window.