Journal gilroy's Journal: Infringement != Stealing (1) 1
I've made this argument a lot on slashdot, so I figured I should just put it here and be done with it.
Blockquoth the poster:
anybody riping and collecting works they don't pay for are simply stealing
No. No. No. and a final time, No. They are "infringing" -- a well-defined crime, distinct from stealing. How do I know? Leaving aside the single-user issue, let's also consider: No court anywhere has ever set up guidelines for "reasonable theft" of physical property. But for intellectual "property", the courts have -- as much as the RIAA wishes to God they hadn't -- carved out an expanse called "Fair Use", wherein use of copyrighted material without compensation is considered legal. (I am not arguing that Napster was or was not Fair Use. I am just pointing out that Fair Use exists in well-codifed law.) Likewise, real property rights don't expire. If you own a car and never ever sell it to anyone, then guess what? It's yours, forever and ever, world without end, amen. But if you publish a copyrightable item, and never ever sell a copy to anyone else, do you know what happens? Eventually your "property" rights evaporate, again without compensation... it's not a government "taking", it's the (legal) nature of the beast.
So unless you're willing to draw the analogy both ways -- that is, to allow "Fair Use" of your physical property and to recognize that your ownership is time-limited -- then stop BSing and drop the "infringement is stealing" crap.
Useless (Score:2)
Does it matter, though, how elegant the argument is, if the populace at large believes that the MPEG-2 layer 3 format is inherently immoral and that the RIAA is a saintly organization beset by sneering hacker terrorists.
So my thought is that, arguments about the legality of infringement are well and good, but what we need is a climate where we don't need an argument. Where no one will put up with the reaming of our rights as the IP cartels fantasize about - where a peer to peer filesharing isn't looked on a theft, or immoral or even embarassing.
Unforunately, legal arguments are like traveling salesman algorithms, while "affecting social change" is more like demonstrating P=NP.