Likewise, slander is NOT assault, or it would carry the same penalties as assault.
You're right, slander is not assault, but your following statement does not necessarily follow. For instance, until recently it could be said that "cyber-stalking is not stalking, or it would carry the same penalties"
I dunno about where you live, but here in Texas, cyberstalking carries the same penalties as stalking. They're the same crime. [/quote]
Only since 2001 when Texas passed the Stalking by Electronic Communications Act. Before that, and similar laws, were passed, there were many forms of electronic stalking that weren't considered crimes, were very difficult to prosecute, or weren't' treated with the same severity as other forms of stalking. The laws has to be updated to reflect new technology, because the crimes
did not carry the same penalty, despite being very similar.
Take another example, upskirt photos. Before laws were passed in many states making it, and similar practices, illegal, it wasn't a crime at all. Photos taken in public spaces were all treated the same, regardless of the angle. Taking a picture up a woman's skirt wasn't treated the same way as getting a photo of her panties when she was in a changing room. However, that changed when laws were updated to reflect that, even in a public space, a woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to what she attempts to cover with a skirt or dress.
And thusly, the two crimes carry different penalties.
Does that mean you're finally admitting that copyright infringement is a crime? Because your denial that it is stealing seems to be an attempt to rationalize it as being acceptable behavior not worthy of being illegal.
My point is that piracy is stealing because it is taking what one does not have the right to. It doesn't matter if it doesn't deserve the same punishment. It doesn't even matter how much or how little harm was done. It is stealing by the definition of the word.
Now lets say I didn't have a car. I saw my neighbor's car, and decided to replicate it. Is that a crime? According to you, it is, because I've taken money from Chevrolet.
No, it's a crime according to me because you're taking the design worked on for hundreds, probably thousands of man-hours by Chevrolet employees, and using it without the right to, legally or ethically.
The only thing keeping the car industry in business is that making cars is hard, and costs money..so you're willing to pay large sums of money to have someone do it for you.
What about designing cars? Crash testing them? Those things take money as well. If it were perfectly acceptable to stick with the designs we have now and never make any innovations, then it wouldn't cost any money to produce cars were manufacturing taken out of the equation. However, if we want to improve on what we have, make something new and better, then it takes time and effort that can't be replicated by a magical duplicating machine. The question is, how will we as a society value that creative work. Will we declare it worthless and afford it no protection? Or will we give it the value it deserves, and provide legal protection for the creator?
The world would have to find another way to create the concept of wealth, if it could.
You mean by putting value in services rather than goods? Or by protecting the rights that artists, designers, engineers and inventors have had over their creative works, as patents, trademarks, copyright and more have afforded for centuries? You don't seem to know much about economics, or at least not be connecting the dots very well. I'm a total amateur and I'm seeing things from angles you're either missing or intentionally omitting.
Even if material goods were all cheap-as-free in any configuration, the design of those goods would still be of great value. It is up to us as society to decide if we value the works of artists, musicians, engineers, inventors and other creators enough to give them the control that they deserve.
The only thing holding back piracy now is law and ideology. The physical barriers have all been removed.
Well, it's a non-trvial thing to transmit multi-gigabyte movies and games, but we'll assume the infastrcutre and software necessary to do so is incidental to the issue. That said, law and ideology are all that are holding back any number of things. They're what makes the patent system work, and have been making it work since long before it was possible to copy someone else's work for gain. It's what makes the Berne convention work. Law and ideology have been protecting the work of artists for far longer than digital copying has been an issue. Just because it's cheaper than ever to make copies does not mean it's never been possible to see gain by copying someone else's work before.
Patent law has been protecting even 5 cent doodads for hundreds of years. The change in the issue is that now it's becoming as easy for individuals to infringe on copyright, and soon patents, with no investment, and no need to sell the result in order to see profit. But make no mistake, an individual who is infringing on a copyright or patent is profiting from their infringement, even if it's not a monetary profit. The future will see the best course of action, and what laws will be made to reflect this ease of individual copyright/patent violation, but it's a bigger issue than simply "the cat is out of the bag". Copyright and patent law have long stood the purpose of putting the cat back in the bag, as much as possible.
Now, you can say that piracy=theft, because it causes a "loss"..
No, I'll repeat myself again. Piracy is stealing because it is taking without permission or right. Period. Loss dosn't matter. Appropriate punishment doesn't matter. Piracy is stealing because it fits the definition of the word stealing.
Let's take a look at your magical car duplicator. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that it only duplicates consumer cars. Not farm equipment, not buses, not planes.
First let's consider if the duplicator itself is expensive, but the duplicates are cheap-as-free. Say a major corporation duplicates cars from another company and sells them. Clearly illegal and likely worthy of criminal prosecution. Does that change if they de-brand the cars? Certainly not, just because they're not making counterfeit cars does not mean they're not committing other crimes.
Okay, what if the business that copies the de-branded cars doesn't sell them, but gives them as employee bonus. Nope, still patent infringement.
Next, what if the duplicator is cheap, but requires great skill to use? Can a duplicator savant make copies, or de-branded copies himself and sell them? No, still illegal patent infringement. Even if he makes the copies for personal use, it is still patent infringment, and he can be prosecuted for doing so.
So, why does it suddenly become acceptable to do so if the technology is cheap enough for everyone to do it? Why should we ignore the protections of patent law simply because violation is easy?
The business model of "I have something that is scarce, so you must pay me if you want it" no longer works in today's world in digital media--because these things are no longer scarce!
Yes, those things are still scarce. You may be able to make unlimited copies of music for cheap-as-free, but the creation of the original work is still a rare thing. Be it an artist or an engineer, the creative works made by them are scarce, no matter how easily they can be copied. That is the important thing to remember. Just because something can be copied cheaply does not mean we have to treat it as worthless.
There are plenty of companies that make money giving their software away. They have found other ways to generate revenue from their work. Look at DDO for instance. They have doubled their profits since going 'free' than they were making previously. It costs me nothing to download their game, and costs me nothing to play. But somehow, DDO is now thriving on that model.
Would they still be making money if other people could run servers freely? What if whatever advertising they use could be bypassed? What if the paid extras could be distributed for free? Just because you can play it for free doesn't mean that unlimited copying of their intellectual property would be a good thing for DDO.
---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------
Exactly. I think i've made the point clearly enough. However, it's to his benefit and bolsters his point if he can make us agree on the point that "Piracy=Theft", when clearly it isn't.
Piracy is stealing.
Stealing: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
2.to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
To take without right is stealing. Those who pirate are taking what they do not have the right to have.
