A friend of mine, and respected colleague, has written a piece over on LinuxToday that bears mentioning: Editor’s Note: Copying is Stealing. Though I agree with the spirit of the piece, I have to take issue with the conflation of stealing and copying.
I really hate it when people conflate copying with stealing.
I see my work plagiarized or copied on other sites all the time. Sometimes it’s automated by spammers, occasionally it’s deliberately copied by other authors thinking they can pad their own work or build their own blog with other people’s content. It annoys me to no end. It’s copyright infringement, and I will go after people who do it — but it is not stealing.
Stealing is the actual act of depriving someone of something, and relates to physical goods. Just because people understand “stealing == bad” does not excuse conflating infringement with theft.
Allowing the terms to be mixed allows the entertainment industry to relate copying of owned media to theft. “Well, just because you bought the VHS copy of Tron doesn’t mean you can copy it to another medium. That’s theft!” Well, no, that’s infringement — technically — and it deserves an honest discussion whether or not it’s wrong.
The argument that infringement “deprives” the artist of anything is far from proven, anyway. A lot of people copy files that they would never, in a million years, pay for. I’d argue that the copy hoarders are wrong, but it also doesn’t deprive the original copyright holder of diddly — because those people were never going to part with any cash in the first place.
Infringement very often benefits the artists. When does stealing benefit the owner? (Not counting insurance claims…)
When I was 16, and before all the “piracy” and “stealing” nonsense had really gotten into full swing, a friend of mine copied Robyn Hitchcock’s first album to a cassette for me. (Black Snake Diamond Role) Since that time, I’ve purchased virtually every recording he’s released, some twice — on cassette and then on CD. I’ve also purchased most of R.E.M.’s work because the first opportunity I had to see Robyn Hitchcock live was as an opener for R.E.M. Also The Minus 5, The Soft Boys, and many others – either direct ties to his work, or in the search of more work like his.
I can draw a straight line from that copied album to more than 200 CD sales of his and related artists. This doesn’t include anyone who’s heard my recommendation of a Robyn Hitchcock recording, or artists I discovered as a direct result of that. Also a trip to Seattle to see him perform live in 2006. (Of course, Hitchcock was the least beneficiary of that – as the ticket to the venue was less than $20 with the annoying surcharges – whereas the entire trip was upwards of $500.)
But the recording industry would want you to think that the 15-year-old girl (at the time) who copied the album was “stealing” the music and depriving Robyn Hitchcock and his record company of a legitimate sale. Given half a chance, the RIAA would probably like to sue her for maximum damages. (Assuming the label was even affiliated with the RIAA, which I’m not sure is the case.)
It is more complex than “infringement always equals theft” and dumbing it down to “infringement is stealing!” is a disservice. It is not a black and white issue, and it deserves more than a slogan-sized response.
I believe in buying media or digital media when I enjoy it. The more than 7 boxes of DVDs and 6 boxes of CDs I have yet to fully unpack attest to that. I’ve easily spent more than $20,000 in the last 20 years on DVDs and CDs, just for my own use — not counting money I’ve spent to gift things I think others will enjoy.
In short — I find myself largely in agreement with the spirit of Carla’s piece, but find myself unable to endorse it because of the black and white nature of “infringement is stealing.” They are not the same thing, it is not a black and white issue, and falling on the side of those who would simplify it to that level is a mistake.