"
Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and “theft” to describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.
So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in the US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is “theft.” Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority…and misrepresenting what authority says.
"
Infringing at most shares some traits with “theft” or “stealing”, so equating them is not usually improving understanding. Makes for great shame-based rhetoric, I guess?
As I said in my original post, everyone has a different perspective on what is appropriate for their conscience, legal environment and artistic sense of right and wrong. In this forum, discussion of filesharing is against the rules, presumably because it is located in a jurisdiction where filesharing infringement is wrong. But being against the rules does not make something ethically or morally wrong.
As a very simple example, a wide assortment of early Detroit dance music was issued once, on vinyl, in runs numbering in the low thousands. It was never distributed digitally, and all of the business entities associated with the music are now defunct. Yes, the music is technically still copyrighted. Yes, our Indian friend could go on Discogs marketplace and pay 20 Euros for the record, then record it digitally so he can mix it in Virtual DJ. However, even if he does, he is not paying the people who made the music a single cent.
The presumption that if someone downloads something and infringes a legal copyright that they are “stealing” something which they actually COULD have purchased from someone in a transaction which involves any money going to the original artist seems like quite a big presumption.
As a simpler example, all DJ mixes posted by anyone here are illegal by nature of their not being cleared with the copyright holders. I understand people think there is some magical exemption if you label it “for promotional use only” but as evidenced by, for example, Soundcloud cracking down on DJ mixes, they are in fact illegal. If you accuse someone who makes a non-commercial DJ mix with infringed material of “stealing,” where are your condemnations for those who similarly “steal” from the people whose music they DJ?
http://dancemusic.about.com/od/askthedj/a/AsktheDJMixedCD.htm
tl;dr : the overwhelming majority of music has no commercial value, ever. treating this commercially worthless material as if it is Disney classics in a copyright vault is unlikely to be of cultural benefit to anyone, including its creators.
)