Technically in a legal sense this is true, copyright infringement is not theft legally.

“Spencer indicates that “Theft is the taking of property without the owner’s permission (now listen up this is the important part) such that the owner loses his property in entirety.”

Which further proves the copying isn’t theft portion, since the “property” is not removed, it is merely duplicated.

“It takes the use of the product away from a licensed or authorized user or owner”

Then why is that person still able to use it? If I took away the use, in theory, you would not still be using it. Your logic is illogical to me.

“You do it, okay, but don’t justify it as being legal.”

I know for a fact there is a fine line difference between justifying a crime, and stating that one crime and another aren’t comparable.

I admit that I too am a guilty as sin downloader of mp3s. I feel like, unless I stop it and just stick to the radio or the purchase of any item (which I intend to, anyway), I’m gonna be like Brianna LaHara was: next in line to be sued by the RIAA or similar people for piracy.

Every CD, DVD, etc. states quite clearly:

‘WARNING: All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance, and broadcasting of this record (DVD, whatever) prohibited.’

But with all this ability to copy mp3s with something like say AudioCatalyst, people that do so are IGNORING the coyright laws!

Regarding the whole CD thing, I don’t buy every CD on which I can lay my hands even IF I had enough money to do so. I usually only buy CDs by certain artists I like (and there are about 14 at the moment, including Phil Collins, Celine Dion, Christina Aguilera (a truly phenomenal singer, by the way), Evanescence, Sarah Brightman, Mika Nakashima (from Japan - my favorite female singer!), Spandau Ballet, Andrea Bocelli - anybody like that).

Furthermore, I agree with Anne about the artist needing to make money. I’m aiming to become one myself (singer/songwriter), and while I did indeed for some time like so-called ‘P2P networks,’ I backed away from them because of the whole copyright issue. Now that I’ve bravely decided to join as a music artist all my own, I too live in fear of having somebody copy MY music and making it available for download without my permission. The record labels DO lose money, and the artists get next to nothing from it.

Correct me if I’m mistaken on this one.

Assuming you did mean distribution - and assuming what you said in that same paragraph is 100% true. Then the person uploading the music is the one who is violating the right of the musician - since only they are violating the owner’s right to distribution. I am not convinced that the owner has complete control over all “use” of his product. Consider US copyright law - Chapter 1 Section 114.a specifies that sound recordings (CD’s) are “limited to the rights specified by clauses (1), (2), (3) and (6) of section 106″ which are (allow me to paraphrase again):
1) reproduce
2) prepare derivitives
3) distribute copies
6) perform publicly by means of digital audio transmission.
The law even specifically states there are limitations to these rights. I am not going to cite any more but you get the idea. You would need to prepare a very good argument for the artist’s right to control all use of their intellectual property once it has been made public.

So - using someone else’s pool while they are away on vacation is theft? I think you are misusing the term.

Many cases of government stripping “basic rights” in cases of war-time (Japanese citizens in WWII) or on suspicion of terrorist sympathies etc. exist. Government protects rights as long as doing so protects the rights of others. They reserve the ability to strip those rights when they believe they are acting in defense of the common interest. If rights are truly “Natural” then they should not have that power. In other words - government giveth and taketh away - and we gave the government its power to do that. I am just saying that sounds to me like it is a collective decision to ACT as though rights exist for the better for all - except in the cases where it is actually better for all to disregard rights.

We already know that theft is immoral. And people equate internet piracy with theft as proof that internet piracy is immoral. I hope I presented the case already that they are not the same. Though I suppose if you want to broaden the definition of theft you will need to present a moral argument that shows how the new inclusions are also immoral.

Then there is your padadigm of the wrong case: that a song is downloaded and played for enjoyment without compensation. There are 2 nouns there… 2 seperate actions. 1) Downloading. 2) Listening for pleasure. This might be the cause of our difference of stance. Is it immoral to download someone else’s copyrighted work (ignore the case that you might not actually know at that time what you are downloading because all you have is a name). Then - is it immoral to listen to that music for pleasure. Are you contending that it is immoral in both cases? I am confused. In the first all you have done is make a perfect copy of the work and placed it in your possession. It seems to me that if there is an immoral act it would be the act of listening for enjoyment. That realization hits home - as I am currently listening to music a friend pirated 4 years ago and I copied off his computer.

I also disagree with your statement that the government can strip people of their rights. The only legitimate cases I can think of where that should be allowed is when the person in question has already committed a serious crime. In the general case the government cannot strip peaceful, law-abiding citizens of their rights because those rights pre-exist the government. Government doesn’t bring rights into existence, government is instituted to protect rights that exist independently. They are not a social construct in the sense I think you intend.

You seem to be pushing towards two deeper questions:

- Are rights-violating actions necessarily immoral?

- What makes an action immoral?

Of these, the second is the more fundamental question, because you can’t answer the first without first answering the second. This isn’t really the place to go into these questions, and it probably wouldn’t be fruitful for me to explain my views on them without knowing yours.