Rebelling against self-destructive authoritarianism == sexy, no matter what you call it.

He's either being naive or intellectually dishonest; and I don't think he's naive.

This meme needs to die [1]. A fisherman doesn't care that a dolphin isn't a fish - when he calls it that, he means that it swims in the sea, gets caught in his net, and tastes delicious. Similarly, Murdoch's perspective is that of the copyright investor - he sees the purpose of copyright law as creating and protecting a new class of property in order to encourage its production. His assets are invested in the production of this "new-style-property" which the federal government promised to protect (just as it does material property). From his point of view, the nature of distribution of that property just aren't relevant.

1. The cognitive bias is so painfully blatant: "the guy I disagree with is a liar bullshitting idiots, or is an idiot himself"? Come on.

Cognitive bias? Why restate the assertion with loaded terms?

Are you saying that it is not intellectually dishonest to equate copyright infringement with theft? Theft deprives its victim of property.

The bias is the desire to demonize someone perceived as an adversary as a liar and an idiot, even if it isn't an accurate model of their behavior. Demonizing someone is nice if you want to start a lynching mob, but not if you want to understand their point of view.

Are you saying that it is not intellectually dishonest to equate copyright infringement with theft?

Precisely. Just as it isn't "intellectually dishonest" to equate a dolphin with a fish, from the point of view of an guy in a boat with a spear.

Theft deprives its victim of property.

Technical detail. Murdoch is investing billions of dollars into what he sees as a "factory manufacturing IP". To him, the output of that factory is his property. Think of it as a magic chicken machine - if you have a machine that makes chickens out of nothing, does that justify stealing chickens from you? After all, you can make more copies of at no cost.

Well this seems incorrect on its face. e.g. Copyright law

To my knowledge, copyright does not even address physical property. Thus it does not treat physical property the same as intellectual property.

They are markedly different. Equating them is, as I rather cicuitiously said, intellectually dishonest. Theft denies a person the possession of the property, copyright infringement does not.

Copyright as it has been formulated, to encourage movement of works into the public domain in return for a limited monopoly, is a fantastic legal device. But the likes of Murdoch have perverted this deal - I don't deny content creators a right to profit from their work. However, the major corporations and the governments that have acceded to their demands have denied the free enjoyment of much work which should by now have entered the public domain.

The terms of copyright should have reduced in-line with lower cost reproduction methods but instead it has increased. If there is any theft involved in all this it is theft from the public domain.

Intellectual property is not really a "new class" of property it has been around for centuries and began precipitating into law with Queen Anne's Statute in the early 1700s. It is simply a reflection that a man should earn from the fruit of his labours whether they be physical or ethereal fruit.

If someone infringes on your copyright, you can still continue selling licences as well as fully transfer ownership of the intellectual property. That's why it's not stealing. Note: I'm not condoning copyright infringement, just pointing out that it's not equivalent to stealing.

I don't see the debate you're referring to. When the music industry chooses to redefine a word, pointing out that that's what they're doing is sufficient. I took the extra step of actually repeating the definitions here, but that shouldn't be necessary.

1. There must be some executive who agrees that there is a difference between copying and theft, and;

2. There must be some executive who agrees that since there is a fundamental difference between an act that gives to one without depriving another and an act which gives to one while depriving another, there must therefore be a fundamental difference between copying and theft, and;

3. There must be some executive who understands the difference between copying and theft.

The first one makes it plain that there is debate as to whether X and Y are different. The second puts your terms on display for debate. The third assumes them.

1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft.

2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries.

Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.

The statement is couched as being about point number two, but if we say either "yes, there are music executives who understand" or "no, you're wrong, no music executives understand," either way we are forced to agree with the first point.

For the record, I agree with both points, but I also acknowledge that the matter is subject to debate.

I quote: This fallacy is often confused with begging the question, which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion.

It does become a loaded question if you ask a music industry exec: "Are you aware of the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and stealing?" But, as the wikipedia article says, that's not the same as begging the question. In any case, it's not a loaded question, since it's not a question to begin with.

The original poster did not ask us to answer the question about the record / film industry, while accepting his other statement. He was saying "I believe that there is a fundamental difference between X and Y, and am dismayed by the lack of understanding of this difference in the record / film industry". I doubt he had formal logic in mind.

EDIT: But you do make some very points, and I'm willing to concede that I may be completely wrong about what the original guy was trying to say, or how it should be interpreted. I really should spend less time on HN :)

Thanks, I learned something from your points and research.

There is a need to state the obvious when you are talking about record industry executives who are stating that they disagree with what you or I consider to be obvious.

If it was that obvious, there wouldn't be any debate, would there?

Well, I guess you automatically "win" whatever discussion you are having when you open with those four words. I presume the logical next step is for us to switch into Monty Python skit mode:

"There is no debate."

"Yes there is."

"No there isn't."

"Yes there is."

"No there isn't."

"Well the RIAA is debating you, so yes there is."

"No they aren't. They can't simply make a rhetorical point conflating two different things and call that a debate. They have to make something that I agree is a valid debating point."

"No they don't."

"Yes they do..."

Talking about trivial consumer products brings a lot of emotion into this kind of debate.

How does this differ from digital services such as FathomDB or Heroku? If I crack their service somehow so that I can use their product to help my company make more money without paying them, am I a thief?

If you manage to use it on their servers, with the associated running costs (disk space, CPU and RAM usage, support if you're a clever cracker) then you are in fact a thief - you are stealing their resources.

Sure the word sounds glamorous if you're a blithering idiot. When someone downloads a torrent, they aren't thinking "Damn I'm like Johnny Depp!" They are thinking "This is so much easier than dealing with 15 FBI warnings and a stack of previews I can't skip before I watch this movie."

Think about it: You know the guy selling screeners and movie copies in the subway for $10 a piece? ...the same thing you can buy in the store without all of the copyright notices and advertisements and $30 cheaper. Which one would you rather buy?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png

Also, being forced to sit through stuff stinks. If I am offered an alternative, I'll take it. I'll even pay.

Other than shoplifting is probably a misdeamenor with small fine and maybe 30-90 days in county jail. Whereas copyright infringment does such violence to (USA)society that it's been deemed necessary to punish with 5yrs in (federal) jail and $250,000 fine per instance of infringing. So, actually physically stealing CD == wrist slap (first time offender). Threatining out of date industry's business model 75 years and 3.75 million dollars (15 song CD).

"International Chamber of Commerce which argued that 1.2 million jobs could be lost in Europe as a result of copyright infringement by 2015"

Is a meaningless metric unless compared to the number of jobs that could be lost in Europe by 2015 due to the ever expanding and insanely broad copyright protections.

I personally have had a career in IT due to pirated versions of DOS/Windows (20+ years ago, gotta start somewhere) and other softwares along the way. And btw by becoming a professional I've recommended, got purchased & installed way, way more $$$ worth of software than I have ever pirated. Studies have been done showing similar effects for music.

Of course these days cause of absurd DRM, EULA's, et al I recommend / work with Open Source almost exclusively. So, it's really your own paranoid control fetishes that are destroying your industries. Not Sexsay Pirates.

Perhaps we should call it "stealing" instead? No problem, as long as people don't associate it with Russell Crowe in Robin Hood (coming to a theater near you; check your local listings).

Just as the pirate label that‘s a pretty stupid description. Making copies might be wrong but it’s not robbery.

Maybe one could find some good word in world of sex offenders and perverts?

How do you call jerking off to someones picture that had not been explicitly sold to you for that purpose either by model, photographer or someone who has agreement with both of them without informing any of them what you are doing especially if some people buy exactly this picture from them for exactly that purpose?

"1.2 million jobs lost" seems like it's a loaded term. Is this going to push the unemployment rate higher? Is it a permanent loss? Will these people get jobs elsewhere? What would the people do in these jobs if this industry never existed? People have been saying that copyright infringement is going to hurt employment for years, and yet the industries continue to exist and people continue to find work.

The digital rights for both sides need to be worked out. I'm all for investors making money, but paying copyright holders to sing folk songs (long after the initial money has been made) can't be fair either.

Some of this is just greed over sales that would never have happened really, and a want to make content scarce when it's not.

I wish there was more obvious research on this. Because sharing all my music with all my friends (and anyone else, really) causes them to be more interested in music and ultimately become a bigger follower of music. This is also true for movies and TV.

But back to the research, I'd be interested if they focused on the industries, or rather, simply the medium (TV, Movies).

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=187

Bit late I think.