Is Copyright Violation Stealing?

I keep seeing an argument on the Internet, including in the comments here, that goes like this:

“Copyright violation is not stealing. If I steal something physical, the original owner no longer has it. But if I violate a copyright, the original owner has lost nothing tangible. So while copyright violation is illegal, it’s very different from stealing. In fact, it’s good publicity and might even benefit the person from whom you stole.”

I understand the point that copyright violations are different from theft of physical property, but is it a victimless crime?

When you violate a copyright, you take something valuable from the copyright owner that he can’t get back. You take his right to control where his creation is viewed and how. It might be your opinion that the “free publicity” you provide outweighs the loss – and you might be right – but you’ve taken from the creator the right to make the publicity-versus-overexposure decision himself. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but it feels that way to the person who lost control of his art.

Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say your neighbor sneaks into your house while you are gone and borrows your underpants. After wearing your underpants all day, the neighbor launders them, folds them neatly, and returns them to your house in perfect condition, all while you are gone. He tells himself that he will say good things to people about your business – whatever business that is – so this arrangement is good publicity for you. The next time he sees you, he tells you about the underpants because he figures you’ll thank him for saying nice things about his business. He informs you that it’s a win-win scenario.

Given that you have full use of your property (the underpants), is it a victimless crime? I would say the owner of the underpants lost something even though his property is physically the same.

Some people argue that copyright laws create an artificial property right that is inherently different, and less worthy than the more natural right to own physical property, such as your clothes. But it seems to me that you only own your clothes because the law says so. Absent any artificial laws, I could go into your closet and wear your clothes whenever I want. All property rights are artificial. Copyrights are no different.

For the record, I never mind when people make copies of Dilbert for their personal use. If you want to e-mail your favorite comic to a friend, that’s great. We even make that easy by providing a button for that purpose on Dilbert.com.

But obviously there has to be a limit. After I published my first best-selling book, The Dilbert Principle, within days it had been illegally scanned and was widely available on the Internet for free. Technically speaking, it wasn’t theft. But I still lost something. I (and my publisher) lost the ability to decide if, when, and how to publish as an e-book. You can’t compete with “free and immediate.”

From a legal standpoint, taking a creator’s right to control distribution of his art is not “theft.” It’s just “taking something that used to legally belong to someone else and making it your own.”

You may now activate your cognitive dissonance and explain in the comments that every time you violate a copyright, the free publicity it generates for the artist is proof of your goodness. To make your argument extra powerful, note that you once knew a guy who bought an extra CD because of the 12,000 songs he took for free.

Go.

Comments

[Luis]

The world is changing. Art is changing. You can no longer think of art and media the same way.

With that said. Here's my cognative dissonance...

Good people fight for fairness
Laws are unfair
I pay authors I deem worthy of payment

Whoa... wait those actions are totally within my character.

You have to understand Scott, maybe the reason your book was your first best-seller is BECAUSE it was leaked :-)

[T1 Internet]

Good article about copyright violation.

[writergirl]

I'm finding a lot of these anti-copyright arguments childish. Our country believes creative works are of value to society. Copyright laws will change with technology; I don't think anyone disputes that. And society will figure out ways to protect creative works and still make them available via new technology. For instance, universities are setting up systems to enable students to legally download music.

Without copyright, I could write a novel, not find a publisher, put the novel on the web, and have some rich, well-connected individual take it, get it published, & make money from its sale. How does this copyrightless sequence of events favor anyone but the already privileged?

And so what if the work in question isn't of intrinsic value. Not everyone produces a good novel, painting, or concerto first time out, anyway. It takes training, practice, hard work, and evaluation by others to get to the top of your game.

[elliot]

Interestingly, the purpose of copyright/patent law is to encourage people to innovate (and make that knowledge public), yet in practice, copyright/patent law is only used to crush and limit competition. Could the former goal (encourage innovation) be achieved without limiting competition?

[AV Srinivas]

of course it's stealing!!!

you go to a restaurant, have lunch, PAY & then walk out, don't you?

[CaptainReality]

I copied all your copyrighted works.

I copy all of the music that I listen to. For free, from the internet.

I download movies, for free.

There are millions of people like me, and as time goes on, the percentage of the population who do what I do is increasing.

We laugh at your kind. You're up there with puritans who tell kids not to drink and to abstain from sex until married. Irrelevant clap-trap spouted by self-interested control freaks.

There's nothing that you can do about us. You're impotent, we're everywhere, and soon, we'll be everyone. It's over. It's time to start seeing the world as it actually is, and not as you wish it to be.

[Robert]

What a copyright actually does is grant a monopoly. I write something, and the government grants me an exlusive monopoly so that for a time I can control it and profit from it and such. Said monopoly is given with the understanding that after a certain period of time, the work will then go into the public domain. Therefore, if a person uses my copyrighted material, he or she is not stealing. They are simply infringing on my monopoly status.

[Dan]

I'm glad to have found this entry. I have been discussing this with business associates. They believe using a cartoon strip in an internal business presentation is acceptable. I think it's a copyright violation. I'd be very interested to hear your view. Copyright law is so vague in some areas... the argument goes "I could leave the paper in the break room, and everyone could read it - so why can't I display the strip in my presentation on our quarterly results?"

[Chris Ellis]

Copyright infringement *isn't* theft. It doesn't make it right. It is wrong. But it is not stealing.

[Robert Braun]

Glad I stumbled onto this site while trying to calculate a monitory compensation for breach of copyright by a international publisher that I had been working for.
Where does one begin!

As a sculptor of dinosaurs and all things scientific and ancient I am at a loss as to what to request for use of images of my work used without my permission as well as
not being credited for my work over the past two years.
I have had advice regarding copyright law internationally as well as "droit moral" the equivalent of moral rights and false attribution of my work to other authors.
I cant afford legal action although I wish I could as this publisher needs to be taught a lesson. This will be the 2nd time I have experienced this from this publisher of books.

As I sculpt my life-size woolly rhinos mammoths and dinosaurs I think how I wish I had taken a condensed legal class on protecting artists copyright. I have never made a move without a contract... but even so how do you really protect yourself from copyright infringement.

If any of you illuminating minds have traveled down this road before ....any advice would be welcomed and much appreciated.

Roby
r.braun@cycadpro.com
web site at: www.cycadpro.com

[zbrda]

copy paste option is breaking copyright
download option is breaking copyright
username and password is not breaking copyright
dvdrw is breaking copyright
internet is breaking copyright

[erikjheels]

Greetings Scott,

See also:

http://www.erikjheels.com/2007-07-27-legal-dilbert-reprints.html

Regards,
Erik

[Mikael]

Although this post is a long time ago, I wanted to add a very good quote from Milton Friedman (very famous economist) about copyrights, just to give some perspective:
"The question of intellectual property rights is very complicated. Freedom of speech is the opposite of copyright, which means that you can't get copyright rights. And, intellectual property is different from physical property: in both cases, you have a monopoly but the monopoly on intellectual property is wholly different because duplicating the property comes generally at a very low or zero marginal cost. You are enforcing a monopoly pricing, as it were, that limits output to lower than the optimum social level. You cannot be in favor of infinite copyright. Essentially it's a problem of practical compromise, whether you have 17 years, 25 years, 10 years, 50 years."

[Daniel Khoo]

Imagine that I've written a book. It's my first book. I bring my manuscript to a publisher. After a week, it's returned to me. Rejected. It's a terrible book, not worth the paper it is printed on, they tell me. Dejected, I put it aside, and go do other things.

Four months later, I walk into a book shop and see my book. The same book, same title, same contents, word for word identical. But it's attributed to a different author. I confront the publisher, but they deny ever meeting me.

Now, *THAT* is stealing.

Let's say you opened an underwear shop, and show your underwears in the shop window. And me, from across the road, snap a photo of this underwear. I take this photo to a tailor, and tell him "I want 100 of these by next week". Next week, the underwears are ready. I collect them, and start selling them for 1/2 the price you charged. Is this stealing?

There is nothing inherently, morally, "right" about copyright restrictions. In fact, it is an evil, a monopoly we tolerate for a limited time, in order to promote progress. But if copyright is extended too far, as is gradually being done today, it starts to impede progress.

[David Sleeter]

Hi Folks:

As the author and self-publisher of a science-hobby book titled “Amateur Rocket Motor Construction”, I’ve become deeply concerned about the issue of copyright violation.

Published in 2004, my book has been in print for 3 years, and for a “niche” book, sales are strong and steady. If you Google the title, you’ll get maybe 2,000 hits. I have numerous retailers selling it on the Internet, and there are some good reviews on Amazon.com.

This book was far more than just a writing project. I developed an entirely new way of making small, solid fuel rocket motors with simple hand-tools and readily available materials, thus making the construction of these motors accessible to science hobbyists and the general public.

In the process, I personally developed and tested the rocket fuel formulas, the motor designs, the homemade test equipment, and the tooling (I have a machine shop). I did all the writing, photography (a Canon 10-D with Photoshop Lite), the drawings (Design-Cad) and even the typesetting (Adobe Pagemaker), and the only things I jobbed-out were the cover art and tha actual printing.

It was a one-man project, it took 8 years, and out-of-pocket, I spent about $80,000.

At the age of 61, I’m now relying on book sales to recover my costs and provide me with a supplemental income, so I think I’m a prime example of someone who might be SEVERLY injured were the book to become available for free on the Internet.

Of course I’d like to increase sales, so I’ve become interested in Amazon’s “Search Inside” program, but I have the following concerns.

1. By joining the program, I’d give Amazon the right to make a digital copy of the entire book, and electronically publish selected pages that THEY chose to publish (I have NO control). By periodically changing the chosen pages, THEORETICALLY they might eventually publish all or most of the pages in digital format, and a patient person could eventually accumulate the entire book in digital format.

2. The only digital copies of my book CURRENTLY in existence are in a safe-deposit box at my bank, and an equivalent “lock-up” at the company that printed the book.

If I let Amazon make a digital copy, I have to trust them to guard it securely, and how good IS their security? I’d hate to hear on Fox News that a disgruntled employee has hacked into their data base and stolen digital copies of all the books in their “Search Inside” program. In today’s world, this is a REAL possibility, the only question possibly being not “if”, but “when”.

3. If the book WERE to be digitized and stolen, how would it effect my sales; my bottom line? The main factor in this regard might be its size, because at 8-1/2″ x 11″ x 1″ thick with 528 pages, it’s BIG.

It would be inconvenient to read a book that size on a coputer screen, and printing a copy would take a ream of paper and a considerable amount of time. The book currently retails for $29.95 (I might increase it to $34.95), and at THAT price, considering the trouble and expense of making a copy, potential thiefs might opt to just buy the damn thing.

4. Does Amazon’s “Search Inside” program WORK? Will it increase my sales? In this regard, I’d like to hear about the experiences of authors and publishers who have joined the “Search Inside” program, Is the program working for YOU, and has it proven to be worth the risks I mentioned above? My thanks in advance for any helpful advice you can provide.

David Sleeter

[Jon]

Chances are, most people who are disagree with Scott's stance have never created anything with the intent of making a living off their creations.

Those of you who have, please post where your property or content can be downloaded or picked up for distribution by the masses.

Even with all the free promotion you receive, this doesn't necessarily mean you'll make a living off it. Because these are the questions you will need to answer to if it becomes popular:

Do you have the time to keep creating content?
Do you have the money to keep producing the content on merchandise or traditional forms of media? (this is where the money is - as well know digital distribution won't insure an income for you)
Are you willing to accept that you'll possibly have to keep working your regular job for the rest of your life because what your creations won't support you?
Do you REALLY love your regular job?

It's OK not to be creative or have an original idea at any point in your life. The world needs that to keep running. It's also wonderful to share you talents for free. But, blame it on capitalism, that's not the way things work for most people who invent, write, paint, etc.

But, for people like Scott, who gives back by not retiring (like Gary Larson or Bill Watterson) and still giving us something to look forward to everyday on the internet or newspaper, the least you can do is tell your pals when pass along his book to introduce him, "Hey, borrow it as long as you like. But when I ask for it back, consider buying it. You'll want to read it again on a bad day at the office."

As far as length of copyright goes, it should last as long as the artist ("artists" for each member of a music group) is alive. Their offspring and siblings should learn how to make their own damn money.

[Michael Griffiths]

I object to the word stealing, more than anything else, when talking about copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is NOT a victimless crime (people like to delude themselves into justifying their behavior). But stealing implies an immediate, direct negative that goes beyond copyright infringement - a loss of actual investment, not future profit.

I happen to think copyright terms are far, far too long. I don't think it's justified for an author to retain control for 70 years AFTER death. Indeed, I'd prefer it to be the original 14 years - directly comparable to patents. There remains an incentive to create, but then there's a further incentive to keep creating so you don't run out of copyrighted content.

Copyright should exist; but in its current form, it's simply damaging.

[Jean Gauthier]

Is the Big Mac receipe being copyrighted? I don't care, I bought Big Mac. Is a pornographic movie copyrighted, I probably care, but I don't buy it. I don't have money to spend for that even if I want to watch one. I think this is unfair for all of the author that don't receive the full extend of their works.
You are right about cognitive dissonnance. It is hard to fight. But I have to tell I stole much: music, movie and most of all computer games. I wish I was rich enough to support my virtual life style. Stoling on the internet is so easy, in the confort of our house by the way!

[tim shepard]

Yeah, it would be nice if I could become a millionaire from my hen scratchings because Walt Disney Co. paid millions of dollars to our Congress to pass laws taxing the people who want to look at them. Sigh, such is not my case, who cares about you.

[Doug]

Sure its stealing, just like stealing office supplies from the workplace, it's all part of the "Total Compensation Plan" you so amusingly suggested in one of your cartoons which was reproduced in a book of a collection of reproduced cartoons. Which I bought.

[Matt Wardman]

Ramon Casha:
- "When you violate a copyright, you take something valuable from the copyright owner that he can’t get back."
- I stopped reading after that.

Some people just can't face the facts.

Matt
www.mattwardman.com

[turgan]

I know friend who downloaded your Dilbert comics from 1993 to 2005. And if you released an electronic version of those same comic they wouldn't buy them. They already downloaded them.

[insignis]

Just because I have free and immediate access to a thing doesn't mean I suddenly have no intentions of supporting the author. I understand that without financial support, tasty morsels won't continue to come down the conveyor belt. That's why I, after downloading episodes of TV that I like, go out and buy the DVDs. If I listen to an album I downloaded more than a couple of times, I buy it. That's not some friend I knew once who bought *an* album compared to his tens of thousands of illicit songs.

I downloaded a torrent of Dilbert comics from 1993 to 2005, but I also own some books, calendars, and whatnot. And you know what? If you released an electronic version of those same comics, I'd buy it. You still have the abillity to one-up that sort of distribution. You can package it nicely, have a nice viewer for them (not thousands of images in one big directory). You could tag them, so people could search, by words that appear in the comic, or by themes. You could find ways to make it interesting and relevant to your potential consumers. But if you want to give up and say the internet beat you, well that's your prerogative too.

[mjr1007]

Just another rich white guy trying to get richer.
As others have pointed out IP comes from

Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes your legal right to copyright your creative works:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

“..securing for limited times…”

The key here is to promote progress. One could just as easily argue that rather then let a few individuals get very wealthy off of IP that all artist should share or that by keeping creative types desperately poor, more would be created. This discussion has nothing to do with promoting progress and everything to do with personal profit.

There are lots of artist out there who are just as talented and happy for the attention. People should support them.

The Ferrari analogy was a more prescient then he may realize. Look at fabathome.com (fab@home). In the not too distant future we will be able to reproduce atoms just as we reproduce electrons. At that point everything will become open source, whether the “IP Owners” like it or not.

So Scott, did you get permission from Captian Underpants' creator to use the term?

[DCX2]

* When you violate a copyright, you take something valuable from the copyright owner that he can’t get back. You take his right to control where his creation is viewed and how.

What about my right to Fair Use? I have the right to view my purchase wherever and however I want. What if I buy a copy of your book, but I prefer reading PDFs on a computer, and I download "pirated" scans?

Also, consider that copyright infringement does not equate to a lost sale. Most people who flagrantly infringe on copyrights weren't going to buy the item in the first place; so, you never would have had that sale to lose.

And, some infringe because it is the easiest way to find what you want. You lost that sale by not offering it in the format that they wanted, and not because it was available on the Internet.

* After I published my first best-selling book, The Dilbert Principle, within days it had been illegally scanned and was widely available on the Internet for free. Technically speaking, it wasn’t theft. But I still lost something. I (and my publisher) lost the ability to decide if, when, and how to publish as an e-book. You can’t compete with “free and immediate.”

Bollocks. You can compete with "free, immediate, illegal" with "not-free, immediate, legal". Just because some people will always turn to free and illegal does not automatically mean that everyone will ignore your not-free and legal alternative.

You didn't lose the ability to publish as an e-book. Of course, the e-book DRM would have probably held you back, and I bet if you sold unprotected versions on your site you would generate some nice revenue.

The only thing you lost was the will to release a legal alternative to the pirated copies floating around online, because you don't think anyone would want your legally endorsed version when a free, illegal version exists. I bet your fans are thanking you for thinking so highly of them.

[JohnB]

Right up front, I started a company (www.9thxchange.com) that is trying to make most people in the battle happy (we know not everyone will be). Here is what we do & why letting Consumers re-sell copyrighted materials will benefit the creator and subsequent buyers.

The 9thXchange has developed a breakthrough feature that enables the collection and disbursement of royalties on the sale, re-sale, auction and rental of digital products without infringing on applicable intellectual property or ownership rights.

The Company model is a transaction business model, all products are for sale and do not include advertising as part of any digital file.

Digital products of any kind, including video, ring tones, software, music, games, cartoons, documents and digital memorabilia can be bought, sold, and traded on the company’s retail website, www.9thX.com, or any website licensing the company’s platform allowing for legal member to member selling of any digital file across affiliated Websites.

John

[Bunderfeld]

Scott, I first learned of Dilbert from a friend, who had one of your most earliest books. I took his book without his permission when he was out of town and I was watching his place and read it. I'm must admit I had a great laugh, and because I "stole and contributed to your loss of control", I then went out and PURCHASED your whole set of books.

Imagine what it would be like if no one could share property and everyone had to learn how funny you were by luck.

[Joe]

So just where does everyone get off? It's ok to take simply because the artist has "enough money"? How about they don't like paying for the processing by the record companies? How about this. You all get paid enough. I don't care if you are working at McD's or at an Executive Law Firm. You should be paid your minimum wage, because that's all you're time is worth!

But that's not fair, you say! How dare I take money away from you because while I like your work, I don't like paying for it. It's different because you're not a multi-millionaire. It's different because you work for your money, right? News flash, so do they. The record companies produce and promote. Their employees do thousands upon thousands of other tasks. Here's a list of jobs that shouldn't get paid, by all of your assumptions:
1. All military that are not Combat Arms (i.e. Supply, communications, intelligence, etc)
2. call center personnel (it's available for free online anyways, right)
3. tv stations (they just broadcast the show. They don't actually write it
4. Actors (again, they don't write the show. They just act it out for you)
5. The production facilities for Pharmaceutical companies (they didn't create the medicine, they just copy it)
6. Car manufacturers (again, the money should go to the prototype designers and engineers, and no one else)

Has this alienated enough of you yet?

If not, here's some more:

You need to take a close look at what you like, love, want and need. These things all cost. Nothing is actually free of VALUE. Everything has some value assigned to it, whether it be by you or someone else. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Let's consider job outsourcing. It's easy to see people pissed off because their jobs got sent overseas. What? You wanted MORE money to do the same job Mike in India will do for less than half?!? HA! No way, bub. I'm giving mike the job and letting you sit on the street because YOU ARE NOT WORTH IT I don't see the VALUE in your work!

What is so hard about work = pay ?
I make something, you want it. there are a few options:
1. I give it to you
2. I sell it to you
3. I let you borrow it
4. I do neither, and you take it anyways.

3 is the current copyright protection law
4 is theft.

Figure it out, and come back to me when you've removed your heads from between your expanding cheeks

[Ramon Casha]

The underpants analogy you mentioned is flawed, because there is an ickiness factor involved. Instead, why not use the analogy of a pen. Someone comes up to your desk in your absence and without your permission, picks up your pen, writes something with it and leaves it back where it was. To make the analogy more apt, let's say your business is to sell pens - so the person who borrowed your pen might be a lost opportunity to sell a pen.

The recording industry (mostly) keeps preaching its propaganda about lost sales, although their figures are based on the assumption that if piracy didn't exist, everyone who currently owns a pirated copy would have bought the item at retail price.

Frankly, when I'm told by the likes of the RIAA about the poor artists who won't be able to afford another $400M home in Southern France because of those nasty pirates, I'm not too moved. Of course it's not the small-town band who plays in your local pub who gets hit by piracy for the most part - in fact most small-time groups, musicians and artists would be thrilled to know that one of their songs is being propagated worldwide - even if they're not profiting directly from it.

Since copyright existed, the producers of the material have always had a percentage of copy for which they were not paid. Since Philips invented the tape cassette in 1963, kids have been recording music off radios, LPs and other tapes, sharing them, copying them, and so on. The music industry back then tried (and failed) to sue manufacturers of dual-deck cassette recorders, or shops which rented out cassettes and sold blank tapes. Despite all this rampant piracy, the music industry continued to grow and thrive. When JVC invented the VHS tape in 76, again the industry howled that this would bring the end of cinema, television and indeed of the sense of sight itself. We saw the video tape arrive, went through the video format wars, saw VHS emerge as the winner, saw video tapes embraced by the industry and finally, saw the whole thing being supplanted by the latest craze - DVDs - and the film industry continued growing throughout. They also told us again that DVDs would bring the end of cinema, and yet we're approaching the next new format after DVDs and cinema is still as popular. And let us not forget the photocopier. They predicted that book sales would slump. They didn't. Newspapers were none too keen on embracing the web. If they put up their content on websites, nobody would buy the printed version. Again they were wrong. There are some things about putting your newspaper folded under your coffee and biscuits that just don't work as well with a CRT monitor.

So please, cut it with the scaremongering and the tugging at the heartstrings. It don't work any more. Too many false alarms.

[Peter Rock]

"When you violate a copyright, you take something valuable from the copyright owner that he can’t get back."

I stopped reading after that.

[Chuck Bunnell]

Hey, you're blogging software is not attaching the author information with the correct post. Good thing I'm in relative agreement with the post where my name landed. Oh, the author information lands on the next post's content.

[Eric the Red]

except I don't put my underwear for sale in the public and free marketplace. And for much of the digital content, it would be as if there magically were a million copies of that underwear without incurring extra cost.

I'm not saying stealing is right, I am saying the current content industry is wrong.

[Gaybert]

This is why everyone should go commando!

[Jordan]

Note, copying material is wrong. But as to whether it harms the artist, well, I could go on a little spiel about copyright and authors if I really wanted to, and while it would be coherent my own persuasive abilities are not up to par with a master essayist. So instead I will point you to one such on the matter.
http://www.baen.com/library/home.htm
As for evidence, well, they note the sales increase. Not to mention the emails and letters
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver.htm
There is also a rather interesting speech on copyright which was written in 1841, and which was the basis for modern copyright up until the Walt Disney Corporation got involved.
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

All that being said, yes copyright infrigement is not the nicest thing in the world. It's wrong. However, you're not gonna stop it, not unless you simply stop producing. Which would sorta defeat the purpose after all. Essentially, the amount of copyright infringement that will go on is in line with the amount of time you or your publisher is willing to eradicate it, and there will always be a minimum amount, especially with images. So at this point the question becomes, will you attempt to do the impossible, or will you make the phenomenon work for you and spread dilbert as far as you can, which will in the long run increase sales anyway.

[Eric Grayson]

The problem with this copyright argument is that it covers the middle ground on one side and the extreme on the other.

It's pretty easy to see that Scott loses a lot of money if people indiscriminately trade copies of his work that are as good as the originals all over the internet. That's the extreme case, where he has no control, he has the original materials, he owns the rights, he wants to make the works available, and his work is being stolen.

It's then easy to cast the owner as a wronged individual who has a little halo over his head and empty (or emptier) pockets than he should have.

But let's look at a real-world example of the opposite extreme to see how the laws cut both ways and how they can hurt real exchange.

Let's say that the work can't be copied indiscriminately over the internet, the owner has no good copies, the owner has no intention of making the work available in any form, and someone finds a copy, would like to share it with others, would like to pay a royalty and the owner says NO, threatening legal action to confiscate the work.

Scott would likely argue that the owner has an absolute right to deny use of his property and that the property right trumps all other rights. I say baloney. Here's the real-world scenario.

I collect and restore old motion picture films. I discovered a film print of a Bob Hope picture that had only been released to television during the late 1950s. It was abandoned property in an old television station, about to be thrown in the trash. I got it, rescued the chemical decomposition in the print, and made it projectable again. By the way, property law is on my side for this being abandoned property, like trash, not stolen property. If it's been sitting unused in a TV station for 30 years (and may have even been bought outright by said station) and they pitch it out, then it's trash, and I'm free to take it. Look up the law.

The studio that owns the intellectual property of this print (this is like owning a book: I may own the physical paper it's printed on, but I don't own the intellectual rights to read it aloud in a public performance or make more copies), has no copy of this film, has never released it on video, has no intentions of releasing it on video, has no intention of releasing it to theaters or making prints available to theaters, etc.

Therefore, when I was approached by a not-for-profit agency to run this print for a non-public performance for essentially a group of academics, I said that we have to clear it with the copyright owner. They had a CONNIPTION! How dare you have this! Some evil collector has this print! We don't want to clear this at all. We don't want to allow you to play this film because evil people got it from us illegally, none of which was actually true.

The fact is that I would gladly share this print with the copyright owner or a public archive (I do this all the time), but I have no intention of surrendering something I've lavished time, care, and money upon. At no time was I considering copying this print, making any kind of illegal distribution, etc.

The other fact is that by exercising their legal right to deny me the chance to screen this print, they are denying people the chance to study the art of one of the 20th Century's most beloved comedians, some neglected work of one of the 20th Century's most revered composers, and ultimately not helping themselves at all?

The question is whether they have an absolute right to deny all access to their art when they have not taken many steps to preserve it. On the one side, we can understand that Scott may want to restrict access of materials he has preserved and is making available, but do you nix access to a work entirely and shirk your implied responsibility to preserve it?

The copyright laws were intended to protect creators' rights and allow them to be paid when their works were in the "marketplace of ideas." Alas, these rights have been extended to works (like this Bob Hope picture) that are far beyond the time period where they are profitable to make available in the marketplace.

I would argue that the owner studio is doing a disservice to the marketplace of ideas intended by our founding fathers.

Ultimately, they agreed to let us run the film, and charged a royalty so high to do it that it practically bankrupted the not-for-profit organization. We didn't issue a thank-you in our program notes.

You may argue that the rights to intellectual property include the rights to deny all use of the work whatever, but that is against the intent of the copyright laws.

Copyright is a double-edged sword, and I've been cut by both sides. I hope in sixty years that someone cares enough about Dilbert to keep master copies preserved and make them available for future generations. Bob Hope has no such champion.

Eric

[Jr]

Hey, i agree with you scott in that the person who photocopied and provided on the internet the Dilbert Principle has stolen from you. But what has he stolen from you? Future dollars? I guess that's it.

So, does that mean I can go and arrest random people because they might steal from me? :)

Sounds like the 'Minority Report'!!

[TG]

Ahh, that's what happens when you don't read ahead :)

I didn't see your April 8th post about cognitive dissonance until now, so please disregard my earlier post. You were obviously more interested in making fun of people than the topic at hand.

Yes, I can certainly see how irrational it is for ordinary stupid people like us to point fingers at an artificial system of flawed laws that discourage competition, allow monopolies to thrive and have been so perverted since their starting point that they are now used to stop innovation and to protect aging business models that have become completely invalidated by the invention of the internet.

[TG]

'You can’t compete with “free and immediate.”'

Uhh, yes. Yes you can. The only reason people fail at doing exactly this is that they don't want to adapt. From your own example you could have released an e-book along with the actual book. The scanned piracy would still have happened, but the impact of it would have been much less if people could just click a Buy Now! button on your website and download the e-book right away. The convenience-factor is alpha and omega on the internet.

The difficulty that publishers of books/movies/music/anything have to overcome is that people want everything *now* on the internet. Right now. Not tomorrow, not next month when it is officially released in their country, or anything like that -- they want it the instant they hear about it.
If you don't provide that, the black market will.

Maybe you would have *liked* to wait 5 years before pushing out an e-book with enough DRM in it to lock down all the content to your own satisfaction, but as you said yourself that's just not the reality of the market.

You can't just keep bemoaning the fact that the market doesn't act exactly the way you want it to, that's what the RIAA and MPAA have perfected to an artform by now. You're the one who has to adapt your business model to the market or you will run head to head with problems like "free and immediate".

Recently a bunch of software vendors tried to sue the Open Source business model and make it illegal to give away things for free, their argument being that it was incompatible with capitalism. (I know that publishing a GPLed 'Dolbert' comic with the same jokes would be an alternative, not piracy, but bear with me here).
What was interesting was the judge's reason for dismissing the suit. He said that even if software programs just as good as theirs were available for free, people would still buy their products.

I think this perfectly demonstrates the view of the majority of society. People will gladly pay for something that they believe have value to them even when they can get it for free. A lot of open source software projects survive on donations alone, another example of people *willingly paying* for a product that they could just grab for free even when doing so is legal and encouraged.

You will also notice how these people are happy departing with their money because they feel that they are helping to support the creators who make it happen. As compared to people who begrudgingly spend money on online music that they can only play on specialized hardware and aren't allowed to make backups of, simply because they feel that they want that song.
When was the last time you bought a CD and thought, "Hey, I only wanted two songs on this, but by buying the whole thing, at least I'm supporting the artist!" ?

The legal/illegal aspect is *secondary* to people's desire to obtain something, and secondary to their willingness to pay for it, and the only reason there is such a huge black market of everything is that very, very few companies are willing to change their business models to both accommodate and take advantage of the immediate, worldwide digital distribution platforms.

Again, convenience is the overwhelming key factor. If I can click a button and get cheap music and film downloads that are not ridiculously DRM-restricted to the point where I have to tie them to a separate computer that will never be upgraded or changed in any way just for me to enjoy the content I've bought, then I'm not going to go through the trouble to find the stuff on an illegal network.

What drives the black market is the misconception that you can make more money if you just control your customers' entire computer and lock down your content, rather than distribute your content everywhere you can and get as many people as possible to buy it. Companies are using DRM to keep their empire from shrinking rather than working to expand it.

[Dave K.]

Good points. And I agree. But this is the land of the free, underwritten culture, where corporations pay the way for consumers on many information and entertainment fronts. Consumers feel an entitlement to receive value at a steep, steep discount. Television, newspapers and websites without sponsors would not exist. Radio as a communication format did not take off until drivetime was "discovered" and sponsors piled on.

So people think nothing of snatching copyrighted material for free and redistributing it without thinking anything of it. There is no rationalization needed; it is a response to our information and economic system in action.

It is my opinion that it does not even get to the point of thinking about it for folks. Napster ia an excellent example.

Now if Dilbert were to get a major corporate sponsor, you would not have to worry about all this copyright business. Sell the cash flows of the strip (plus a distribution premium)to Coca Cola or Dow Chemical and your worries are over.

Hmmm, there may be details of this plan that I haven't thought through completely.

[Keith Nicholas]

In general, theres not a lot stopping you from copying anything you see or hear, and if it is encoded digitally, then its a heck of a lot easier. It doesn't take away anything tangible from anyone.

In the old, old days, if you heard a song, you could copy it and start singing the song word for word. You see how someone makes a weapon, you copy it. Ideas automatically entered the public domain as soon as anyone saw it or got hold of it....

But over time we came to an agreement as societies that "ideas / creations" have value, and people would pursue their ideas and creations if they think people will pay for a copy. So, people made stuff and sold it to the public expecting they will pay for it.

Laws are made to try and hold this artificial agreement together.

These days, I don't think the artificial agreement holds up, people will not respect your copyright if you release it to the public, regardless of law.

Its just too easy to copy things! Very few people feel any consequence for breaking the "agreement", it dosnt really register much on their sense of morality.

This means people who create highly copyable stuff either need to find a new agreement that people will respect, or release their stuff knowing people are going to copy it.

At the moment the people "making" stuff are relying on the law to enforce the agreement that many people don't agree to. Its just not going to work.

[Smelly]

The way i see it. If i spent time and effort making something (be it music/software/whatever). In the hope of making some money off it.

Then everyone pirates it, so i make no money at all, but people benefit from my "thing".

Then I'm sure as well am not going to devote any more time or money into creating any more things if i'm not going to be making any money out of it.

So everyone loses out. I lose the time i spent creating something (in the hope of making money), people lose out on all the brilliant stuff i was going to make for them.

It's a lose lose situation. Whichever way the theives online try to spin it.

[rope]

I didn’t want to express my opinion on copyrights but I did want to make a post so that I could be included in the royalties from your blog earnings for this copyrighted post.
RoPe ©

[Bill]

I think your just trying to make us all feel bad, and go buy your book. Subliminally, and suberversively, of course.

I thought about buying it, just because I felt sorry for you.
Go figure.

now where is that credit card...

[John]

I have a large MP3 collection but also a large CD collection - I'm buying very often something after hearing it in its copied version, so it's definitely a win-win-situation for me AND the industry. But not for the artitsts with enough money already *g* - I'm kind of "evaluating" the artists which means that I prefer to pay the lesser known ones! If the artitsts would get the full amount of my money I would of course buy even more CDs - due to the fact that I appreciate the artist's work and NOT the industry which distrbutes it... But I think I'm an exception because the most I know are (unfortunately) collecting MP3s without any thoughts behind it.

[SiggeLund]

If you wanna borrow my underpants that's cool with me Scott. :D

[Paul Morris]

Scott, I 100% agree with you. The sooner people start seriously enforcing the law and punishbing those thieving scumbags who pirate software, with some serious and well publicised jail time, the better.
Only a bunch of clueless dorks who dont have the brains to create original work try to justify coopyright theft.

[Stevie D]

My take on piracy/breach of copyright is this.

If I copy a CD instead of buying it, the retailer, producer and artist are losing money that they have a right to (OK, so the retailer has no right to, as I could have bought it somewhere else).
But what if I wouldn't have bought it? There are plenty of CDs out there that it would be nice to listen to from time to time, but I wouldn't ever pay more than a couple of quid ($3.50) for, but shops would charge me five times that to buy them. So it's a choice between no CD and an illegal copy, if I can acquire a copy of it. Who is losing out? The producer and artist aren't losing anything, because they were never going to make any money from me.

And sometimes, a CD that I get a copy of turns out to be really good, and well worth paying for. When that happens, I do go out and buy a legitimate copy. So still no-one loses out.

[Damian Elsen]

"I would say the owner of the underpants lost something even though his property is physically the same."

What did the underpant owner lose?

[Charles Pooter]

Scott,

Kevin Carson pretty much destroys the arguments you present in this post here:

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2007/04/scott-adams-cognitive-dissonance.html

[allsux]

Thanks for posting this story - it really sums up what I feel happened to me recently, as well as the complexity of explaining that perceived violation to others.

[Bob]

My question here is this when i buy the CD in a shop, what am i buying? the plastic disk? or the right to listen to the music?
If it is the disk i should be able to copy & distribute it at will
If it is the right to listen to the music if the disc becomes damaged or lost i souuld be able to get another disc at a minimal cost to maintain my right to listen to it

I think you will find that i am not "allowed" to do either of the above.

thats why i priate lots of stuff, if that makes me bad so be it

[Dave H]

"But obviously there has to be a limit. After I published my first best-selling book, The Dilbert Principle, within days it had been illegally scanned and was widely available on the Internet for free. Technically speaking, it wasn’t theft. But I still lost something. I (and my publisher) lost the ability to decide if, when, and how to publish as an e-book. You can’t compete with “free and immediate.""

Heres the kicker no longer will people wait months or even years for the release of there desired media into there country as and when some "suit" deams the market to be right "we want it and we want it now" if the suits wont release it asap then we will get it anyway and the revenue lost is your own fault.

Its a global market if companys cant organise global releases of media then on your heads be it for not understanding the new world order.

Power to the people

[Ben]

Your right, piracy isn’t theft; no one is losing anything physical. As for creators losing out on their profits, well I’m afraid they’re just a victim of progress, if they were any good any way you think they’re going to stop creating?

Cinemas and independent movie houses were prime examples of an industry subverted by new technology. When you have a TV in your living room why pay to see the news in a flea pit with 200 of your closest friends?

The same thing will happen to music and probably to a lesser extent film. In a world where any band can record an album at a local studio and release if for practically free on the internet for everybody why do we need record labels? Surely free music is the best thing in the world.

Your right, they won’t make profits in the same way that they used to, but any band worth anything can make money touring and playing live shows, that’s all some smaller bands ever make money off. Any one every head of [spunge]? To be honest I don’t really want to listen to a band that are in it for the money or need to spend thousands of pounds/dollars an hour in a studio to sound good.

Movies are always going to cost more to make than music, but should they really have budgets in excess of $100 million? Does Tom Hanks really need to get $20 million for his next movie? Something is only worth what people will pay for and if people stop paying for the movies maybe you’ll get a chance to break away from an Amercian-centic big budget kind of film making and get something produced for a 100th of the cost that’s free to down load so long as you look at a few adverts while you do it.

Same goes for your cartoons Scott. Don’t get me wrong I’m a massive fan, I love what you do, but aren’t you just thrilled that people are reading your stuff at all? As for making a living, how much do you get paid on the lecture circuit?

The world is changing and free music and movies and even cartoons make it a better place. I’m afraid some people are going to have to see their pay checks at the end of the month cut dramatically to do it, but if your only in it for the money why not just go be a stoke broker like ever one else who wants to get rich quick.

Sorry if this came off as a bit personal, I really do love your stuff and I bought all your books legit.

[Oli]

"wait, isn't this blog written by the same guy who said who got rich off drawing snoopy with less talent?

Posted by: Bradley Gardner | April 10, 2007 at 11:46 AM"

Genius!

[Oli]

I agree copywrite violation is wrong, I think the publishing companies (Music books whatever) need to realise that they have an amazing opportunity with the internet.

They expect with the internet to release songs for download at near cd prices. thus making a huge prfoit, good for shareholders etc.

Unfortunately there is music available for download for free.

Most people would rather pay a few pence, 10p (British) per song would be more than enough to cover all recording costs hosting costs etc and make a little profit on the side. Especaily as more people would pay 10p per track to download something. It means they will be getting something highquality and virus free, something thats hit and miss with p2p.

Unfortunately the recording companies get greedy, they want to make more than a little.

In another fantastic blunder by the recording industry they introduced 'DRM' meaning people couldnt copy cds to their mp3 playeer, limited what could be done with the song and some hotshot came up with the idea of a song that expires after a month. Why the f*ck would anyone put up with that when they can jsut get a drm free one for download, sure it may have a virus but it wont f*ck you over as much as drm.

Recently a record label (Sony) released CDs with a DRM system that installed itself on your computer, stopped you from copying cds from sony and sent the details over the internet, what it also did was completely open your computer up to hackers,malicious coders and farmers of 'zombie PC's and if you tried to remove it you then lost the ability to use your computers cd/dvd drive. The only way to fix this is to re install windows all over again.

Publishing companies have to realise they have lost a huge amount of control over the market. Technology is getting cheaper, creation and publication is cheaper and yet they still want to make the same ridiculous profits they always have.

http://ramblingsofanofficeworker.blogspot.com

[Almad]

I started with stealing this year.

Before, I used to be only single person I knew about that was buying all that music stuff and spend hundreds of $ in my local store (and was laught by mates).

I stopeed with it this January, because of new law in my country. According to it, even trying to break copy protection of audio cd is considered as crime. As all CDs have copyright protection, You can't rip Your CD to Your iPod (yeah, You have to break protection to do this). And as most of music I hear is not available in online mp3 stores (not mentioning that they sell only microsoft-drm-protected wma's and thus not playable on my Linux nor iPod), until this law is applies, I'm not giving any more $ to those bastards for their overpriced songs (CD is as expensive as full DVD). I'm going to steal it like anyone else - without spending any money.

Hey, all artists I like, please put PayPal donation button on Your webpage. I'll support You and we can put those RIAA-like guys out.

[John Bradshaw]

Yes it is stealing, do I have a problem doing it is a very different question though.

[bitMaster]

Piracy is stealing. Yeah.

Is stealing wrong?

Certainly not from the thief point of view.

*SOME* piracy ends up doing good... kids whose parents wouldn't feed with books/games/movies/whatever, get to grow into art loving people.

Problem is, most of them forget to pay back their beloved authors once they get their first paychecks.

It's lame and everythig... it's the free stuff addiction.

Maybe some day there will be antipiracy pills... till that day, arrrr! :P

[Roger]

I break the law and am morally bankrupt - to some degree. I download a little, I speed a little, I've been known to use profane language in public. I know when I break the law and I weigh up the risks and rewards. I rarely give a thought to the rights of others in these matters, after all, it's about me.

[Amethyst]

Depends.

If someone writes a Star Trek story and posts it online as fanfiction, claims no credit for creating the characters and accurately credits Gene Roddenberry for creating them, and does not profit, I do not see that as stealing.

However, if someone were to write a Star Trek story and get it professionally published and claim it as theirs *without* official permission from Paramount, that would be stealing and Paramount would have every right to sue their moronic @ss.

[Jeff]

First off, Copyright Violations are certainly not Theft. Different definitions. A useless statement, of course.

In any case, deviance and crime are defined by the social reactions to them. Both what is defined as deviance and the way people react to deviance depend on social circumstances. Crime is a special case of deviance and is defined by social norms that are formalized in criminal law. Deviance is defined through a political process that typically involves struggles between competing groups over status, resources, knowledge, and power. With that sociological blurb out of the way...

Theft is of course 'wrong' by our social norms. Yet Robin Hood's actions would be considered 'right'. So theft, by our social norms, is not always wrong. If the peasants gained enough political power (hah!) to challenge the aristocrats, then theft - in the sense of what Robin Hood did - would not be a crime.

The situation with IP is similar. Social norms labeled copyright violations as a deviance. This deviance was formalized in criminal law. As time progressed, with the proliferation of the VCR and CD Burners, the law was weakened (for example, private recordings of TV shows, played out to a hobby club) and the social reactions have since lessened as well. As time progresses, it seems inevitable that certain intellectual properties will have to adapt, or the violation of their rights will no longer be considered deviant.

To a certain extent, they have done so - rather than high priced games in boxes, for example, they are starting to release games online for lower fees. The new model for selling MP3s is another way the system was forced to adapt to changing societal norms. By providing a legitimate response to the change, the criminal law was not repelled through sociological forces.

So do I have an opinion on the matter? Not really. Just some thoughts as I study for a Sociology final.

[Listo Entertainment]

I think I agree.

Yet I cannot feel guilty after illegally dowloading some music. I've inspected my soul carefully, but I can't find serious guilt for this.

[Bradley Gardner]

wait, isn't this blog written by the same guy who said who got rich off drawing snoopy with less talent?

[Bradley Gardner]

Back in the 1920's musicians used to go into the country, find old folk songs, record them and copyright them (most notoriously the Carter family did this), it wasn't theft it was simple copy right laws.

I used to be a folk and blues DJ, and its interesting that because copy-right laws are so convoluted I can't make a podcast of music that is nearing 100 years old because it is impossible to tell who the copyright holder is. I think it is rather important to have a fairly extensively available public domain, so there can be something honesty referred to as "common culture" in America. I don't particularly understand why literature (project Gutenberg) and software (Linux) should have more transparent copyright laws then music and film, but I'm fairly certain it would solve a lot of problems by clarifying those laws.

(for clarity's sake I should note that the copyright law on music and film states that the copyright is renewed with every new pressing of to product. Therefore a 78 that is 80 years old is out of copyright, whereas a CD that is made from a 78 that is 80 years old is in copyright, a movie is out of copyright until it is transformed into a DVD, and then the DVD is in copyright, therefore unless you are a collector or old movie reels and 78s, or there is some benevolent corporation that is releasing its old movies on the internet (which some American movie archives are currently doing with their more trashy movies), then it is impossible to make use of those products)

[Crimson_Sky]

I like to consider copyrights as a very valid thing that shouldn't be pushed aside. Being that I have a graphic website with which I provide free graphics and layouts, the only thing that I ask is for people to keep the small link or copyright I have put somewhere on it. Is that wrong? It's the only way I can benifit from investing time and money into making this stuff in the first place, unless you count the personal satisfaction that someone else likes it as benifiting more. Which it doesn't. Yes, it's nice..But it doesn't give credit to the work I put in, nor does it give others a chance to use it themselves.

Now yes, I'm aware it can be a pain to see a copyright on your website. But if you like the work enough to use it, should you not want to advertise where you got it too?

I'm aware you're talking more about people who 'do' give credit where credit is due, but I see more of a problem with the other aspect from my view of the situation. Regardless, though..If someone was to redistribute my work on their own, it would be rather hurtful. It's a kind of violation to the artist. Which is why I agree with your underwear anology. Good one, actually.

It can be so hard on the internet to keep this stuff from happening, though. It's sad.

[Yuriy]

Here's a more apt analogy for those who thinkg copyright infringement is no big deal: you discover a magic spell that will make you an exact copy of any car in the world. You release the spell on the internet, so now anyone in the world can have any car they want to for free. Then you acuse the car manufacturers of the world of being greedy for wanting people to *gasp* PAY for the cars they spent money and effort on to produce.

[stuart - velkairiwyth]

Heres one that confuses me:

My copy of Windows XP is just that - a copy. A mate got a generic copy and CD key and gave it to me when I built up my computer when I was at university.

This is blatantly against the rules.

But: I have already bought and paid for a genuine copy of windows XP many years ago when I got my last PC - but lost the CD prior to this PC build. I refuse point blank to go out and pay twice for XP, when I had already done so.

Where does this Lie I ask myself? Just, or 100% fraud. Then I realise, I dont have enough money to care either way :p

I am in a newcomer band however, and I can understand the anit-piracy laws and feelings however, and I would frown on someone getting free copies - but if their original had broken and someone offered them an illigitimate replacement, I would be fine with it...

[tuc0]

No cognitive dissonance for me, thank you...
I don't think "good people don't break laws", and I don't really care about laws at all. Whether I do something or not depends on what I think and not on what some law says. I, like most people, don't know ANY laws (or their exact wording and meaning) AT ALL, and still I don't go around stealing and killing other people...
I probably break copyright laws less than most other inetrnet users (I like to buy my CDs, books and movies because I like to own and have them in their original form) but most of my software is pirated because I don't really need it and I couldn't be bothered going out and buying it. Priorities you see...
And yes, I understand authors who are pissed about the situation...

[David]

Here's a relevant article on piracy: http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/regulars/office_hours/a0000783.html

[ansman7]

Scott:

"Copyright violation" by definition is breaking a law. There wouldn't be a phrase if you took "violation" away. What I want you to do is explain in 25 words or less what a copyright is and what the exceptions or permited uses of copyrighted material are.

Education is the key. The organization or person(s) who put your book out on the net should be keelhauled but the economic reality is that it would cost you more than you could ever get from these maligners so you let it go. It is all about economics isn't it?

PS I always felt guilty about my undergrad days spent "xeroxing" (note to self: am I breaking a trademark here?) the facinating article contained in "Foreign Affairs" or some such other learned journal. Later, to be used in a bibliography and footnotes for some long forgotten term paper. So have did I violate a copyright or not. Remember I'm counting on the 25 words or less version.

[Tom]

No sympathy from me. I get stolen from daily.

The poor wield their voting power to use the police powers of government (i.e., guns) to tax me at higher rates on both my income and property to pay for their needs. I can do nothing about it since they have the voting power and can vote themselves a raise from my pocketbook whenever their representatives come up for reelection.

[Paul Murphy]

[You might have missed a few classes in economics. -- Scott]

I would hazard I know rather more than you about the subject, in fact.
Why don't you bone up on the subject a bit - here's a good site:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/ip/

[One a Month catch up reader]

So its stealing. Try and stop me. I promise, you will fail.

[neopolitan]

Here's something that is slightly amusing.

Let's say I thought of a semi-brilliant solution to an age-old physics, mathematics, medical or philosophical problem. This solution is not one which will earn anyone much money, if anything, it isn't anything patentable (you need a product or process for a patent), but I thought of it and I would like to protect the central idea so that in the future people get to know that I thought of it.

Do you know that I can't protect my idea? The right to protect my intellectual property goes only so far as to protect the words I use to describe my idea.

So, for instance, if I find a non product-based solution to stomache ulcers (and no fancy process), I get nothing (okay, the Nobel Prize for medicine is worth a couple of million, that would be nice).

On the other hand, if I write a little ditty (with a repetitive chorus and musical backing which is pretty much the same as everything else available at the time, to maximise popularity), and convince a scantilly clad nymph to mime it (a proper singer can do the actual vocals), I could get myself a few thousand dollars.

Heck, I could even make myself a millionaire with a few splashes of paint, as long as I could force myself to bullshit the art world about how these splashes represent the essential dichotomy whereby an inherently peaceful western world deals violently with an apparently implacable enemy, and those splashes are the reactions created in the apparently implaccable enemy by the defensive violence of the west.

Or, if I were sufficiently coordinated, I could throw a ball through a hoop for a few million dollars a year.

Or, if I were semi attractive, and could put up with makeup, I could do films and earn a fortune (acting ability not required, Schwartzenegger and Keanu Reeves as exhibits 1 and 2).

So, if I entertain some people, I can get a lot of money, if I actually do something useful, forget about it.

Fortunately, I realised this long ago and took a career path into a less useful area, management, so I get more money than the average joe. It still stings a little that people who are even less useful than me earn such hideous amounts of money.

BTW, I do have an idea which is potentially semi-brilliant, but it needs no protection as most of those who are capable of understanding it are busy praying at the altar of string theory. Anyone is welcome to look at it, download it, email it to others, put it to music and sing it on YouTube, whatever they like - http:\\neopolitan.elitemail.org

cheers,

neopolitan

[Mark Cohen]

There is such a thing as the creative commons, and if people want to consume media which the creator has chosen to make available for free consumption there are plenty. There are even cartoonists (dare I say it? ;) who publish cartoons under a creative commons license. It's simple really, if you dont want to pay for it find a free alternative. If you cross the explicit wishes of the creator, you are doing something wrong. Only the anonymity of the internet allows it to happen without the shame of a face-to-face.

[Tormod]

If someone borrows my underwear, then that is personal space. It attacks me on a personal level.
And if it was Scotts DIARY that was scanned and made available, I would agree on the analogy.

The only "property" I see, in downloading, is beraving somebody of my potential to (pay to) see it. I don't recognize that somebody else owns that.

I don't make a profit. I have no other intention other than to be connected to the information highway. Nobody else owns my eyes and ears.

Most of my dilbert stuff I get for free. But still my bookshelf has five scott adams books, some other merchandise like a mug and some t-shirts amongst other things. and I've rifled through quite a few dilbert calenders.

[Stephani B]

For the record, as long as they hadn't stretched or damaged the underpants such that I could no longer wear them, I would totally be ok with them doing that in exchange for promoting me. And I actually think it would be better if they told me afterwards, because its one of those things you have a knee jerk reaction to (or you worry they won't return them/ actually promote it) if they tell you first...

[Adrian]

The same issue of theft (which I am not sure has ever been addressed) exists in sport.

If player A cheats such that his team wins then player B on the other team is deprived of money (in professional sport for not getting his fee for a "win") and/or "glory" (in amateur sport). That money/"glory" has been stolen by A who cheated.

Not that I expect to find many sports fans that agree with me, but when time is wrapped up and all the books balanced ...

...adg

[NW]

I could not imagine how your opinion could not be biased in a matter that concerns you as much as this.

In my personal opinion - stealing songs or in this case (i assume) downloading an olded strip of Dilbert to which access you'd normally have to pay for is like eating a grape in a supermarket without paying for it. Read some study not long ago about how many thousands of dollars supermarkets lose on people 'testing' the etable products. Digital art loses are also big but the individual theft should be considered of the same weight as grape stealing because of the minor impact it has on the huge profits the industries make.

Secondly I would find it hard to feel guilty about such an act because of how many peaople make a living from one artists work. When buying a mp3, the amout you pay for it doesn't go straight to the artists. You pay the company that bought distributing rights, you pay it's employees, it's marketing department, it's running costs, pay off the nice office bulding they needed to store all the other stuff your paying for, a tiny chunk of that goes to the company that's syndicating the artists and again it is slimed by it's operational costs - which leaves only a fraction of the initial value that the artist will get in the end. It's like getting married only to find out you have to support the whole family of the spause. It just seems those peaople don't deserve to make a living from somebody else's art without having any art related skills of their own.

[Nicki Lagrange]

on rental DVDs in Australia you are forced to sit through a message preaching the evils of piracy - all groovy with a pounding sound track and lots of cuts and grungy graphics - guaranteed to piss you off after the first viewing - the message goes: "You wouldn't steal a car so why..."

to which a stand up comic replied: "sure, i wouldn't steal a car, but if my mate offered to burn me a copy of his..."

[whbos]

Who wrote this? Let's see. I'll copy this article and repost it under my own name and say I wrote it. Or better yet, I'm going to sell every piece of software on the market on my own site for twice the market price.

Wake up young America! We're watching you! Not much hope for the future with the idiots out there who are trying to profit from others creations.

This is disgusting and a disgrace. Be original! Create your own and you'll be more respected. Steal from others, and you'll gain nothing.

[stagefrog2]

Scott, what about accessibility for the disabled? You want artists to have the right to control distribution, but what about audio books or braille books for the blind? Do you believe that artists should have the right to refuse such translations?

[Paul Murphy]

Of course it's not theft. It may well be illegal - but countless stupid laws exist, at this stage, legality is meaningless - if you offend someone in power, they'll try to bury you, one way or another.

If you don't want your work copied, don't release it. No one's making you do so!

All property rights are artificial. Copyrights are no different.

Oh, but they are. If you wore copies of my clothes, well, I wouldn't really give a crap, particularly not if you still had to say "yeah, I copied these off Paul" (I.e. I object to restriction on redistribution, not to requirement for attribution).

Don't forget, people used to be owned too. Indeed, all property rights are artificial - and we can, as a society, choose to do away with distasteful ones. Like copyright. Again, no-one's forcing you to release stuff - I hold that we should merely stop pandering to those who want to "release without releasing", stop giving them artificial advantages over those who release freely: Currently, the shadowy figures with the money can choose between funding people who are willing to hold copyright monopolies and those who *want* free information. Of course they choose the former - while those monopolies exist. As a society, we should stop enabling these f*cks - that means doing away with copyright monopolies.

If that means "no more Dilbert" - so be it! More comic strip market share for the proponents of Information Liberty!

[You might have missed a few classes in economics. -- Scott]

[Zach]

I disagree with you analogy. I'm sure someone has said this already, but I'll reiterate - I'm not wearing your underpants, I'm wearing 2% of your underpants. The other 98% is some old guy that neither of us like very much. Trust me, I'll buy you a whole new pair of underpants when you come in town. Hell, probably a few pairs. If you're cool and don't think you're too good for underpants anymore.

Furthermore, I would have never have gotten to check your underpants out if it weren't for my access to free and easy - now that I know how awesome they are I'm totally buying a few pairs when you come in town. If, however, they suck majorly then I know I don't have to waste my time. Just make sure your underpants don't suck and you'll be fine.

[Argenbert]

i concurr... although i have some kind of "but": copyrighted material is distributed as long as it is profitable. this is perfectly fine, but there is a lot of stuff that i'd never get to see or save for myself. two quick ex:

1. I find Robin Williams quite funny on stand-up. I found that he did a two-hour special that was aired by HBO on US. Alas, I live in Argentina, so there is no DVD to buy or show to see on the TV. (and if it did, it might have been too expensive, so i'm not saying i'm a saint)

thx to nice internet, i got to see that show. i'd have never been able to see it, even if i was willing to pay anything for it.

U could say

2. radio shows that i like to tape and save for myself. these radioshows will NEVER be sold, so i'd lose the chance to hear in a couple of year.

I'm not saying that these example makes copyright violation right, as the autor still is entitled to control his art. nor i am saying it's a victimless crime. but i know i could enjoy, enlighten myself and know a lot of stuff that i'd never be able to get or pay.

My general criteria for buying or not the stuff i want is:

1- can i get it somehow? is it affordable?
2- is it really worth it?
3- is it nicelly presented? (in case of multimedia...)
4- is "the alternative" the same "quality"? (for example. DVD9 must be shrinked to DVD5.)

(for example, i'd totally own seinfield. i actually own a dilbert book ("el principio de dilbert"), but it's in spanish. btw, i'm not saying this to please your highness. i don't like to read on the screen and printing is a lot of fuss. i always buy or borrow the books i read)

in another type of example:
3. i've never payed for a computer game i played. they almost don't get sold here anyway and there is no support. and prices are too expensive for games, for reference, multiply each price here by 3,5 aprox. a 10 buck book will be like 30-40, although hardware and software is much more expensive, like 5 times. music and dvd's are generally distributed by large companies at, like, 25 to 50 bucks.

[Asparagus Pee Chris]

I think the fundamental issue is whether or not it really should pay someone's mortgage to draw a cartoon or hum a nifty little ditty. I see a trend line that indicates that as the availabilty of information expands, the value of each "original work" approaches zero. As a creator as well as a consumer of ideas, I have mixed feelings.

I think the obvious end-point of this line of thinking is that, ultimately, we'll refuse to pay $120 Million to make a movie, and we'll end up with YouTube screencaps.

Given the current copyright laws and the creators' expectations of remuneration, using someone's copyrighted intellectual property without permission is, by definition, theft.

[Will Von Wizzlepig]

It is definitely theft.

My personal policy on that is: don't screw-over your fellow man. That's a purposely subjective term.

Once you define who your fellow man is, then you have a clear scope, and know who it's ok to steal from.

If you're Mother Theresa, your fellow man might be everyone.

If you're a CEO for a mega corporation, your fellow man might very well be nobody.

If I suddenly found I had mistakenly stolen from my fellow man, I'd hope I'd be able to right that wrong.

[Corey Jason Feldman]

I have to disagree with those who say copyright violations are not theft. Under the law intellectual property can indeed be stolen.

For those who make the “Since you don't need money” argument, I say thanks Robin Hood, but who are you to determine what is fair an equitable. If you don’t think something is worth the price or that an artist already has enough money, don’t contribute. Feel free to buy some no name hardware, powered by your DIY windmill, run all open source software and raise your own livestock to feed and clothe yourself. But don’t use your perceptions of someone else’s financial status as a justification for your own moral ambiguity. Who are you to determine how much an artist should be compensated, outside of your own buying power. And what entitles you to receive something for free, simply because other have already paid. And how do you know what that artist might have done with the additional compensation had he/she not been deprived of it. Maybe he\she would have spent it on needless opulent trifles, and maybe he would have donated it to a homeless shelter. Either way, you are depriving him/her of that choice.

I also agree that as an artist, you do have the right to decide how and when your intellectual propriety is distributed and/or sold. This is different from use. You want to (as some one suggested) by some art cut it up and make a collage) more power to you. You want to make a perfect copy of it, and sell it, that is another story. And I am all for fair use. You buy a CD and you want to listen to it on you on your zune or your IPOD, you should have that right. Now if you want to dump it on BitTorrent and distribute it to the world…

I agree bits and bytes are not directly correlated to physical property. Borrowing a book from a library and retuning it, does NOT constitute a copyright violation; I doubt Scott would make that argument. Now if you borrowed a book from library, scanned it, and kept it in your digital library, that would be a copyright violation. With a public library, there are also only limited copies of any given book/media. If you want to borrow, you have to wait your turn. If you want to read it, or listen to it again, you have to check it back out and again wait your turn.

Yes “borrowing” a CD/DVD/Book from a friend, library, blockbuster ripping/copying it does constitute a copyright violation and people DO have a problem with it.

That being said, I do think there are major problem with current copyright law as it stands. Bits and bytes don’t directly equate physical property; don’t even get me started on bioethics and genetic copyrights. Usually there is NOT a fine line between an idea and IP. I am a big fan of the creative commons license, because ideas and innovations are all built upon something else. All artists are standing on the shoulder of giants. No doubt copyright laws need to be updated to find that balance between proper compensation and innovation, so work to change the laws, don’t disregard them simply because they do not suite you.

[Paul Telesco]

One of the primary reasons I no longer "share" my artwork online is because people would post it elsewhere and then "Poof"... I was not the one gaining anything form my work. I walked into a shop at the local mall and saw one of my pieces on a t-shirt. I certainly had not sold the rights to it and never received so much as a "thanks for the cool image" note or fruit basket. When I inquired I was told that my work was on a copyright free image site.

Really? Since when? I had gone through the trouble of tracking it down and eventually had the ISP of the person hosting said site shut it down.

It is my work, my efforts, and my years of learning to do that type of work to the point where it IS worth something. If it is used and given away by others, then why should I make more? I can find other ways of making money... and since that day I haven't given one piece of my work away again on the internet - at least not the stuff worth stealing.

[Turil]

There is a clear dilemma here:

- Individuals need to meet their personal needs (food, shelter, feeling important, etc.) to be healthy and successful

- Society needs to have access to a wealth of resources (physical and informational) to be healthy and successful

So we need to figure out a solution that addresses both of these important elements.

I have recently come up with a system which would easily solve everyone's problems, and keep everyone healthy and happy.

And if you want to know what my idea is, you'll have to pay me a few billion dollars to get that, since it's my intellecual property :-)

[GG]

I guess I'm late to the game on this one. My own fault for not reading the blog on the weekend.

Where is the line between when sharing becomes copyright violation? If 10,000 people email a copy of your comic strip to one friend each then there's no problem from your point of view, according to your example. But if one person puts the comic on a website which then gets 10,000 visitors, it's a copyright violation. In both cases the same number of people got a free copy of your comic strip, why is one a crime and the other not?

If "there has to be a limit" as you say, where is it and how will you enforce it?

[Josh Powell]

I'm wearing your underwear right now. Don't worry, they'll be back before you notice they were gone.