Sharing <> Stealing

I just saw this story on TorrentFreak, about how the FBI busted the tracker site. Inevitably, a few commenters tried yet again to push the tired notion that everyone reading the page should feel guilty for “stealing” all that content. To which I would make the following final and irrefutable reply:

The law has always been perfectly clear: “theft” and “copyright infringement” are not the same thing.

That was true long before the Internet and digital sharing, and it remains true today, even under ludicrous legislation like the DMCA. This is largely because ‘intellectual property’ is not the same as actual physical property. The similar terminology is deliberately misleading, but creators have never ‘owned’ their works, they way you own your car, your computer or your pants.

There are good reasons for this, which you can learn very quickly by doing a search on the history of copyrights. But at least take a moment to notice that taking a unique physical object away from someone is quite different from making yet another copy of something that’s infinitely copyable in the first place. The act of copying may reduce the copyright-holder’s revenue from the work, but this is not a given. (It may actually increase the value of the work, for example.) True, the basic intent of copyright laws is to allow creative works to achieve some “reasonable” value. But that actual value is determined by market forces and negotiation, not by any absolute moral principle.

The point is, the debate over copyrights is never going to be simple. So let’s at least insist that everyone chooses their words appropriately. If you want to argue that copyright infringement is a scourge on the economy and the creative landscape, go ahead, make your case. But don’t get off to a bad start by trying to claim that it’s the same thing as stealing. Because it’s not. Never has been. Never will be.

(Updated 11-01-03, mainly for clarity.)


One Response to Sharing <> Stealing

  1. Geekwad says:

    I think there’s a case to be made that something is being stolen, but to make the case honestly sort of makes the content owners look bad.

    In many cases, what is being stolen is an artificial scarcity. We have the infrastructure to saturate everyone’s every free moment with content, and enough new content produced that you would can see the same thing twice. That’s good (I guess) for us but a problem for content owners. Each article of content is a small fish in a very big ocean.

    When someone uploads Crappy Summer Blockbuster 2005 to 20 people, that’s 20 people who are not going to rent Crappy Summer Blockbuster 2007 tonight. Once the latest vapid pop hit gets copied to all the iPods in school, the kids don’t have to listen to TV and radio (and advertising and whatever other vapid hits are being manufactured into a commercial property) to get it anymore.

    The problem is, content is not the product. Pop music stars don’t create music. They create an advertising audience. TV studios don’t produce sitcoms. They produce eyeballs to sell to advertisers. I honestly have no idea what to call the stuff Hollywood is producing, but I don’t think it’s good for us.

    We are indeed stealing their product, the artificial scarcity that they scheme so diligently to create. The dialog becomes very confusing because they don’t want to admit that is their product, and instead insist it is about the content. But nothing makes sense in that context. You can’t steal bits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: