New Tobin Paradigm wrote:..., I shouldn't have to put of a fence to keep you from stealing my lawn chairs should I?
The digital world has rendered the issue of "theft" and "stealing" somewhat complicated.
The analogy of the lawn chairs, I think, will illustrate what I mean quite aptly.
If you have lawn chairs (which the writer seems to imply are on the lawn), you own them through purchase, theft, receiving them as a "gift", or whatever. In any case, not only do you own them, but they're in your possession, and you can use them.
However, and this is decisive to the issue, if someone steals them, even though you still technically own them, they're gone - they're no longer in your possession, and you can't use them anymore.
When people
upload videos to YouTube, we enter a whole different world, the world of "digital rights".
Let's take a look at the the two FBI warnings that appear on some DVDs and BluRays.
Please notice that it says, "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal." Please also notice that it DOESN'T say "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work
or any part thereof is illegal."
Just as the writer of the post upon which I'm commenting here makes assumptions, I'm going to assume here that the FBI people who formulated the warning knew YouTube exists and also knew people sometimes just upload a scene or an individual tune from, e.g. a ripped dvd. Why didn't they include
or any part thereof?
And I also wonder who has the "authority" to authorize reproduction or distribution. I mean, if I legally bought the disk, am I not the owner? But what do I actually own - the silver plastic disk, or does my ownership somehow extend to the content? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be a pretty complicated issue.
This warning somehow pulls at our heartstrings by implying that "digital theft harms the economy".
(1) I can read, and I see that the warning includes the word "theft". Here's how the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word "theft":
a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft
Let's take a closer look: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
(1a) "taking and removing" -> When I download a YouTube vid, I neither take it nor remove it.
(1b) "with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" -> The "rightful owner" (usually not the uploader, by the way) isn't deprived of anything other than the potential income that might be earned if I didn't have access to the vid on the web and was forced to buy it, say from Amazon or Apple. And if I did buy it, what do I own - some bytes stored somewhere on my computer or "a video clip" or "song"? It's really pretty complex.
(By the way, I haven't visited the website to which the warning politely invited me.)
(2) What's "the economy"? All I can say in this regard is that if a government sells weapons for millions or billions that are used to kill innocent civilians, and it helps "the economy", am I supposed to believe that it's "good"? When I download a song that makes me happy, I have no problem rationalizing my "crime", even if it, in some minuscule way, theoretically "harms the economy" that has benefited nicely from the weapons sales.
And let's be brutally honest for a second: Despite the numerous and repeated acts of egregious theft resulting from downloading of YouTube vids, if you look at Amazon's and Apple's profits, they (and their stockholders) ain't doin' too bad. Where's the harm to the economy?
Am I comparing apples (pun intended) with oranges? Maybe baby, but I like fruit salad.
Anyway, I'll end this roundabout comment by acknowledging that I think I understand what the author of the posting that I've addressed here was getting at, and it certainly shows that the person's heart is "in the right place".
Living in a small hole somewhere in the "real world" as I do (or at least I assume I do), I confess that - for better or worse - I tend to relativize things. In this case, I have looked my conscience squarely in the eye (yes, my conscience actually has an eye), and when I explained to it my reservations about downloading YouTube videos, the good ol' conscience-eye just winked and said, "Don't Worry, Be Happy".
-- The End (almost)
P.S. By quoting the online dictionary, did I "steal" anything? After all, I cited the "source". Hmmmm, I guess I'll have to find the time to read Merriam-Webster's "fair use" policy.