[kgwxd]

Stealing is the wrong word for digital music. Copying. It's just copying. And, in most cases, it's at an immeasurable cost to anyone. To use the terms "pirating" and "stealing" not only make it seem much worse than it actually is, it waters down the mental image of legitimate use of those words, making the actual acts seem less serious. "Copycats" would be a fairer term.

[H1Supreme]

Stealing is the right word. You can spin it any way you like, but taking something that's for sale, without paying for it, is the definition of stealing.

To further my point: not every artist is a mega-millionaire. There are countless small bands/artists where every sale counts towards them actually earning a living off of music.

[leetcrew]

> Stealing is the right word. You can spin it any way you like, but taking something that's for sale, without paying for it, is the definition of stealing.

it's hardly as clear cut as you are making it. if I have an apple and you take it, I no longer have the apple. if I have five apples and you take one, I have four left. it's hard to imagine you taking something from me that I will still possess afterwards in the same quantity. I would argue that the sense in which most people use "take" does not include copying.

to further my point: the law in the US, a bastion of copyright enforcement, clearly recognizes the difference between theft (a criminal offense) and copyright infringement (a civil offense). you can't go to jail for piracy.

[H1Supreme]

I understand your point. But, I don't think that just because something like a digital album lacks the physical properties of an apple, it's not a product worth revenue.

Presumably infinite quantities of a something like an album shouldn't suggest that it's worthless. Resources have been invested into it's creation. Artists should be able to recoup some of their investment with album sales.

If it's okay to "copy" music, than the same argument can be made for every other digital product. Games, films, and essentially all software.

[leetcrew]

to be clear, my point is that it isn't "stealing". i'm not necessarily saying it isn't wrong.

when i was teenager / college student i never thought piracy was wrong, mainly because of the "well i wouldn't have paid for it anyway" argument. now that i'm a software dev, i have plenty of money for music and movies and i realize that my own livelihood depends on IP protection. i can't justify it so easily anymore.

[HeadsUpHigh]

What if I take something that's not for sale? Per your definition that's not stealing.

[ThinkingGuy]

Insofar as it involves "somebody using something in a manner not explicitly permitted by the owner, but in a way that also does not prevent the owner from also using it," I've always thought the unauthorized use of copyrighted material was closer to trespassing than to stealing. Like trespassing, the legal definition of piracy (in the context of intellectual property) covers a wide range of activities, from the benign to the outrageous.

[mruts]

How do you know the definition of stealing?

[JoeAltmaier]

Money is imaginary too - taking a piece of paper isn't really stealing? This whole pedantic argument has been used to rationalize stiffing artists for their work for decades, and its tiresome.

[kgwxd]

Copying a piece of paper isn't stealing.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, you might have to steal it to make the copy. Your analogy is useless for this argument. Money might be an abstract concept but bills and coins aren't imaginary. Try an analogy with digital currency then maybe there be something to talk about, but I'm guessing anything you can come up with will actually be talking about "hacking" or "fraud", not "stealing".

[eeZah7Ux]

"Stealing" implies that the previous owner loses ownership, both in common English and legally speaking.

Why bending the meaning of words?

[docker_up]

Your argument would have more power if music weren't freely available on the radio. And if someone else paid for the music and played it, I can listen to it for "free" as well.

Musicians are stiffed by the record labels, not by the fans. The fans are the ones that keep them rich, keep them popular, buy their shirts and go to their $200/seat concerts. At worst, their records are loss-leaders for an even more lucrative business.

[Tharkun]

> Your argument would have more power if music weren't freely available on the radio.

It used to be common practice for governments to tax owners of radios (and TV sets later on). So music certainly hasn't always been freely available on the radio.

That being said, if you're sending EM waves through my property, why the hell shouldn't I be allowed tp copy them?