The "it's not theft" argument is pedantry. There are lots of ways to obtain things for free that aren't technically theft: extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc. Illegal copying is one of those ways.
Disagree. Even in the extortion, blackmail, and fraud cases, you're removing ownership when you obtain the thing. Copying never removes ownership, so it is not in the same class. It is not theft, and it it not pedantry to claim it is not. It's incorrect to state it is something that it is not to make it sound worse than it is.
I would guess that it's at least a strong minority view -- if not a majority view -- that record labels have abdicated their moral authority to assert transgressions of this kind. It is not unlike patent trolls, where we feel that if someone fails to capitalize on a potential market and in fact attempts (politically, legally, etc.) to hinder the growth there, that they forfeit their right to be wronged.
So I think it's a shame that both sides never seem to get around to Step One, which is to say, "here's what I think the spirit of the law is, here's what I think the purpose of law as a whole is; now, do these conditions efficiently uphold those ideals?"
If those questions are answered then it may not be "pedantry" -- perhaps they think that the purpose of the law is to stop theft, and theft-like deprivations of property. There may or may not be a nuanced argument here; and we won't know until people manifest their assumptions rather than burying them under knee-jerk slogans.
Libel/Slander? Trespassing? Vandalism? Disobeying zoning laws?
I'm not sure what you're asking me. Demanding something is not the same as copyright infringement or theft.
If you're asking why we won't give you the service for what you demand because nobody owns it, I would argue that a service is both physical and finite, so I believe it can be owned. Our service involves physical work being performed, and it is limited by resources, so it being owned such that you cannot demand it is still consistent with my beliefs.
No. I gave you very specific reasons why I believe what I believe. You see hand-waving because you don't want to argue against my reasons, which are clear and logically consistent.
> yet for some reason some other person (musician) somehow is in the wrong for expecting other people to pay for their service and time it took to create their music for your entertainment.
They are not wrong. I like how you put the word "service" in there, because, in fact, they do get paid for their services. Try to hire a musician to put on a show, and you will have to pay. That physical and finite service is owned by the musician, and he trades it for money.
And for the record, a "startup idea" cannot be copyrighted, and they can be and are copied all the time. The closest you can get is patenting a fundamental part of the business model.
You have to remove "by illegal means" from your statement, because you're claiming how copyright infringment is theft, and being illegal doesn't make it theft. It's illegal because it's claimed to be theft.
So your statement becomes "getting something you would normally have to pay for for free." Is this theft? If you could get something for free that you would normally have to pay for, wouldn't most people do it? What is the compelling reason not to?
You can't drop the "by illegal means" part from my statement, on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft, because my statement isn't predicated on it being theft, it's predicated on it being illegal behavior. Which it is, on a basis wholly distinct from theft.
"Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc.
The point is that it's not a very defensible position to say "give me more product at lower prices or I will subvert the law to obtain it for free."
But your statement was being used to show how copyright infringement was equivalent to theft. I think I understand what you're saying now though, is it that copyright infringement and theft are equivalent because they both are illegal and they both acquire something? If so, I would still have to disagree by saying that theft has the important distinction of removing original ownership.
> "Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc.
It also encompasses a wider range of non-theft legal means: finding deals, being resourceful, doing favors, etc.
When someone says theft in relation to digital music, movies, etc they mean copyright infringement. Do we really need to have these repetitive and anal retentive trips down the rabbit hole every time this topic comes up?