If he had a stack of CDs on a table, selling them on the street and someone stole 70% of them and set up a table 20 feet away, handing them out for free. Would we bother with the question of whether those that took the free cd would have purchased it or would we condemn the practice? I think the question is one of physicality. For some reason, something has to be able to be held in your hand or it doesn't count. It doesn't matter that it's the same group of songs, the same effort put forth to produce it. Somehow the digital version is okay to steal, in fact we are somehow debating whether it is even theft. It's irrational.
Yes, the question is completely one of physicality. Because physicality places a limit, and therefore a finitude, on supply. When you make a copy of something, you don't decrease the supply of the thing that the original vendor has; you've just created one of your own without taking one from the original vendor at all, regardless of whether you'd paid for it (buying) or not (stealing). Correct. But then again effort doesn't always correspond to marketability in the first place. People may just not listen to your music at all if you can't distribute it widely enough to the right people. A lot of the anti-anti-pirates would state the inverse, that's it's in fact irrational to equivocate piracy with physical theft. I think the question is one of physicality. For some reason, something has to be able to be held in your hand or it doesn't count.
It doesn't matter that it's the same group of songs, the same effort put forth to produce it.
Somehow the digital version is okay to steal, in fact we are somehow debating whether it is even theft. It's irrational.
The vendor doesn't want to have inventory. The vendor wants compensation.When you make a copy of something, you don't decrease the supply of the thing that the original vendor has
Clearly you increase the supply of the thing. An increase in supply reduces demand.
One of the better arguments I've heard for intellectual property. But here's the issue I see: reducing demand isn't illegal or immoral. It's perfectly legal for me to tell a friend "Don't buy that CD, it's trash." So, presuming copying is otherwise acceptable, why is it ok (legally/morally) for me to reduce demand by saying "don't buy that CD" but not ok for me to reduce demand by copying?Clearly you increase the supply of the thing. An increase in supply reduces demand.
This conversation was originally about whether the word "stealing" applies when the work is acquired by unauthorized duplication. I have come to think that piracy is different in enough particulars that using the word "stealing" to describe it gives people too much leeway to confuse the moral issue with semantic arguments and cartoon jingles. Copying is not Theft. Putting Merchandise in Your Pockets and Walking Out of Buildings is not Theft either. If you hire a wedding photographer, and they provide you with digital proofs so you can select prints, and instead you copy the files and make your own prints, you are in the wrong. You have clearly violated an agreement in a way that harms the photographer. It doesn't matter that you have only copied "information" in the form of data files. Almost everything can be conveyed as information. Somewhere in between is downloading music. Most pirated music was created for commercial purposes. There is a contextual understanding that the producers create music for fans to enjoy in exchange for some kind of compensation. Failing to provide the compensation is a violation of that understanding. Identifying the parties subject to that understanding is murky. The fan auditing a new album before deciding whether to buy it is not the entrepreneur selling counterfeit CDs on the sidewalk. Radiohead is not Rachmaninov.reducing demand isn't illegal or immoral
Right, that's not the problem. The trespass is failing to pay someone who produced a work for sale.why is it ... not ok for me to reduce demand by copying?
In my view, it depends on the particulars. If a celebrity coins a clever Twitter hashtag that goes viral, I don't think they have grounds to complain about people copying their creation.
So you're saying it's the consumer's job to keep supply artificially low in order that demand can stay up? And in any case, increasing supply is not something you'd associate with theft. Clearly you increase the supply of the thing. An increase in supply reduces demand.
The purpose of your post, I understand, is to determine if the word "stealing" can be fairly applied to piracy. You've convinced me that "stealing" is not a good term for this behavior. But I still think it is in many cases unethical. To determine when it is wrong we would probably do well to take it on a case-by-case basis.So you're saying it's the consumer's job to keep supply artificially low in order that demand can stay up?
I mean to say that copying should not be construed as having no harmful effects, simply because the producer's inventory is not touched. A lost sale is a plausible effect.
That's fair. The discussion about the ethics of piracy is totally acceptable, but I just hate it when people try to spit moralizing platitudes about "stop trying to justify your stealing" in anybody's face who has an opinion to the contrary. The purpose of your post, I understand, is to determine if the word "stealing" can be fairly applied to piracy. You've convinced me that "stealing" is not a good term for this behavior. But I still think it is in many cases unethical.