Since the invention of Napster in 1999, and the online file-sharing boom that followed, the entertainment industry has spent countless millions attempting to convince the public that illegally downloading music or videos from the Internet is tantamount to sticking a gun in a person’s face and demanding his wallet. “Content theft,” they say, is just as bad as any other type of “stealing.” But according to Stuart P. Green, a Rutgers Law School professor and expert on theft law, copyright infringement isn’t really “stealing” at all.
The crux of Green’s argument — which mimics that of many who have discussed this issue with any amount of critical thinking in the past — is that, in order to actually “steal” something, you must deprive the owner of whatever that thing is. If you take my bicycle, then you have it, and I don’t. But if you download a song off The Pirate Bay, you’ve simply made a copy — now there are two bicycles. (Or thousands or millions.)
“If Cyber Bob illegally downloads Digital Joe’s song from the Internet, it’s crucial to recognize that, in most cases, Joe hasn’t lost anything,” writes Green in an op-ed for The New York Times. “Yes, one might try to argue that people who use intellectual property without paying for it steal the money they would have owed had they bought it lawfully. But there are two basic problems with this contention. First, we ordinarily can’t know whether the downloader would have paid the purchase price had he not misappropriated the property. Second, the argument assumes the conclusion that is being argued for — that it is theft.”
Indeed. According to the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) — a propagandist entity set up by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to oversee the upcoming “six strikes” anti-piracy system — file sharing costs the U.S. economy $58 billion annually, and has led to the elimination of 373,000 American jobs. It is industry-spouted figures like this that led Congress to consider the dangerously vague Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). And it seems unfathomable that the entertainment industry will change their tune anytime soon, despite the fact that equating file sharing with “stealing” or “theft” just doesn’t resonate with the public at large.
That’s not to say that copyright infringement is morally justifiable. (Though some argue that it is.) As Green notes, it would be more appropriate to use “concepts like unauthorized use, trespass, conversion, and misappropriation” to condemn file sharing than “stealing” and “theft.” I’m not entirely convinced of that, either, since I doubt these terms mean anything at all to most people, even if they are more accurate, ethically speaking.
Regardless, I highly recommend checking out Green’s op-ed; it’s well worth the read. Besides, if you simply read this article, and not that one, then I will have effectively stolen a page view from The New York Times — or something like that…
[Image via Kinetic Imagery/Shutterstock]
If they think that 100% elimination of unauthorized distribution would magically create a larger Entertainment Budget Pool, they’re just flat wrong.
If you look at the impressive growth of video game sales over the last decade, and if you look at -total- entertainment/media receipts (film/music/games) over the same period, you still see strong growth in total. Piracy is not something done by wealthy people to become wealthier. It is not a way to ‘save money’.
The industry will continue to martyr out its suffering until we force a paradigm shift in the packaging, distribution, and fair use of mass media. They throw around claims that 1/3 or 1/2 of all media distribution is pirated, and that it is a blow to the economy, all while failing to acknowledge that very few consumers would even consider doubling their media purchases if there were no other way to procure a copy.
You must look at the entire system in aggregate. You can always look at a single isolated pirate copy, and call it theft. At least, you can if you assume that single copy represents a single sale, that was irrevocably lost. In the vast majority of cases, it is not. Piracy ultimately falls almost entirely into 3 categories: 1) an unsatisfied trial which quickly ends in deletion of the file(s), 2) a satisfied trial in which the downloader proceeds to purchase the file(s), 3) an economically disadvantaged consumer who has already spent their limit, and just wants something to do with their time while they wait for our beloved Job Creators.
…a law professor came up with that? That’s the same argument my friends and I were making in High School.
http://www.gameproducer.net/images/piracyisnottheft.jpg
But those that do it are charged with theft and that is not the proper charge for what they did so according to the laws they shouldn’t have been found guilty.
I don’t think he quite understands the copyright business model, though I support his intentions.
Ryan Callaghan “Its also a completely separate issue with breaking copy protections. It can be illegal to remove DRM even if no copyright laws are violated.”
That’s true… but you are already saying it’s ILLEGAL to remove copy protection. If you do, you’re an outlaw – Pirate.
The story is so simple. They make the rules. You do not obey? You’re a pirate!
Digital Trends – I have read the article and agree that copying is not stealing (becouse the original is stll there). But this is not the point of this problem! The problem is that they don’t want illegal copies. Let’s try this way… if you steal a CD from the store, the store can sue you but copyright IS NOT violated. OK now you buy a CD and make a copy of it and give it (free of charge) to your friend. Now the copyright IS violated.
Just one more thing if you feel sorry for these billionairs. If there cring thats bad over there bilions of dollars how much more is it the poor that are hurting. Big bad billionairs making the poor pay for what they lost again no suprise i have no love for them.
Some say that you pay to access the internet not own it.But i don’t really own anything because its not physical in nature or is it?The point is after all this reading im still not convinced im stealing.IF access to the internet if paid for, then is what i access free, really free? Some say nothing is for free, well is that because i had to pay for the access to the internet? Or is it because someone who once made billions of dollars off of people now don’t. Because someone found a way to give it to the public for free.I wonder. Well i don’t think anyone would mind if those billion aires gave back to the public but they really never do its always small amounts that go to charity to make themselfs look good I never seen a billion air give it all over to the public lol like thats a real concept but anyway no one minds being able to have something nice to enjoy while these billion aries live it up, i doubt there worried about affording a trip to the movies or buying a music video there living lavish lives and they just want it to stay that way understandable but the poor got a hand out and they lost billions thats too bad because they did,nt steal it though. If you make a movie and some guy buys it off the shelf thats a copy and that means you still own it. If you dont get money from that copy on the internet you lost nothing because you had nothing , you can’t lose something you nevr had.And nasty names like pirite and calling people out because they cant afford something like poor people, and bootlegs is just crule to say the least. If you want to protect your danm movie dont make it public. If you dont want the world to see it don’t show it to the world.Truth is they make plenty of money and there cring only makes them more thats why they do it.
This article confirms what I’ve been saying for years. There are three groups of pirates. Group A: The people who download stuff in order to test out the thing, to see if it is actually worth buying to begin with. If it is, then they buy it, if it isn’t, then they delete it. Is this a lost sale? No. No it is not. Group B: The people whom cannot afford to buy the products to begin with. Again, is this a lost sale? No. And considering it a lost sale, would be like Ferrari considering every single person whom is a passenger in one of their exceedingly expensive cars, to be a lost sale. If you go by this concept, then the automobile industry is losing possibly trillions of dollars a year. And then there is C: the people who bootleg the stuff and sell them. this is the group that really are the actual lost sales. The entertainment industry however, bundles it all together, to make their end result look ridiculously inflated. Considering their figures claim that they lost more jobs than they even have ever had available…it made me lol.
Interesting concept. When I copied that news article, did I “steal” anything from the writer and publisher? Even the price they would have gotten for someone to read it? No, obviously not, since (1) they made the piece available for free through the internet and (2) their value is received through “page views” counted by advertisers. As I had to “view” their page to read and copy this article, they got what they asked for from me, and since I conspicuously indicate the source of the article when redistributing it to my small group of correspondents, that generates other clicks and views from additional readers visiting their site to (a) verify the source and (b) seeing other items of interest on their site. The same holds true for most music and video labels. Independents, tough . . . but they, at least, appear to be quite successful at selling online. Maybe it’s the quality of the content that makes the difference. It would seem, then, that the copying of an internet item has not only been “paid for” but also generates additional “income” by virtue of the copying and redistribution.
If the item is available for purchase, you could argue that the artist has lost the price of the sale. But, what about items that are no longer offered for sale, or were never on the market?
You can’t steal something that isn’t physical in nature e.g. the bike scenario. Get over it. People will download stuff and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it. Downloading music, movies, games is awesome and I love getting everything I can’t afford for free! Maybe if I wasn’t spending all my money on repaying my college loans I could afford to go out and buy all this great stuff. Capitalistic pigs.
The argument is flawed. Intellectual property cannot simply be compared similarly like physical goods.
Take for example: The basic terms of ownership for song X is $1 per person.. If person A bought it at $1, but shared it with person B, he effectively ‘stole’ a second copy of the song and made it available to person B for free. Or, you can say, he stole $1 from the seller, since the seller is deprived of $1 sales because of what person A did. Fair enough?
Professor Green does NOT offer digital copies of his books on Amazon…..Hmmm? I urge Rutgers Law students to purchase one ‘collective’ copy of any required reading for Professor Green’s lectures (presumably books he’s written) and distribute ‘free,’ scanned copies for use – this would be quite an acid test for the sincerity of his argument.
That’s funny you mention it since libraries offer copying services and you can print pages for the cost of toner and paper… I don’t think libraries pay royalties to the publisher so maybe all college, high school, and elementary schools should do away with research and essays since it should cost money for the right to use someones intellectual property. If not than research is void of copyright since each student would be required to purchase the books(encyclopedia’s too) When you buy software from an encyclopedia company do they state that the info you are using will be distributed to a classroom of about 30? Should multiple seats be purchased as to who the info goes to? What is the difference between research and entertainment… if you are learning the words for the song isnt that research.
Also, the problem with calling it “stealing” is in the title of what people are doing. “File-sharing”. If I share my soda with someone, am I breaking a law?
Only if it is a name brand soda. If is is Western Family or something like that, no one cares.
damn…
/me walks over to his wife and grabs his soda!
“We’re not going to jail over you being thirsty!”