Hugh Beyer wrote:
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in
:

OK, but I'd say that if law is the basis for determining morality
in any way, then it's only fair to use the language of the law in
the appraisal of ones morality. The law does not say that you've
committed theft (it doesn't even come close to saying it), it says
that you've violated the DMCA.

The argument is whether violating they DCMA can ever be called
"theft", and whether that theft is immoral. Whatever the language
the law uses, it seems reasonable to use the common definition of
"theft" to decide whether it's applicable in this case.

In this case, the violations of the DCMA reduce the amount of money
the music producers can make either now or in the future.

Here is where I have a problem with this: there are a lot of actions
that reduce the amount of money you can make (now or in future).
These include antitrust violations, securities fraud, insider
trading, illegal business practices by a competitor, contractual
breaches (which are very similar to many technical license
violations) and libel. Some of these aren't even criminal offences.
I wouldn't refer to any of these as theft (would you ?)

I think it's misleading to use "theft" to describe anything that
interferes with ones ability to make income. There are many things,
both legal and illegal that hurt ones ability to make income.

The word "theft", even in the common sense, would seem to imply a
fairly direct and quantifiable financial impact on the victim. In
the case of simply piracy, one can say that they copied a product
that they're legally required to pay $X- for. This is analogous to a
theft of service. At worst, the illegitimate transfer of media is
analogous to a terms of service violation.


I agree with your last statement: "theft" implies a fairly direct and
quantifiable financial impact. When you copy a book that's for sale
and give it to someone else, the loss to the author is clear.

Only if you assume the book would've been purchased (by you or the other guy)
if it hadn't been copied.

When
you copy music into another form, instead of buying the CD in
addition to the tape, the loss is direct and clear.

Once again, explicitly this time, the assumption that you would make the
additional purchase exists.

In both cases the
"taking" is of an intangible but I think it's justified to use
"theft" to describe it.

Weird.

I'm done. This horse isn't just dead, it's flayed, chopped, hashed,
and we're all standing around with horseflesh up our nostrils.

It twitched.

Hugh