[codabrink]

Why are people suddenly embracing this argument that piracy isn't theft?

People work to create music just like people work to mine the earth to produce coal. Should one not get paid just because what they're producing can't be physically held?

[drewblaisdell]

Because it isn't theft. There is no argument-- it simply isn't. When a user downloads a file, that file then exists in one more place. It is copied.

That may be immoral, but it is not theft.

[rimantas]

There are even more angles to it. Sometimes piracy works as advertisement, and sometimes it works like shareware: pirate it, like it, pay for it.

[dino5050]

You know, there used to be a SHAME associated with shoplifting. One had to have the friggin balls, and take considerable risk to go through such an endeavor. No, BUT NOW, as long as we can hide behind our frikken computers, with absolutely no risk, we start grabbing whatever we want now, don't we? And no, that's not theft, oh no no no. I now have a fond new found respect for shoplifters. At least they have true grit, and don't delude themselves by calling it anything other than stealing.

[stephen_g]

We're talking about a simple legal definition here - copyright infringement is using some kind of intellectual property without the proper license to do so, while theft is depriving somebody of their property.

This isn't an argument about what's morally right - all that is being argued is that no legal system in the world classes copyright infringement as stealing.

[codabrink]

Well then I guess the question boils down to 'Do we support morality or do we support loopholes?'

[galadriel]

If someone sincerely believes that piracy is theft, then they should simply demand that piracy be equated to theft at all level. This would then imply that piracy would be dealt as any other theft is dealt.

This would involve the owner making a police report about this theft, and state machinery getting search warrant to find the "stolen" article. Once the stolen article is found, it will be "replaced" back to the owner.

This would then be also beneficial to defendant, because now he would have the right to lawyer, and if he is unable to get one, the state will provide one. He would also have presumption of innocence, and if found guilty, his punishment would be jail time. If there is fine, it would have to be proportional to the "theft", and not some $250,000 for immeasurable damage.

Very likely, three strike laws and such would also apply, which ensures that anyone committing "theft" repeatedly will most probably see long sentences.

Why have different laws on book, if piracy is theft and can be dealt as such? And what about all the expiration of ownership? My great-grandfather's ring is still with me, and its ownership did not expire 70 years after his death. Perhaps all literature should still be owned by the estate of the dead, after all, it is property that is being stolen in plain sight everyday.

[drewblaisdell]

Why is it a loophole? At no point does using correct verbiage affect the argument at all. The same action is still occurring. The debate should not be "is copyright infringement stealing?", the debate should be "is copyright infringement wrong?"

[gldalmaso]

And there are people using the term "steal" to carry that moral weigth into the true debate of "is copyright infringement wrong?".

[tjogin]

So what? That doesn't make it theft, any more than it makes it murder or rape.