[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny...

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 03:26:52PM +1000, Stilgherrian wrote:
> In another email this afternoon, Craig Sanders supposes that the opportunity
> is still there, because having "trialled" the music on the CD he obtained
> via Bill, Fred can still buy the CD from Joe. However in the real world this
> falls apart -- 

actually, in the real world it doesn't.  most people do buy the stuff they
like, even if they already have a copy or have the ability to get a copy.

i know i do. e.g. i downloaded the entire Serenity TV series on the net
over a year before it was available on DVD (or on TV) here.  I bought
the DVD box set as soon as it came out, even though i already had a
downloaded copy of it. if it was crap or if i didn't like it, i wouldn't
have bought it....but in that case, i would have only downloaded the
first episode or two and not bothered with the rest.

another example: at one time, i only had half of the CDs released by
Dead Can Dance and Lisa Gerrard, and was unable to find the remainder in
any music shop. i downloaded them off the net as and when i found them.
later, i found the missing CDs one by one in various places and bought
them. i now have a complete collection of their/her stuff. admittedly,
i would have bought anything by DCD or LG even without downloading or
listening to them first, but the downloads didn't in any way prevent me
buying the CDs....they were a second-rate substitute to tide me over
until i could get the real thing.

i am far from alone in this practice.  it is very common behaviour.

(i can't think of many more examples because i don't actually download
much - my tastes are fairly specific, and i find most popular culture
stuff to be repulsive garbage. which gives me extra incentive to
financially support and encourage the rare stuff that i DO like)


> because in some / many / most / nearly all cases Fred (unless he's a
> shareware geek, hardly a representative sample of humanity) will think
> "I have the music, why do I need to pay money *now*?"

because most people have a sense of fairness.  or failing that, enlightened
self-interest - they want Joe to keep producing more of the music that they
like, so want to financially encourage him to do so.

also, the quality of the real CD or real DVD is much better than the
over-compressed crap you can download.

and sometimes they just want to possess the packaging and other material
(e.g. Infocom games were great for this - they knew people copied their
software, so they put neat gimmicks and novelties in the box to make the
game-playing geeks want to actually buy the game rather than just copy
it)

numerous studies have confirmed this.



also, unlike free-loaders in the real world, though, digital
free-loaders don't actually impose any costs on anyone - not on the
author, and not on other, paying users of the material. the effect of
their infringement is *exactly* the same as if they hadn't infringed,
indeed exactly the same as if they didn't exist at all.

at least, as far as negative effects go. infringers often share stuff
with their friends, and thus act as advertisers. some of those friends
will like the CD enough to buy it. many wont. again, they don't matter,
because their negative effect is exactly the same as if they hadn't
infringed.




regardless, the point is that it is "copyright infringement".  not "theft",
not "piracy".

you might be able to make a reasonable argument that it would be
somewhat similar to theft *IFF* the act of copying (or subsequent
deliberate action) destroyed the original. then that would deprive the
original's owner of something.



> What is the name of the "crime" ("sin"? "naughtiness"?) of not paying for
> shareware that you continue to use?

it's not a crime. at most, it's a civil matter, a violation of the terms
of the license.

(most shareware is junk, anyway...and isn't worth using, let alone buying)

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>