David McNett :: piracy.txt

It is misinformed to accuse the RIAA of promoting the use of the word
"piracy" in order to spin public opinion on copyright infringement.

Use of the word "piracy" in reference to the infringement of intellectual
property dates back to at least 1771 according to the Oxford English
Dictionary:

2. fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another
for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred
by a patent or copyright.

1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since
it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is
charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source
from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the
view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.

Perhaps it's time to accept the fact that language is constantly evolving and
embrace this usage of the word piracy which has enjoyed popular use for over
200 years now.

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=piracy

The "theft" claims come from the idea that part of the value (in the form of potential profits) is removed from the software.

It's similar to the doctrine of "partial taking". Courts use this doctrine to force payments to landowners out of zoning/land-use planning agencies when the rules are changed in such a way as to harm property values. "Partial taking" applies the fifth amendment prohibition on "private property be[ing] taken without just compensation". Even though the property is still there, some of the value has "been taken".

Given that the Supreme Court applies this interpretation of "taking" to the Government itself, you can bet it applies to individuals as well. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Distributing a pirated copy of commercial software reduces the market value of that software in a tangible way. The availability of pirated software damages the developer's ability to charge for that software, since some percentage of people who would otherwise buy it will choose instead to pirate it. It would be hard to argue that the loss is equal to the price of the software, but it'd be even harder to argue that the loss doesn't exist.

Splitting hairs with dictionary entries might make you feel good. But it isn't going to convince any judges, anyone leaning toward the other side, or bring any significant numbers of fence-sitters around to your position. Instead it makes you look like you're disconnected from economic reality, making it counter-productive.

The theft claim comes from the idea that part of the value (in the form of
potential profits) is removed.

It's similar to the doctrine of "partial taking". Courts use that to force
payments to landowners out of zoning/land-use planning agencies when they
drastically reduce an owner's property values by changing the rules to reduce
the things that can be done with the property. "Partial taking" applies the
fifth amendment prohibition on "private property be[ing] taken without just
compensation". Even though the property is still there, some of the value has
"been taken".

If the Supreme Court applies this interpretation of "taking" to GOVERNMENTS,
you can bet it will apply it to individuals as well. And other people than
judges can grasp the concept easily, as well.

So splitting hairs with dictionary entries might make you feel good. But it
isn't going to convince any judges, anyone leaning toward the other side, or
bring any significant numbers of fence-sitters around to your position. Instead
it makes you look like you're disconnected from economic reality, making it
counter-productive.

IMHO the thing to do is avoid this argument and concentrate on the Founders'
original one: That copyright is a TEMPORARY PRIVILEGE intended to INCREASE the
amount of creative material FREELY available in the middle-distant future by
letting authors and their publishers make money on it without competition from
copiers for a SHORT TIME after its creation.