It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft.
> And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it.
Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument.
(The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly at you, but in the courts, I would have "assaulted" you. I claim the same holds for theft/stealing in an IP situation.
> Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings.
But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important.
However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.
the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life.
By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
By that argument, ownership of possessions is not a right, but a privilege provided by the government, and if a tough guy comes and takes your laptop away from you - tough shit for you.
I'm not talking about a god damned laptop, I'm talking about digital data. And yes, if someone manages to copy a 4MB mp3 file that you sold to them or crack an executable file you put on their hard drive, then it is tough shit for you.
The government should keep it's greedy little nose out of affairs like this, and make piracy legal. Then maybe people will stop dedicating their careers to worthless games like Angry Birds and actually do something with real impact.
Thankfully, the tech will eventually get so good that the government literally can't do anything about it, so all we have to do is wait.
You're saying that intellectual property only exists because of government protection. I'm pointing out that this is true for other forms of property too.
Saying 'I'm not talking about a god damned laptop' doesn't change this.
I'm not talking about a god damned laptop. I'm not talking about morality or "what I think the government should be doing". I'm talking about the eventual certainty that intellectual property "rights" will be unenforceable in the (possibly near) future based on current trends. Piracy is only going up. Thus, the privilege provided by the government I initially referenced will be taken away by superior technology.
If a government was smart they would embrace this early on and learn to adapt before other countries catch on. And I guess we also get the benefit of a better and more prosperous life earlier, but that's just my opinion. Let's not get into that.
You're ignoring the fact that other forms of property are also privileges provided by the government.
I'm not at all convinced that piracy will win out given the increasing intrusiveness of governments and ISPs into network traffic. The net is built by corporations who will filter if the government tells them to even if they are not doing so for their own commercial reasons (e.g. AT&T u-verse who block torrents)
The internet itself is privilege provided by the government, as is the legal basis for the corporations that maintain it.
The internet is not a thing. It's a set of relationships between machines, themselves owned by people. These relationships and the ownership of the machines are privileges granted by the government.
Property rights are a privilege. Intellectual property rights are a privilege. The internet is slowly getting rid of intellectual property rights via piracy and free software. That's my argument, and what you said does not "defeat" it, or whatever.
No. Possessions are a scarce resource that can be defended by the owner. Ideas are not scarce. The only way to "defend" an idea from improper uses in a society is with a coercive entity.
No - the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life. Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.
Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
> the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life
I agree. Defense takes on many forms. In the more forward thinking societies, it's usually done with some sort of arbitration.
> Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.
OK? So?
> Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
Your straw man is behind the times. Somalia has had a central government for quite some time.
> However, I see you make no attempt to actually defend your argument other than calling me a troll.
You made no attempt at an argument other than a borderline ad hominem when you asked, "Do you live in Somalia?" It's a blatant straw man, plain and simple. (Precisely because I never claimed that no government is always better than any government.)
> How does 'arbitration' stop armed thieves taking your possessions
Mostly the same way courts do it today. I defer to David Friedman and his work on polycentric law.
> and what societies are you calling 'forward thinking'?
Any society that prefers non-violent conflict resolution. It's pretty much the cornerstone property and ownership.
Courts do not stop thieves. That is done by police. You have not supported your assertion that owners can defend their own property in some way that is different from how intellectual property is defended.
Polycentric law is an academic construct. If you are advocating a new political system, why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one.
> Courts do not stop thieves. That is done by police.
They do? Granted, I'm sure it happens some times, but it's rare to see a police officer actually thwart an active robbery. Usually police track down the thief after-the-fact and courts take care of the rest. Also, I don't see a meaningful distinction between courts and police (for the purposes of this conversation). They all fit under the umbrella of arbitration.
> You have not supported your assertion that owners can defend their own property in some way that is different from how intellectual property is defended.
If you try to take a piece of my property, I can physically attempt to defend it. It's the nature of reality because it's a scarce good. If you take it from me, then you've deprived me of it.
Now say I come up with this really cool idea, sell it, etc. How am I going to stop you or anyone else from doing the same (short of keeping something a secret)? I can't. Why? Because it's an idea. They aren't scarce. If you take an idea from me you have not deprived me of the idea itself, which is completely unlike real tangible property that is scarce. You might think that I've deprived you of something else, but then it is no longer like property law dealing in scarcity.
I said this in an earlier comment, I think.
This isn't even a controversial claim. Even the courts today in the US make this distinction. That's why it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft."
> If you are advocating a new political system
I'm arguing that intellectual property requires a coercive entity while property law dealing in scarcity does not. Since I consider coercion unjust, I therefore conclude that IP is unjust.
> Polycentric law is an academic construct.
Monopolistic law is coercive.
> why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one
You aren't intellectually honest. Calling men with guns who lock people in cages 'arbitration' is a way of pretending that you don't advocate coercion, when in fact you do.
> And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it.
Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument.
(The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)