Essay: To Catch a Thief
What is it about the digital realm that spawns festering thievery? What turns the common man into a thief without conscience? I explore the darkening days of digital distribution in my essay, To Catch a Thief, which can be found in the Essays portion of this site.
September 26th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I just read the essay. I agree that when it is easier to do the illegal thing, people will do the illegal thing. You can download and install a crack or download just the one song you want for your iPod much easier as opposed to buying a product at the store in many cases.
The only thing I object to is the use of the word “theft” to describe what is happening. When someone downloads a piece of music, they didn’t all of a sudden steal the rights to the music. It isn’t like someone stole Weird Al’s copyright when he/she downloaded “Yoda”.
You even make the point that you don’t own the works in question. You simply have a license to use them. You obviously know that there is a difference between theft and copyright infringement.
You’re right that it is illegal, but I think the reason that people can so easily download music, movies, and games is because doing so is NOT like taking someone’s newspaper or pushing someone into traffic. It is more like making a photocopy of someone’s picture. It is almost like making a mix tape in some cases, something that people believe they can do legally.
I think the popularity of the Internet took everyone by surprise, and the ease of making exact digital copies of copyrighted works was another surprise. “Theft” is a nice word for copyright holders to throw out because it conjures up images of starving children being deprived of something. “Thieves” can feel guilty and might be dissuaded. “Copyright infringement” on the other hand can’t make that same image. Most people don’t even think about copyright in their day to day lives, so it isn’t likely that they can feel guilty about being a copyright infringer.
After all, copyright infringement isn’t theft. How can it hurt?
THAT is the question that I wish most copyright holders would actually address. Acknowledge that copyright infringement isn’t theft, but also inform people that it is illegal and that it does have an impact.
September 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
When the copyright infringement deprives an individual or individuals of something tangible it becomes, in my opinion, theft. When a person intentionally circumvents copy protection measures in order to illegally obtain a copy of copyrighted works, they are depriving the copyright holder of the license fee (usually money). There is little difference between physically stealing a $20 bill from the copyright holder and depriving them of that money in the first place. In both cases, the copyright holder is entitled to the money, and in both cases the offender prevents them from having access to it.
September 26th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
>There is little difference between physically stealing a $20 bill from
>the copyright holder and depriving them of that money in the first
>place.
Yes there is because the copyright holder in all likelyhood would never have got the $20 anyway. Peer to peer exchanges open up a world of music that you just never would have had the opportunity or the money to buy on shiny plastic things from the local shop.
And because you can now access much more music, you can own music that you only like enough to listen to a couple of times a year. On the other hand, if you pay for your music, you would only ever buy music that you really really like. Even if you a multi-millionaire, you will not buy music that you really really like, because it is really too much effort in the plastic disc world to listen to these more obscure music.
So the digital download world is really more like a new wave radio station. You listen to songs for free, but you don’t listen to individual items as much.
September 27th, 2005 at 2:33 am
And another thing, if I have bought my favourite artists on vinyl, havn’t they been enough compensated for my listening without buying mp3s? If I’m buying the right to listen, then I’ve done it on vinyl. If I’m buying the media, then no thanks I don’t need the media.
September 27th, 2005 at 3:31 am
The economic implications are beyond the scope of the essay. However, you’re absolutely correct that once you’ve licensed the right to listen, you’re free to download the music on-line; that is considered “fair use.” Distribution, on the other hand, is not legal, so half the parties involved in a peer-to-peer file sharing session are committing copyright infringement. (More if the client and protocol support fragmented downloading.)
September 27th, 2005 at 11:32 am
*************
However, you’re absolutely correct that once you’ve licensed the right to listen, you’re free to download the music on-line; that is considered “fair use.”
*************
Of course, the media companies will likely argue that “fair use” shouldn’t be assumed. I agree that if I already own (er, have a license to) the video game, downloading the ROM to play it on my computer shouldn’t be illegal. Similarly with music. It is still considered copyright infringement. Fair use just makes specific exceptions. It legalizes specific instances of copyright infringement. But it isn’t always clear what falls under fair use.
In any case, as Mr. X says, people can download thousands of dollars worth of media. It doesn’t mean that they would have paid thousands of dollars for the media if illegally downloading them wasn’t an option.
Illegal downloading doesn’t actually deprive the copyright owner of an actual product to sell. It doesn’t prevent others from paying for it. And I presume that most illegal downloaders wouldn’t have the money to pay for all of it anyway. Clearly music is getting downloaded that would otherwise NOT have been paid for in the first place, right? So isn’t it a stretch to assume that someone making an illegal download is depriving someone of profit?
Obviously there are some people who would otherwise pay for it, but it isn’t everyone. And you even mention that fair use comes into play for people who already paid for the media. But when you take into account people who end up buying it after trying it out, either for a music album or a game that doesn’t have an official demo, now all of a sudden the copyright owner is actually GAINING from illegal downloads. How do you rectify those instances since by the definition of theft the owner is losing?
Copyright infringement is illegal. It has real impact, financially or otherwise, on the copyright holders. But it isn’t theft or equivalent to theft.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
You’re right. The use of the word “theft” in the essay is presumptuous. That doesn’t stand to reason that copyright infringement is never theft, but it certainly doesn’t immediately translate to theft.
September 28th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
It’s a bit of a deviation from the point of the essay, but I think it’s worthwhile to note that the courts have stated that copyright infringement is *not* theft. One could easily dismiss this as legal trivia, I suppose, but it does have ramifications in today’s climate.
The issue ended up in the Supreme Court from this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States
A quote from an article on it:
While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling’s conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: “(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud… The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.”
September 28th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Matthew, thank you for clarifying the issue with some facts. I’ll keep that in mind for any future essays or discussion.