Feds to audiophiles: You're all pirates now

Amazing what Ganja does to the thinking process....
If I ride my bike to the corner grocery store, put the kickstand down, go inside to buy an ice cream pop and talk to the shopkeeper for a bit -

The Bicycle has been Freed from it's Rider!

Hallelujah!

Someone may take my liberated bike, but I'm sure next time they'll come into the store and buy a bike from me since they liked the last one so much - I should probably buy lots of bikes and leave them outside stores - I'll be rich!!!.

Opalchip -

You're making the same argument again that you made earlier about stealing an iPod. I've already addressed that above. There is a BIG difference, legally, physically, (possibly not morally, that's the debate here), between taking something that someone will no longer be able to use once you have taken it (such as a bike, iPod, or any physical object you may choose), and enjoying something for free when you should be crediting the creator of whatever you're enjoying.

Music is an idea, not an object. If you want a stronger argument, and you're tied to the idea of a physical object, then you could talk about the patent for a bike. If someone obtained the plans for the design of a bike and then photocopied it and posted it on the internet, then you would be closer to the argument at hand.

If you want to make the point that stealing is morally wrong no matter what form it is in, then you'll need to find a way to say that without blurring the line between property law and copyright law. They are separate things. You feel that they are both wrong, and that's your opinion, but they ARE separate things.

-Dusty

Hi - I understand that there's a difference between an Ipod/Bike and what you hear at a live concert. The point I'm making is that theft is not justifiable by some potential benefit that the thief, in his mind, perceives might accrue to the victim.

A Digital File is a "thing". It may be covered under copyright law, but it is a physical thing that someone went to a lot of trouble to create. It doesn't dissipate into thin air like live music - it's can be sitting on a CD or a hard drive. We don't buy them - we license them, complete with the terms that stipulate you cannot copy and distribute the file.

One point you're missing is that the owner of the file (the artist) will now NOT be able to sell that file to whomever you give it to (or to you). You have removed that listener's potential purchase forever, when you had agreed (as the original buyer) not to do that. It's cut and dried to me.

A Digital File is a "thing".

Incorrect. A digital file is not a "thing." That would be like saying that an idea is a physical object. The file is an organization of 1's and 0's that your computer can interpret as a sound. A digital file is no more a "thing" than a song is a thing.

One point you're missing is that the owner of the file (the artist) will now NOT be able to sell that file to whomever you give it to (or to you).

Nope. It is incorrect to say that the artist cannot sell that file to me if I already have it free illegally. Even if I had downloaded the file illegally, I could still go to iTunes and download it legally if I felt so inclined. It's true that someone may not feel so inclined, but it's false to say that they can't.

The points above are exactly the reason we have copyright law in the first place.

-Dusty

Dusty, really, what are 1s and 0's if they're not things?
Are you suggesting they are "nothing". This is getting deep.
Perhaps some Philosophists might have some input here.