> For the most part, the first three are laws lacking a victim. > > You are moving the goalposts. You complained that copyright laws were > unique in encouraging otherwise law abiding people to ignore them. > They aren't. >
I actually said: " Only copyright law seems to be evil enough to inspire anarchy among otherwise law-respecting groups of people. " Probably better to say nihilism, not anarchy. and on to Rishab's: "It is not a question of degree, but a question of quality altogether. theft does not occur when you can't deprive someone of something. i can't deprive you of your song when i copy it. i can deprive you of your revenue from that song, yes. but that not theft of the song, but of the revenue. you don't have any guarantee to that revenue from your chosen business model." So by that logic, since i'm not in fact depriving you of your credit card when I steal it, you won't mind posting the numbers on Silk? What's so tiresome about the whole "theft must = physical property" line of thought, is that it assumes only one definition. So lets go to the dictionary. Dictionary.com qualifies theft as: 1.*the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. * 2.an instance of this. 3. Archaic. something stolen. Really, only the first definition is helpful. Although the clause lists additional explanation of the definition (e.g., "the wrongful taking and carrying away...") you'll note that "the act of stealing" is separate. So we turn to that definition: *steal* 1.to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2.*to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. * 3.to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend. 4.to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by *away, from, in, into,* etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child. 5.Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch. ... (I omitted the other definitional uses of the term for the sake of brevity) If theft is to steal, and stealing can be defined both as a (physical) taking, and an *appropriation of ideas*, *words, credit*, etc., *without right or acknowledgment*, then it seems pretty clear to me that to infringe, or appropriate another's ideas without right or permission, is in fact, a theft. The whole business model malarkey is just a clever dodge. In my humble opinion, Big Record's business model *is *crap. But guess what? Copyright law isn't designed to protect business models. It's designed to protect creative works. And it works beautifully in that regard, and protects all works, big or small, and regardless of the relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the business model they may or may not be attached to. Instead of everyone hewing about how we'd all be better off if we just eviscerated copyright, why not spend the better part of one's energies tearing down the crap business models that we don't like? Not only are they _not_ protected under the existing regime (as has been proven by the innumerable artists who are releasing their works free, or through Itunes), but it's by far, the easier fix. Our goal should be to move towards amending the system, changing the marketplace (e.g. Itunes) and operating in the negative spaces not policed or controlled by the law (e.g., Creative Commons). You want a regime change? Make copyright less important by educating people on the other alternatives, instead of scaring them into clinging more closely to what they feel is their only option. Not only is it more effective, but its already starting to happen. "perhaps you operate the only taxi in town. if i start a bus service, i'm depriving you of your revenue from your taxi. but you still have your taxi. so i'm not stealing." One's competition between differing and competing services, whereas the other (infringement) is competition between providing the original created work (that involved the author's cost, time, energy, 'sweat', etc.) and a duplicate of that work that exists with an effective marginal cost of zero. So, no, it's not the same. Carey
