A bill was recently passed in New Zealand, finally making it illegal to download copyrighted content from peer-to-peer services such as Torrents or Limewire (or whatever it is teenyboppers use to download Lil Wayne singles) Accompanying this is a three strikes system, wherein the ISP has to provide three warnings at the behest of the copyright owner, before action can be taken in court. At present, fines of up to $15,000 NZD are in order for those guilty.
As a champion of freedom and democracy I am totally against this kind of law. Copyright infringement isn't theft, and doesn't harm the creative talents responsible for creating content. However, there are three even bigger reasons why I feel this piece of legislation/shit is one of the scariest things ever to happen in a legal sense, at least in my lifetime:
- It is the first law I am aware of in any Western country that presumes guilt, until innocence is proven. Even a serial killer standing in the dock is innocent until the jury has given its verdict, and the judge has passed sentence. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the great achievements of thought and reason, so with the 'Skynet' law New Zealand has taken a giant leap back toward the stone age.
- The Internet account holder is legally liable, not the person who downloaded the copyrighted content. Little Johnny comes home from school and downloads a few episodes of the Simpsons. Bye bye three strikes, and hello big fines for daddy. This is a case of shotgun litigation, and it is a serious concern to anybody who has a brain.
- It is another case of pandering to the American corporate machine. As much as I like Americans in general, it saddens me to see my country become the another whipping boy the United States. So keen to sacrifice everything in the name of a free trade deal (which we all know is just an excuse for economic exploitation at the hands of whoever the dominant partner happens to be) was the NZ government that they betrayed the interests of literally millions of people. Whatever happened to the days where NZ banded together and told America to 'fuck off' with its nuclear warships?
Now that the /rant tag has appeared, it is time to discuss the crux of this post- namely why copyright infringement in terms of digital downloading isn't theft.
The amount of brain dead morons who have filled the TV screens and newspaper pages over the past few weeks insisting that copyright infringement is theft is actually incredible. It's almost as if all these people are controlled by one collective consciousness, doing whatever the corporate overlords tell them to do.
Copyright infringement, internet piracy, 'illegal downloading', call it what you will, but it isn't theft. Why? Read on and be enlightened, eager and valued reader.
If I were to walk into a record store and pinch a CD off the rack, then walk out without paying, that is theft. I have physically removed that CD from the possession of the record store, which means that they can no longer sell that particular disk and make a profit on it. My thieving activities have denied another party the ability to sell their product. I have taken something that is physically limited in quantity from somebody else, to their detriment.
Now if I were to download that same CD off PirateBay, I have not stolen anything. The RIAA will claim I have stolen the CD, but most of its staff are too busy fornicating with farmyard animals to see the wood for the trees. I have infringed on someone's copyright, but I have not hindered any group or individual's ability to sell that CD. I have not forcibly taken it from anyone's possession. I have made an electronic copy of a file, without prior permission of the rights holder, and it is as simple as that.
Of course the counterargument to this is that downloading music, movies, tv shows etc works to the detriment of the copyright holder and creative brains behind the content. After all, if I download it for free, that is one less copy of the CD sold, or so the flawed logic goes. It is this type of thinking that results in those imposing 'Record companies lose $1 billion in profits due to piracy' styled headlines we see more and more. If x number of files are downloaded at y value, then z is the amount of money we have lost. Simple arithmetic for simple people.
Why is this assumption flawed? It's easy- the vast majority of people who download files would never have purchased the content legally anyway. Why? Because music, movies, and games are hideously overpriced, and because people just don't have the spare cash. If you live on the minimum wage and work 40 hours a week then you might be lucky to have enough money left over after rent, food, bills, and utilities have been paid to buy yourself a new pair of trousers, just to avoid getting arrested for pubic indecency.
Instead, downloading helps the entertainment industry and creative types by allowing one to sample before purchase. The number of albums I have gone out and bought after hearing on a pirated mix-CD, or that have snaked their way onto my Ipod via other illicit means, is phenomenal. Not to mention the tickets I have purchased to gigs, safe in the knowledge that I am going to see an artist I enjoy listening to (if I had paid for all those CDs I would never have had the money to buy my ticket) The only losers are corporate fat cats. But who gives a shit about those tossers anyway?
Here is the 'beauty' of the collapsing society in which we eek out a meager existence- you are made poor through taxation and inflation, then punished by the ever-richer super rich for being poor by being denied access to creative material such as music and television, which is the only escape many have from the doldrums of the rat race. So you're too poor to avoid the overpriced stuff that made us a fortune- FUCK YOU, YOU DIRTY PLEBS!
I could go on for hours about why copyright infringement isn't theft, but I don't want to wear out my keyboard. Needless to say, I shall return to tie up any loose ends. For the meantime, take away the following message-
The rape of Western civilization continues unabated.
p.s. Before any liberal arts college student jumps on here and says words to the effective of 'that's what you get for being capitalist', let me remind your ill-informed self that true capitalism died its death many years ago. The label exists now only as a convenient focal point for foolish socialists and counter-culture teenagers with no experience of the real world to aim their misguided hatred at. The free market would not allow such nonsense to occur.