No, because copying it is a violation of the terms of use. If the owner of the material has said that any copying without permission is prohibited, then ALL copying is theft because the user did not have permission to take the multiple copies.
Ok. And what about allowing a friend to listen to your CD? He didn't pay the artist for the enjoyment of listening to it.
Also theft?
If you're asking is it wrong, the answer is yes. If you're asking is it legal, the answer is no.
I'm going to ask you again: are you familiar with the concept of licensing?
No, because copying it is a violation of the terms of use. If the owner of the material has said that any copying without permission is prohibited, then ALL copying is theft because the user did not have permission to take the multiple copies.
Breaking terms of use is not the same as theft, in an ethical sense. Is it?
I'm not being obtuse. I want to understand the ethical reasoning behind these copyright laws.
Now by your definitions here, it should be ethically ok for me to copy it and give to someone else as long as I don't still own the rights to the material. If I don't listen to it ever again, then this is ethically ok?
How is it theft? Leaving aside Fair Use, a violation of copy rights I'll give you, but no one is without their copy of the material and nothing can be stolen from the owner if he did not have it in the first place.
It's not theft. Doesn't even begin to meet the definition. The Constitution delegates Congress the power to secure exclusive uses to creators of works:
Art. 1, Sec. 8:
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;
---
The concept of intellectual property is a total creature of law.
I'm not being obtuse. I want to understand the ethical reasoning behind these copyright laws.
Now by your definitions here, it should be ethically ok for me to copy it and give to someone else as long as I don't still own the rights to the material. If I don't listen to it ever again, then this is ethically ok?
I'm also not sure that everyone on the planet should be bound by a contract made between a buyer and a seller.
It's not a contract created by purchase. It's a contract created by possession.
Ok, this is making a lot more sense to me. I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what most of you are saying. Someone creates something and distributes it. Distribution comes with an implied contract, and anyone breaking this contract is ethically wrong.
I can see where you're coming from here, I just am not sure that I would use the word "theft" or "stealing" to describe the breach of a contract.
I'm also not sure that everyone on the planet should be bound by a contract made between a buyer and a seller.
I'm not sure I agree with that either.
Are you being purposefully obtuse because this is beginning to border on the absurd.
The physical CD is yours to listen to or give away. The right to private enjoyment of the material on it has been licensed to the holder of the CD, whomever that may be.
The material on the CD is not yours. It is not yours to copy or sell. You are not selling the material when you sell a CD. You are selling the physical CD and the rights to the material. THe new owner, whether by gift or by purchase, agrees to abide by the copyright restrictions simply by possessing the material.
Do you understand the concept of licensing?
Because one must pay for the privilege of possessing the rights to the material, any copying denies the owner of that material the profit from selling those rights. Two copies, one permission slip. Owner is out some money. I call that theft because they took without permission.
I wouldn't term it a contract. Congress promises to creators of useful science and art that they will punish anyone who uses their creation without paying for it. It's a legal mandate or imposed duty to refrain from non-permitted use.
What is it you don't agree with? For the third time: do you understand the idea of licensing?
It's not theft. Doesn't even begin to meet the definition. The Constitution delegates Congress the power to secure exclusive uses to creators of works:
Art. 1, Sec. 8:
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;
---
The concept of intellectual property is a total creature of law.
The owner is not out money, because you can't how that he would have ever had it in the first place. In fact the concurrent rise in digital media sales and piracy argue the opposite of your claim.
As for the theft of the right to distribute copies, that is a violation of copy rights and not theft. If it were theft copyright law would call it that, but it doesn't because it isn't.
All you are trying to do is use the emotional power of the word by redefining it to mean something it is not, which is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.
I do understand the idea. That doesn't mean I agree with it.