Hortlund: Well, actually what I think is happening here is that you (and others) fail to understand the difference between theft and copyright violation. I am ready to concede that you are most likely right and I used improper legal term.
At the same time when we speak not in legal but in layman vernacular or in historical terms, "theft" is what we call the "copyright violation".
The expression "you stole my idea" or "you stole my trade secret" was used way before the word "copyright" was "coined".
Anyway, as long as the offender pays the fine and rots in jail for breaking the law, does it make practical difference what we call it here?
Sure, but just like rape and theft are also both illegal pursuits, there is an enormous difference between the two. I am not sure I get your analogy.
Are you saying that since by raping a woman one does not actually take any material posession from her - unlike theft of property and just like "copyright violation" - and since the women demand way too much money/effort for sex which does not cost them practically anything, the rapists should be allowed legal slack compared to the thiefs? Especially if no violence is involved (date rape drugs) and/or no bodily harm caused?
Did I get you right?
texace: The RIAA's alleged argument is that file sharing programs are stealing from the artists. Not programs. People. Only people or corporations are legal entities capable of acting.
As for from whom the income is stolen, they are technically correct. It is stolen from the artists as well as from the other people to whom the profits are due - shareholders, etc.
Who's really stealing? Legally the ones illicitely copying teh information. Paying someone too little (in the accuser's opinion) is sometimes called "stealing" but only in metaphorical, not legal sense.
Some bands that don't sign contracts with the RIAA actually PRAISE file sharing because it gets their music out there. That has nothing to do with the issue. They may be praising a great communication technology that facilitates information exchange. That is quite different from praising use of that technology to commit theft.
When I praise the technical/tactical virtues of a firearm, that is not the same as condining the use of that same firearm for illegal activities.
Now, if I have a collection of my own music, that I myself recorded with a group of jazz friends, and that gets on KaZaa, am I going to be sued? My internet provider has already told me the RIAA is looking for me, but I don't have a single copyrighted file on my machine, only my own music. They are looking for
their stolen property. If you do not have any, you should not be concerned.
Even if you
hypothetically had stolen files that are not music(software, images, secret plans, chemical formulas, etc.) or not
their music, they would still not have a case against you.
Just like if a guy steals a watch he may be caught and jailed when the watch seller raises the alarm. That does not mean that you are in any danger wearing exactly the same watch if you've obtained it legally.
miko
