As with any emotional issue, a few folks have not only conflated stealing with copyright infringement… they also jump on anyone who argues against calling it “stealing,” assuming that if you don’t think it’s stealing, you must also be a thieving bastard who just wants to “steal” their precious content.
That may be so in some cases, but I don’t fall into that category. Otherwise, I’d keep my mouth shut and just keep infringing.
I believe in paying for content, whether it’s music, books, movies, or whatever. But there’s some legitimate questions around what’s actually ethical when it comes to copying media. In my mind, none of these questions exist with actual theft/stealing. There’s no grey area for theft: If I take something from you, it’s clearly stolen and I had no legal or ethical right to take it.
However, there are many instances of copyright infringement that constitute a grey area for many people and bear discussion:
- Is copying media an absolute wrong? What if I copy a CD for my significant other? What if someone copies a CD for their kids? I doubt many people would look harshly on making a copy for a spouse or child, but that would be considered infringement legally. No one is likely to argue that it is “stealing” to make a copy of a CD or MP3 for the personal use of someone else in your household, but if you lift a second copy of media you bought physically, it obviously is stealing.
- I’ve seen people arguing against copying, then complain when the movie studio pursued complaints against people making Twilight knock-offs. Wait, what? Isn’t that “theft” as well, and worse than making a copy of a CD for a friend?
- Why is it OK for me to purchase a used CD, for which the artist receives no compensation, but not OK to download an MP3 for which they receive no compensation? Garth Brooks rather infamously tried to shut down used CD sales of his work, but few people agreed with him that he had a right to profit on secondary sales of the work. This leads me to think the real issue is freeloading and not theft. When you buy a used book or CD, you’re showing that it has value. It’s an item that has scarcity. But the artist doesn’t see a dime from the resale.
- I’d wager many of the folks calling copyright infringement theft own DVRs, and before that VHS machines. They may even have recorded baseball games, expressly against the wishes of the MLB. Is that stealing?
- I recall a TV executive being (rightfully) mocked for accusing television viewers of “stealing” if they skipped commercials. I doubt many of the people yelling about “stealing” agree with this one, but what’s the difference? The express wish of the copyright holder is to sell commercials in exchange for broadcasting the content. Aren’t you obligated to watch the commercials, in that event?
And on and on. There is no lack of clarity with real theft. There’s virtually no grey area. Even if a person steals nothing more than a loaf of bread to survive, it’s clear that it’s theft even if we believe it’s justified.
At any rate, the real issue here in my mind is that of freeloading: You are not stealing from an artist, you’re freeloading when you enjoy the benefit of their work at no expense to yourself.
I would argue freeloading is a much, much better term: It’s as negatively charged as theft or stealing, and is more descriptive. Most of us have had experience with freeloaders that enjoy a public or private resource without contribution. The freeloaders should be chided, educated, and encouraged to pay their way.