Replies

What you are stealing, again, is the artists time and effort and the recording company's time, effort, and risk compensation.

That's the problem. In order to create the copy, there was no time nor effort into making the copy by the owners. The main problem resides in the fact that unlike the locksmith argument, the specific copy of the song created was completely unrelated to the owners. The owners do hold the IP on the song, yes. However, they don't own the copy (the MP3). If a person went out and created a Toyota, the materials would be their own. In fact, the copy would be their own (a truck). Toyota wouldn't have had anything to do with it. The only thing that wouldn't be their own, would be the fact that it's specifically a Toyota truck (intellectual property). In the case of the song, the material for the song, and the copy of the song, would be their own (owner has nothing to do with it). The song itself (the intellectual property, different from the actual MP3 and the data/song copy) would be their own, therefore creating a violation of copyright (they couldn't copy the song). Copying the song, however, doesn't remove any time or effort that the owner put into the actual song IP. The indentities between the actual IP (song), and the copy (MP3 song) are different. Because of this, they need to be handled seperately. The song copy was copied itself, therefore a copyright violation. The IP, medium nor copy was removed (explicitly or infered) from the owners, therefore no theft violation.

I think the main flaw in the argument here, is trying to equate the song IP, with the actual song copy (and possible the medium). They're not equal. The song copy is like a self-built Toyota. I didn't steal the new Toyota I built, and I didn't claim it (Toyota truck) as my own IP or sell it, but it was copied. No theft, but copyright infringment. Also, I use infringment, not because it sounds better, but because that's what it is (I don't leave out theft because it sounds worse, but because it doesn't apply).

-The Hajman-

If a person went out and created a Toyota, the materials would be their own. In fact, the copy would be their own (a truck). Toyota wouldn't have had anything to do with it. The only thing that wouldn't be their own, would be the fact that it's specifically a Toyota truck (intellectual property).

An important detail is left out of your example. Without the original Toyota truck, in analogy to music copying, no one would be making them. Without the original, there is no copy. Why? Because the person making teh copy is not expending the same effort that was expended in making the original. They are simply benefitting from that effort without expending the same effort themself.

Toyota does not price its trucks based simply on the materials and labor that goes into fabricating and assembling the truck. A friend who worked for GM told me that a $20,000 GM car may have only one or two thousand dollars worth of manufacturing costs associated. So why are cars such a "rip off". Because they aren't. GM also has to recover their R&D costs, risks, advertising, and other costs from selling cars. If you were to knock off a GM car, you could do so for a few thousand dollars. Would that be stealing from GM? I think so. What you are stealing is GM's R&D. Their effort. You can call that "intellectual property" if you want but my point is that benefitting from that effort without compensating GM and without GMs permission (or Toyota, in your example) is stealing their labor just as surely as I'd be stealing a neighborhood kids labor if I didn't pay him for mowing my lawn or a locksmith's labor if I didn't pay him for opening my car. Is it theft in a physical property sense? Maybe not. Is it theft in a "taking something that doesn't belong to me without compensating the owner" sense? Yes. People are not entitled to take the labor of others without compensating them.

With resepct to used CDs, a CD is priced based on the fact that it will be played again and again and may be resold. That's why they are so expensive. If the RIAA could price songs on a per-play basis, a song might cost only 5 cents per play.