Replies

For example, would it have been illegal for the man to get someone else to unlock his door for free?

If the other man "borrowed" the locksmiths tools and returned them after using them, yes. Without the band originally performing and recording the song, you'd have an empty sound file. You can't take the original performance, and that the recording contains the essential value of the performance, out of the equation. If you sneak into a concert, is the theft that you occuplied a seat that you didn't pay for or that you listened to music you didn't pay for? And would you even be sneaking into the concert hall if there were no performance only to enjoy the lights, the seat, and the air conditioning?

That removes potential value in the service performed, yes, but it doesn't remove the value of the actual service, and removing potential value isn't illegal, and isn't considered theft).

But it is benefitting from the labor and the essential value of that labor without reproducing that labor yourself. If a medical lab spends $5 billion dollars researching and testing a drug, do you think that the value of a pill lies only in the value of the specific chemicals in that pill? If you are handed a copy of the formula for the drug, don't you think it would be theft to benefit from those $5 billion dollars of research and testing so that you could charge a 10 cents a pill, the actual chemical value of each pill?

With a copied song, the IP isn't stolen, and the materials and services used in creation of the copy isn't the owners (it's the property of that who copied it).

But the effort put into writing, performing, recording, and promoting that song is benefitted from without compensation. The music sharer did not expend that effort, the band did. And without that effort, there would be nothing to copy. If I ask a teenager to mow my lawn with some gas that I provide and then refuse to pay them, I haven't stolen anything physical from them. I haven't taken away their ability to mow someone else's lawn. I haven't stolen their lawnmower. I haven't deprived them of any material benefits. But I have benefitted from their labor without compensation.

Without the labor of the musicians, there would be no music. The labor was exerted specifically to produce that music. You are benefitting from the fruits of that labor and, in the absence of that labor, there would be nothing for you to benefit from. So why doesn't the musician deserve compensation for their labor? There labor does not produce any tangible product. The sole value of it lies in listening to and enjoying it and it is that value that you are taking advantage of -- without compensation.

It may (and probably does) create a copyright violation if you hand it over to another person, but it doesn't actually remove the service, goods, or the actual value of a service performed or a goods created or redistributed. It only removes a potential value, which isn't illegal in itself.

It benefits from the labor of someone without compensating them, despite the fact that they desire compensation. Using your strict definitions, if a recording studio employee were to make a copy of a prerelease recording of an album, put it out on the Internet, and, as a result, the band only sold 10 legitimate albums to pay for thousands of dollars in studio time and thousands of hours of work, no real theft would have taken place. Something doesn't seem fundamentally wrong with that to you?

If the other man "borrowed" the locksmiths tools and returned them after using them, yes.

What if the other man had his own tools, and simply copied the service (say if the man refusing to pay for the service did it himself after going to the store and buying his own tools?) This is what's happening with file copying.

If you sneak into a concert, is the theft that you occuplied a seat that you didn't pay for or that you listened to music you didn't pay for?

In that case, you'd be using a goods that's in the ownership of someone else (the chair, the concert theater). With music copying, this doesn't happen. The music copy doesn't belong to the owner (only the actual song does, which falls under IP). That's why pawn shops are allowed to sell copies of the music (used CDs) without returning an extra usage fee back to the original owner.

But it is benefitting from the labor and the essential value of that labor without reproducing that labor yourself. If a medical lab spends $5 billion dollars researching and testing a drug, do you think that the value of a pill lies only in the value of the specific chemicals in that pill? If you are handed a copy of the formula for the drug, don't you think it would be theft to benefit from those $5 billion dollars of research and testing so that you could charge a 10 cents a pill, the actual chemical value of each pill?

If you charged for the pill you made, it wouldn't be theft (no goods or services have actually been removed from the owner). It would, however, be a big time IP violation. However, if you took that formula, then claimed it was yours and sold it as such, then it'd be theft (because the service would have been infered to be removed from the owner via your claim of it as your own IP. A simular thing happens in indentity theft, where the thief claims that your indentity is his own).

But the effort put into writing, performing, recording, and promoting that song is benefitted from without compensation.

Actually, it's not. If you bought the CD, the compensation has been paid. What you do with that copy is now up to you (again, the argument could be made that re-selling the copy creates, or shifts in this case, a benefit without compensation. This argument has already been attempted, and rejected). It falls under removing a potental value, vs. removing an actual value. Creating a copy of the song removes a potential value from the owner of the song (removing potential compensation). It doesn't hold up as theft. Only copyright violation.

It benefits from the labor of someone without compensating them, despite the fact that they desire compensation.

Again, it's the "pawn shop reselling the CD" argument, which has been rejected.

I understand what you're trying to get at. And I think you have some good arguments. However, I believe that they fall under copyright infringment only. Potential value was lost, yes, and copying of an IP has taken place, but nothing has actually been removed from the owner. If someone claims the song as their own and tries to distribute it, I'll be with you applying 'thief' to that person. Otherwise, the definition of 'theft' just doesn't apply here. However, copyright infringment has. You already have a good, solid argument there.

-The Hajman-