Not really. A life is not property. It cannot be acquired or given away. Even if we were to just go along with it and categorize life as personal property, a murderer does not take the victim’s life into their possession in any way I can tell. Murder ends life rather than appropriating it, so murder would be destruction of property, not theft.
Even if we were to just go along with it and categorize life as personal property, a murderer does not take the victim’s life into their possession in any way I can tell.
That never stopped copyright holders from calling infringement "theft".
If the copyright holder is deprived of resources they otherwise would have received due to the infringement, it is indeed "theft". It wasn't until it could easily be done on a wide scale that such infringement was a real concern.
That's not how it's seen legally. Dowling explicitly made clear the distinction between theft and infringement. No taking with intent to deprive == No theft. Copyright is unique in that there's no "taking" when you copy something.
The laws can vary from area to area, but a number of them do refer to infringement as a form of theft. Any law that refers to the negative impact of the criminal act to the economy is almost certainly speaking of theft. It might not be literally spelled out as theft, but in most cases it is. Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act, that literally names it electronic theft even if there is no monetary gain.
EDIT: Which upon reading up on this I'm assuming you mean Dowling vs US from 1985. The Net Act I mentioned was passed in 1997. Plus Dowling is strange, it seems to suggest that copyright infringement isn't theft because the alleged thief didn't steal the actual copyright and didn't deprive the owner of the use of the copyright. The decision didn't seem to have anything to do with the physical materials that were copies, most of which weren't copyrighted to begin with.
The "taking" is not the copying, that's a truly sad defense. The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself. If they created it then they have the right to dictate terms in how you consume it. If you don't agree to the terms then the proper response is to not consume it, not to copy it outright and make some silly claim that they lost nothing because you made a digital copy so that they still have the original.
Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act
This means nothing, and is certainly not a defense to your (and the copyright lobby's) misuse of the word "theft". There is absolutely no requirement that a bill amending the USC be titled anything that has to do with what it actually regulates or contains. The Patriot act has little to do with patriotism...
The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself.
A good counterpoint to this:
* Inviting a friend or any random person to watch a movie with me: Perfectly legal.
* Inviting a friend etc. to watch my entire collection of movies with me: also perfectly legal.
* Ripping my own DVDs so I don't have to deal with physical media: Arguably legal and fair use.
* Giving that ripped copy to said friend: Copyright violation, and many would argue morally wrong.
* Downloading a copy of a movie I already purchased from a torrent site for whatever reason: Also a copyright violation, but few would argue that this is morally wrong somehow.
Replace "movie" for "song" or "game" and the same argument holds.
Where your logic breaks down is that the net effect to the copyright holder in every one of those scenarios is the same. Someone else enjoyed some product without extra compensation being required.
That's a stretch. The effect to the copyright holder is the same only if the frequency of the acts is the same. Giving a copy to someone is very easy, disconnects the time and place of playing completely. Those are easily enough to disincentivize the friend from buying the movie.
Which is nobody's business but the two friends, right? Sure, if all those other situations are a right and not a privilege. Socially, people feel they must be able to share their movies in their own home, and the movie industry begrudgingly permits this without charging. But when you start giving it away, the argument that its your business is clearly strained to the breaking point.
So are we talking about laws or morals here? My stance has always been that the legal argument carries zero weight for the average person, along the same lines as the slight speeding that anyone who owns a car has done. Yeah it's illegal, but who cares? You're not going to be in trouble unless you make a business out of it.
Morally? Then, admittedly, it's murkier. There's a point to be made there though that the "damage" the industry always crows about is less of a real thing (supposed damages higher than the country's GDP, suing networked printers, that kind of thing.. these are not the actions of rational actors with facts on their side) and more of an excuse to be made for exerting greater control over culture. That's getting a bit meta for this thread, though.
Are we at the moral event horizon? I can only speak for myself: We blew past it sometime around the Sony Rootkit scandal. Respect is earned, not given freely - I certainly don't lose any sleep over that blockbuster movie sitting on my NAS or that EA game I download to ensure it's not garbage before shelling out $80.
For you and anyone else? Can't speak there. I just wish everyone would stop conflating legal and moral.
I would say that you are mistaking moral and legal issues. It's your moral right to commit illegal acts because of the Sony rootkit fiasco or other similar nefarious acts? Really? I guess we can all go rob banks now because of the financial industry misbehavior over the last few years? We can steal cars to determine if we like them before dropping twenty or thirty grand?
Is that response in the negative or the positive? I always get confused when people toss out the fallacy card to answer simple questions. It's not like I claimed no true Scotsman would commit copyright infringement, they are simple questions awaiting a yes or no response.
You are correct about naming of laws, but it doesn't necessarily make my point invalid.
I would believe that inviting a friend over to watch a movie is legal is because the copyright holders allow it under the license you agreed to as part of the transaction. They would most likely be within their current rights to restrict such a thing but I seriously doubt a court would agree with it.
In most cases ripping a DVD is most likely illegal in the United States as it is illegal in most cases to bypass any security measure to prevent copying. This has been covered under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but I am not familiar with any recent adjustments they have made to that law.
Downloading a copy of a movie under a torrent is illegal not because of the download, but the uploads of you seeding the file. I believe this has been established in the courts.
With all your examples, regardless of the material involved, can be perceived as theft under copyright protections if the copyright holder wishes to pursue it as such. Just because they allow some behaviors that may be seen as a detriment to them in some way, most likely it is not, doesn't mean that suddenly all behaviors are moral and legal.
The defenses I see of the idea that copyright infringement is ok and not really a crime is dependent over complicating the matter. It also requires stretching the definitions of commonly used words which has clear meanings throughout various cultures. I admittedly take a simplistic view of the matter and many may not agree, which I'm fine with.
I create a song. You wish to listen to the song. I want a dollar from you for this transaction to happen. You give me a dollar and you get a copy of the song. I have gained a dollar and you have gained the right to listen to the song. The opposite of that is you do not pay the dollar and copy the song illegally. I have been deprived of the dollar I am due and you have gained the ability to listen to the song. It could also be argued you have also gained the dollar that you were supposed to give to me in the transaction. That is the simple matter of why I consider it theft.
If the copyright holder was giving out the material without financial gain but with specific restrictions and one violated the restrictions, then I would say that is copyright violation that is not theft. But if the copyright holder expects monetary compensation as part of the agreement to let you consume the material and does not get it? That is theft.
Are you sure you've read the thread, or did you just jumped at a perceived criticism of copyright holders?
My point was that if copyright infringement can be considered "theft", then surely so can murder. I'm pretty sure a murdered person is also deprived of resources. Like "years of life".
I read the thread and it is not a perceived criticism. It is a real criticism and is a valid point. Some people may disagree with the criticism but that doesn't automatically make it invalid.
Actually in many ways a murder can be considered theft, due to the lost resources that person may have generated within a normal life span that is then deprived from a family member and/or dependent. Usually such matters are handled in civil court. They are called wrongful death suits. Keep in mind, one does not need to be convicted of murder to be held monetarily liable for a person's death. But this type of law varies from area to area so it could be quite different to you than it could be for me.
An easy example of this that has plenty of things to read about are the OJ Simpson cases. Other examples are lawsuits brought against law enforcement agencies for unjustified shootings.
I fear we've been talking past each other, but it doesn't matter.
The problem with that view is that your defining theft essentially as any wrongful setback of interests, which means that every non-victimless crime (and even legal but immoral acts) is "theft".
But by stretching the word so far, it essentially loses all meaning. The guy who cut in line is a thief because he stole your time; the woman who insulted you in public stole some of your self-esteem.
And more: with copyright infringement being considered theft we're not even talking about interests being set back, but suppositions that they have been set back (since it's impossible to if it actually had any effect).
To me, theft means one thing: wrongful transfer of something from the victim to someone else. Any other definition is too broad to be usable.
Life of other sentient beings, like dogs or apes, still considered a property. Wrongly so of course.
>It cannot be acquired or given away.
only for about next 20 or so years until upload and cloned bodies become accessible. The killer (or his insurance) will have to cover repairs or replacement cost in case of "total", and be charged with intentional property destruction if it was intentional.
