Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement.
You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.
One other angle on this, for the "steal absolutely must deprive someone of something" view, well - something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Many people say "Well, I'd never have bought it anyway". Whilst true for now, would it still be true in 1 year? 5? 10? Would you have bought it for your kids, or because a sequel came out that you do want to buy? By taking it, you rob the person of the ability to sell it to you in the future.
I think it's incumbent upon anyone who thinks "intellectual property is unjust" and who acts on this belief by just denying its existence, to propose and get support for a viable alternative for supporting the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihood. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.
> And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it.
Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument.
(The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
> Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings.
But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important.
However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.
By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce.
Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.
Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
Then don't do it.
> the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life
I agree. Defense takes on many forms. In the more forward thinking societies, it's usually done with some sort of arbitration.
> Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.
OK? So?
> Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
Your straw man is behind the times. Somalia has had a central government for quite some time.
However, I see you make no attempt to actually defend your argument other than calling me a troll.
How does 'arbitration' stop armed thieves taking your possessions, and what societies are you calling 'forward thinking'?
You made no attempt at an argument other than a borderline ad hominem when you asked, "Do you live in Somalia?" It's a blatant straw man, plain and simple. (Precisely because I never claimed that no government is always better than any government.)
> How does 'arbitration' stop armed thieves taking your possessions
Mostly the same way courts do it today. I defer to David Friedman and his work on polycentric law.
> and what societies are you calling 'forward thinking'?
Any society that prefers non-violent conflict resolution. It's pretty much the cornerstone property and ownership.
Polycentric law is an academic construct. If you are advocating a new political system, why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one.
They do? Granted, I'm sure it happens some times, but it's rare to see a police officer actually thwart an active robbery. Usually police track down the thief after-the-fact and courts take care of the rest. Also, I don't see a meaningful distinction between courts and police (for the purposes of this conversation). They all fit under the umbrella of arbitration.
> You have not supported your assertion that owners can defend their own property in some way that is different from how intellectual property is defended.
If you try to take a piece of my property, I can physically attempt to defend it. It's the nature of reality because it's a scarce good. If you take it from me, then you've deprived me of it.
Now say I come up with this really cool idea, sell it, etc. How am I going to stop you or anyone else from doing the same (short of keeping something a secret)? I can't. Why? Because it's an idea. They aren't scarce. If you take an idea from me you have not deprived me of the idea itself, which is completely unlike real tangible property that is scarce. You might think that I've deprived you of something else, but then it is no longer like property law dealing in scarcity.
I said this in an earlier comment, I think.
This isn't even a controversial claim. Even the courts today in the US make this distinction. That's why it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft."
> If you are advocating a new political system
I'm arguing that intellectual property requires a coercive entity while property law dealing in scarcity does not. Since I consider coercion unjust, I therefore conclude that IP is unjust.
> Polycentric law is an academic construct.
Monopolistic law is coercive.
> why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one
Which claims? Why are they false?
The government should keep it's greedy little nose out of affairs like this, and make piracy legal. Then maybe people will stop dedicating their careers to worthless games like Angry Birds and actually do something with real impact.
Thankfully, the tech will eventually get so good that the government literally can't do anything about it, so all we have to do is wait.
Saying 'I'm not talking about a god damned laptop' doesn't change this.
If a government was smart they would embrace this early on and learn to adapt before other countries catch on. And I guess we also get the benefit of a better and more prosperous life earlier, but that's just my opinion. Let's not get into that.
I'm not at all convinced that piracy will win out given the increasing intrusiveness of governments and ISPs into network traffic. The net is built by corporations who will filter if the government tells them to even if they are not doing so for their own commercial reasons (e.g. AT&T u-verse who block torrents)
The internet itself is privilege provided by the government, as is the legal basis for the corporations that maintain it.
"Theft" is the wrong word to use, because theft is fundamentally a different concept, and the use of that word draws a false equivalence. And I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is legitimate on the basis that "intellectual property is unjust" or anything like that; but there are explicit differences that must be taken into account.
It's copyright infringement. Copyright is an agreement between the demos and an individual creator of an "artistic" work.
Theft is a fundamentally different concept - the crux of that difference is denying the legal owner the enjoyment/use/benefit of that which has been appropriated.
It's not even like that's an especially nuanced point.
The fact that the photos remain where they were is completely irrelevant — I never said that they didn't.
When we say "Great artists steal," we do not mean that great artists remove things from their previous location. We mean that they copy other artists' ideas and techniques. But we say "steal."
When we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another, we do not mean that they stamp out those elements in the original culture. We mean that they copy those things. But we say "appropriate."
When somebody steals my identity, I actually still have my identity, but he's using it too, and in ways that I don't approve of. But it's still called "identity theft."
The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect.
I've read it online, I don't use it. Great artists are inspired by other artists just as in science we use the term "standing on the shoulders of giants". What precisely Picasso meant is it seems lost to us.
The blunt reading however is a damaging blurring of a legal and moral distinction - artists need to understand how copyright affects them and affects the cultural landscape. Making the adoption of important cultural works in to ones own work sound unlawful/immoral is harmful to a healthy society IMO.
However the concept behind this phrase is that "all artists use others work without worrying about copyright infringement" and that this is how the art world works, reflects culture and feeds society.
Or maybe Picasso meant "own it", make your version so much better that people think of you - undoubtedly the line-drawing of a dove wasn't a new idea when Picasso made his version.
>"we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another" //
Loose language, got you. When a culture is inspired or affected by another they don't appropriate the other cultures assets; this is kind of a key distinction when considering the way memes move; how cultural artefacts are created.
Parent's appropriate the slang of their children.
Word choice matters.
>But it's still called "identity theft." //
Actually this is far more in the middle ground - you don't get to use your identity [to the fullness you'd expect]. It's not copyright infringement, or at least that's not the important aspect. It really is like you've had your legal identity stolen (and often you've had things stolen as part of the process). "Identity theft" works IMO.
>The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. //
The distinction is made in normal conversation.
>Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect. //
Deliberately attempting to ignore this important distinction and conflate the separate ideas of theft and copyright infringement is also annoying, intellectually dishonest and in this conversation concerning copyright infringement couldn't be more "contextually incorrect".
This is ridiculous. Believing that IP is unjust is not the same as "denying any contribution."
My concerns with IP are more wide reaching, particularly with respect to the medical and agriculture industries. (And more personally, the software industry.) The book I cited, "Information Feudalism," chronicles this to a (horrifying) extent. In broad terms, countries rich in IP use it to extort developing countries.
I recognize the OP of this article sets the context with youthful apathy that can be annoying, but you shouldn't assume that the only criticisms of IP are selfishly trite.
To a secondary point, I don't think civil disobedience is a bad thing. But I agree that claiming civil disobedience while downloading the latest Game of Thrones episode is a bit incredulous.
> It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked".
It seemed to me that you were equating "lack of IP" with "content creators aren't rewarded from the fruits of their labor." I was stating that this was a false equivalency. A lack of IP merely means that there is no body of law enforcing the notion of ownership over ideas.