We have different words because they do mean different things. There should not be a value judgment just because we use a different word.

Theft - removing a possession from its lawful owner without their permission.

Piracy - using something which you do not have permission to use while not impacting the use of the lawful owner.

That just got out, and it's 2:15 at night here. Be patient.

By definition. Piracy: [mass noun] the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. The association of copyright infringement with piracy implies that it's theft.

There's a difference between (a) taking property unlawfully, (b) reproducing material unlawfully, and (c) acquiring unlawfully reproduced material. Why should (c) be treated *worse* than (a)?

So, which would you rather be... a thief or a douchebag? I'll leave it up to you.

Middle-class, economically productive, self-reliant, single, white male consumer of technology -- about to get screwed again

but either way you are stealing revenue from the producers of such content

Theft denies revenue and so does piracy.

Sneaking into a concert is also theft even though you didn't leave with anything material.

Funny how this administration is "pro-little-guy" when it costs me money, and pro-corporation when -- you guessed it -- it costs me money.

Tom: doing what I think are some great things for the American people

Yep, bankers, Hollywood and rich people love him.

The unemployed middle class is having second thoughts.

"Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people..."

Oh, you mean like the 1.4 TRILLION dollar annual Federal debt that future generations will be saddled with???

Grow up kids.

Will Mr. Obama's? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.

"P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president? "

Y'know, you really can't just go around making stuff up like this and expect a pass.

Go look at the Congressional Budget Office data*. (I hope you're not like other Reagan-haters to whom I've pointed this out, who insist that the CBO just isn't as reliable source of information on the economy as MoveOn?)

Look at 1981 (when President Reagan took office) and 1989 (when he left office).

The deficit grew from 2% to 3% of GDP.

Now look at 2009 (when President Obama took office) and today (the dashed line).

The deficit grew from 3% to 6%, with projections of 9% by the end of 2010.

Yes, sure, the economy is bad - but it was a disaster when Mr. Reagan took office, too (remember 14% inflation and 20% mortgages? No, you probably don't).

When he left office, inflation was only 3% and mortgage rates were down to 7%. The economic recovery begun under his watch continued right up until 9/11. Winning the Cold War was just gravy.

Set aside your hatred for a moment and let your inner geek emerge - look at the data. Reagan is remembered so fondly by most Americans** because his policies worked.

Will Mr. Obama's? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.

* See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml#1100451. That huge freaking cliff on the right is Mr. Obama's "spend us into prosperity" strategy at work.

** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_t.... Ronald Reagan places 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 9th in recent polls seeking the best president in all of history.

"Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people..."

Oh, you mean like the 1.4 TRILLION dollar annual Federal debt that future generations will be saddled with???

"I wonder if the teabaggers..."
"I bear neither hatred..."

Um hm. A most telling slip in your screed.

However, I think the real term you're looking for is "Copyright Infringement"... as the term "Piracy" is sufficiently ambiguous and shouldn't be used in the first place.

Most of the ebooks I've pirated, however, are morally greener because I already own the dead tree forms.

Why am I not convinced? You're blinded by your own hate.

For example, with every evidence of a straight face, you credited President Clinton for the fiscal situation in 2000, but blamed President Reagan for the fiscal situation in 2008. Didn't they teach you in school that President Clinton served after President Reagan?

Let me guess: You were kidding there, too.

You admitted that your initial swipe at Mr. Reagan was wrong.

Your next step is to realize that Mr. Obama's eye-popping deficits are no more in the "don't matter" category than Mr. Bush's - they are a grave danger to our country.

Get past the "R's bad, D's good" chant from your non sequitur-laden earlier post. Judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their state.

It's not too late.

Since you're not dealing with legal definitions, but with man-on-the-street definitions, I'll counter you.

Maybe "theft" is limited to your definition, but "stealing" certainly is not.

for the Encouragement of Learning

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

Let's be honest for a minute. The only reason we, the common folks, say it is not is because we want to justify our behavior, i.e. the illegal downloading of software, songs, etc.

Sure anyone can do that, but most really don't.

RIAA advocates

This is another great example of silly political word-games.

My guttural reaction to that headline when I read it was "ummm 'taxes' cough, that feels like piracy too".

I could care less about what any president or court says

Sometimes I'm embarrassed that I live in this country...

(a)Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.

Theft in other cases is petty theft.

As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you'll see a single article on OSnews even suggesting that it is wrong.... perhaps the "rapidly growing segment" has already grown to consume OSnews as well??

Because you responded to a critique of both R's and D's with an off-the-wall attack on President Reagan

Because you called a predominately Republican group a vulgar name?

the bottom line is that the level of spending advocated by the Obama administration and passed by the 111th Congress relative to revenues is both indefensible and unsustainable.

You think that's how the world, aka the world of piracy works?
Sure anyone can do that, but most really don't.

Weird, huh, how the world works?

We all like free stuff but how many would feel happy if they invested a lot of effort (e.g. to develop music, or a novel, or a program) only to lose on potential revenue due to illegal copying and distribution.

only to lose on potential revenue

either way you are stealing revenue from the producers of such content

Don't agree to terms preventing you from playing that music file on a different device than what you paid for? Then don't buy the damm song in the first place. No one is forcing you to purchase them.

Indeed. Downloading is not violation of copyright, it's theft. Like when you steal a book from a bookshop.

Sometimes I'm embarrassed that I live in this country...

"Why do you assume that I hate all R's?"

Because everything you said about R's up until this post was bad, and everything about D's was good?

Because you responded to a critique of both R's and D's with an off-the-wall attack on President Reagan, who served before you were even born?

Because you called a predominately Republican group a vulgar name?

I'm happy to acknowledge the change in words in your last post, and hope that represents a different heart than your earlier words implied.

"blaming Obama for the deficit/debt"

There you go again. When did debt enter the conversation? We're talking about the deficit. It's a critical distinction - you can inherit a debt (at least in government); you can't inherit a deficit.

The deficit belongs to the current president and congress alone - they voted for it and signed it into law, to their shame. They can correct it by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or both.

You don't need to be an R to figure THAT out. ;-)

And with that, I leave for work. That's for the chat, off-topic though we were. :-D

"The so-called attack on Reagan was ... an entirely factual statement"

"Off-the-wall" means "bizarre", not "in error". For example, if I responded with "But President Clinton was impeached!", it would be off-the-wall even though entirely factual.

However, the statement wasn't factual.

First, the statement erroneously used "deficit", which is quite different from "debt". "Debt" is the total amount owed. "Deficit" is the difference between revenue and expenditures. See the difference?

Even corrected to read "debt", though, we agreed that the statement misses - President Bush had a higher percentage increase in *debt* than President Reagan - but nothing like what Mr. Obama (and the 111th Congress!) has already achieved, of course.

"Sometimes I'm embarrassed that I live in this country...

If Mr. Reagan was "inaugurated" before you were born, didn't he serve before you were born? Do his first two months not count as "service"? Guess I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here.

Your original Reagan statement referenced an increase is *deficit*, but you meant *debt*. That's an important difference, as I explained above, and caused a lot of the confusion. Sorry, I was a little slow to identify why we were talking past each other there.

Debt != Deficit.

It's a really important distinction

Your original statement was

I'm thinking you meant "debt" here, correct?

I'll concede that Mr. Obama could inherit deficit during the first year of his term - I hadn't thought of the disconnect between term and fiscal year (thanks!).

Of course, we're in his *second* year, and so the deficit in question is his own (and the congress', of course). The CBO data shows that to be *far* larger than the Obama / Bush deficit or indeed any deficit in the history of the country. *That's* the problem to which I'm pointing rather doggedly here.

According to Wikipedia, the top 5 federal budget categories are Social Security (21.05%), defense (16.85%), medicare (13.34%), welfare et. al. (11.77%), and debt service (8.50%). What were you expecting to surprise me here?

Even so, I said nothing about whether "Obama's [debt] will be worse than Reagan's". Again, I was going by the CBO data, which shows Mr. Obama's *deficit* in the current fiscal year to be by far the largest in US history, which has achieved - PAST tense - a record *debt* increase for the current year.

Taxes are down ... that's hilarious!

And yes, that's exactly what I was hinting at.

Aside from the Stimulus, please name the largest unsustainable big spending legislation that this administration/congress own. You may be surprised by what you find.

We find that the effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, probably averting what would have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the policy responses, GDP in 2010 would be about 6½% lower, payroll employment would be about 8½ million jobs lower, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.

When we divide these effects into two components, one attributable to the various rounds of fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to the panoply of financial-market policies (including the TARP, the bank stress tests, and the Fed’s quantitative easing), we estimate that the latter are substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, our estimated effects of the fiscal stimulus policies alone are very substantial: In 2010, real GDP that is about 2% higher, an unemployment rate that is about 1½ points lower, and almost 2.7 million more jobs….

Taxes are down ... that's hilarious!

And yes, that's exactly what I was hinting at.

Who decides what is "right" and "wrong"? Without getting deep in to philosophy can we agree that it is either a deity or some form of communal decision? Most people in history will agree that the source of right and wrong broadly fall in to these two categories.

"Aside from the Stimulus, please name the largest unsustainable big spending legislation that this administration/congress own. You may be surprised by what you find."

But before anyone can even argue against TARP and the stimulus, they must accept as fact that the stimulus had no effect. Unfortunately we have this nasty thing called reality, one where the real world data does not simply suggest but proves that without TARP + stimulus we would most definitively gone into a great depression. FYI, there are numerous sources, including the CBO (as well as that liberal commie bastion Moody’s Analytics) who have pretty much specifically stated this on record.

and music in high quality, rather than hearing muffled sounds in the distance.

It is the one failure of democracy that the idiots are allowed the same vote as those that actually take the time to inform themselves.

"I think you are misreading the data. The stimulus, which is the only significant spending bill passed by the congress/administration, is not yearly. As a result the deficit since the '09 Bush numbers is shrinking and should continue to shrink for a few years."

I hope this is true. I fear it's not. Just a quick google reveals this out of Washington today: "Obama said this week his advisers are looking for additional tax cuts and spending measures as ways to boost the economy." -- http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/116795-romer-call...

I can't help but believe the President's words over your hopes. Spending is addictive, and I fear President Obama is an addict. *sigh*

"Take it from a conservative blogger who is addresses this myth: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11094"

Interesting read, thanks! It says three things to me:

* "Fans should be far angrier with the starting pitcher" (people should blame President Bush more than President Obama). Exactly - you'll notice I haven't defended Mr. Bush once - not once - in this entire thread. "Obama wants to be Bush on steroids" pretty much sums up my feelings, although I tend to consider Mr. Bush to be "President Obama, Jr."

* "Obama has been serving up softballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor's. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids." This is exactly the point I keep making.

* "America's fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. If Obama wants to rejuvenate the economy, he should abandon the Bush policies of big government and interventionism and instead go with free market policies that actually work."

Amen and amen - and again, thanks for the link.

Sneaking into a concert is breaking and entering, not theft.

If you stand outside ArenA stadium in Amsterdam during a concert, you can hear the music - without paying. Is that theft too?

Regardless of the interesting topic of debating the fundamental differences between property theft and copyrights....

Why do we NOT see articles on OSnews and others about how many people do NOT see a problem with the copying and (notably) distributing of copyrighted works?

I mean... would we even have to discuss the differences between theft and copyright if people were doing the right thing with regards to copyright holders?

Just something to think about... "Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you."

As a teacher, I have done random surveys (nothing official, just raising of hands, etc.) and even in our most "moral" and "conservative" institutions the violation of copyrights is VERY high (>75% of students in Junior High and High School).

The Internet makes is easy... and unfortunately, it has made many of us into abusers.

No... I don't like it that I'm NOT allowed to make personal copies of media like DVDs. I do not like DRM and how it prevents me from making copies.... (though there are illegal mechanisms). And so... I don't like "the man" for putting a heavy weight on my shoulders because "the kid" down the street is distributing 50,000 songs, 400 DVDs and 1000 pieces of commercial software illegally ("kid" believes it's ok because he/she is NOT charging for the "service").

Sometimes we LOSE our freedoms universally due to the irresponsible behavior of a few. This is sad. But again, what I used to see as a "few" is a rapidly growing segment (from my unscientific surveys).

As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you'll see a single article on OSnews even suggesting that it is wrong.... perhaps the "rapidly growing segment" has already grown to consume OSnews as well??

Sneaking in to a concert doesn't involve any taking, so by your own definition it's not stealing.

Many things are given away without payment and if I take them I am not stealing.

Copyright infringement != theft.

Or, in other words, you're wrong.

Explain this to me.

Either that or drugs, illegal gambling or child pornography. At the moment it seems popular among politicians in the EU to want to fight child pornography using internet filters or data retention. Of course the pro-copyright lobbyists are aware of this and are trying to take full advantage of it.

The frightening thing about this is that most often than not the politicians have absolutely no idea what they are in fact trying to push through: they don't understand how the filtering system works, they don't understand its limits, and they refuse to listen to criticism. Once the filtering system is in place there is absolutely nothing stopping large corporations from gaming the system to their own ends.

A politician pushing for something he doesn't understand is a lot worse than a politician who doesn't do anything. It's like firing a nuke without knowing the direction it's aimed at.

"Indeed. Downloading is not violation of copyright, it's theft. Like when you steal a book from a bookshop.

If the person making the copy of the book never intended to buy it in the first place, how was there something lost here?

If they turn around and sell the copy they made, that becomes slightly more nefarious, but you have to admit, the book was not stolen.

Theft and copyright infringement cannot be compared on equal levels.

"If the person making the copy of the book never intended to buy it in the first place, how was there something lost here?

If they turn around and sell the copy they made, that becomes slightly more nefarious, but you have to admit, the book was not stolen.

Theft and copyright infringement cannot be compared on equal levels.

How do you know?

RIAA advocates such as yourself claim that every downloaded song/film constitutes a lost sale, something based on absolutely nothing. As such, I think I'm entitled to make a similarly nonsensical claim: namely, that all downloaded music/films are eventually bought.

Both claims have no footing in reality - yet somehow mine is more idiotic than yours?

What if I walk into a library and make a copy of a book rather than checking it out to read it for a week... that's also copyright infringement, and no revenue is technically "lost".

What if they check out/borrow the book, and make a copy out of convenience in the future to reference it (when they could just borrow it repeatedly any time they needed anyway)?

Your suggestion that revenue is lost when someone makes an unauthorized copy of a work is a weak argument in the first place - as there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place. That doesn't make it any less illegal, but there is no guarantee of revenue to the content owner to begin with - nobody is forced to purchase a book, and there are already plenty of ways to legally read a book without actually paying for it.

What do you mean by "there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place"?

"As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you'll see a single article on OSnews even suggesting that it is wrong.... perhaps the "rapidly growing segment" has already grown to consume OSnews as well??

You are taking the hard work of others without paying for it.

When you take the work of others without payment you are stealing.

That's simply the nature of the product.

My position is based on principle and as such you cannot tell me I am wrong. You can only disagree with me and explain why.

Theft denies revenue and so does piracy.

By pirating, some people are derived of money they would have if their stuff was not pirated.

By pirating, some people enjoy goods that did not pay for.

Piracy is theft.

"I don't expect to get much agreement from you or the do-nothing congress on that though."

Yes, I think I understand your positions and rationales much better now - thanks for sticking with me through it all. You're more interested in shortening the recession and believe more spending accomplishes that goal,

while I'm much more interested in not emulating the Greece debt crisis or defaulting on our massive debt altogether.

Guess we'll settle our differences with an election or something

despite your lack of faith in public opinion.

Either way, I hope the best approach prevails.

Thanks again for the interesting discussion.

What I mean is that a book is not necessary to live life - so nobody is required to buy them in the first place.

There is no guarantee that they would have purchased it anyway, even if they did not get it for free illegally.

Thus, claiming that every copied book is a lost sale is wrong

and equating the creation of an illegal copy as theft is also wrong by derivation.

Furthermore, since making a copy does not remove the original item from the store, the store owner hasn't actually lost something as a result.

I realize people are pissed that copyright infringement is rampant, and very likely costing people lost revenue - but you can't outright merge the two concepts together and call them one crime... that's simply not the reality of the situation.