UNR Students for Liberty

So turns out this club is full of either liars or hypocrites. Either way…sad day.

Barry, let me gloss over the issues that you presented during the meeting. In a nutshell, you declared that file sharing was not theft. If I recall, you proposed this example: If I wrote a sonata which was to be played in a courtyard, and a person within that courtyard audio recorded it, would that be theft?

I replied that if I did not want him to record it unless he paid me, then yes, he is stealing. The point could have been brought even further with software. For example, if you think that breaking a promise is wrong, then the license agreement you sign before installing a piece of software is a promise you are breaking. Additionally, you are also breaking your promise to your ISP that you will not file share. A moral argument was introduced, but it had to agreed upon that file sharing is not only theft, but it is morally wrong (if you consider theft morally wrong, which we all do). Why, Barry, haven't you reported your file sharing actions to your ISP?

Then, Barry, you introduced a straw man asking us if we all think we should all be placed in jail for file sharing. However, nobody mentioned jail, because such a breech would typically not even result in jail time. Instead, such a action would probably require payment of stolen merchandise, or perhaps returning it!

Alas, as you have mentioned above, you try saying that how can we “live with ourselves” knowing what we are doing is morally wrong? All I can say to you is that at least we consider it wrong. Simply declaring your actions as justified, even though they are not, does not exonerate your actions nor do they give you permission to make some type of a moral argument against others. Ridiculous all around.

As I recall, we are always corrected when we believe something is “morally” right or not, and then you say, “morality doesn't matter, we're talking legally …. legally should it be wrong to…”
So, the argument that you make here, about it being wrong on the grounds of morality, should be a mute point, unless you want to be hypocritical yourself and argue for the one stance that you've dismissed all year long.

Talk about straw men.

In a nutshell your arguments hold that there is such a thing as a “right to profit”. That you in fact have a “right” to “benefit” from your work. And this sounds all well and good but it is wrong.

All rights are negative rights. Do not kill, do not steal. There is no progression from the non-aggression axiom (in it's truest sense, not some bastardized take on it) and the sovereignty of the individual that all libertarians must hold as bedrock if they are to even call themselves that. What this means is that no one has the right to take away the benefits of your work, not that anyone owes you these benefits.

You claimed, at the meeting that I am “stealing” a “potential”. But what is this potential if not a profit? Stealing a potential profit is not stealing property without forced semantics and delving at points that are irrelevant to the discussion. A potential profit is part of the lock, stock and barrel failings of Marxism and Keynesian economics.

You are saying “if I say do not do A, and you do A, you are stealing” without any regard for what A really means. You're assuming a conclusion and trying to find reasons to back it up. If I say do not copy, and you copy, you are stealing is equivalent to claiming If I say do not place in your disc drive, and if you do put in your disc drive, you are stealing.

You have to present evidence that copying is stealing without just assuming that it is. No one presented one coherent argument to that effect.

Now, if we all lived in a society that agreed that copying was stealing, then sure, yes, it I suppose would have to be treated as such, as it is now. This I can accept. Even if the thinking behind this is ultimately flawed, with societal interrelationships between self, others, and property I have no problem accepting a democratic view in this regard. But that's not what I'm driving at. I want to know *why* that society thinks copying is stealing.

So far, you have not shown me a good enough argument to validate this claim.

I don't know where you think I established a moral argument. For this discussion, I don't care about the morality of piracy. In fact, I almost think such thinking is not relevant to this issue at all. Moot, in fact.

As much as this pains me to say it, I have to agree with Barry here. Copyright infringement is not theft. If I walk into a Wal-Mart, take a CD off the shelf, and walk out without paying, that is theft. If I download a CD without the authorization to do so, that is copyright infringement. When I make a copy of a CD, I have not permanently deprived the owner of the property. The motion picture and recording industries want Americans to buy into this notion that copyright infringement is theft. It is not, plain and simple.

As much as this pains me to say it, I have to agree with Barry here. Copyright infringement is not theft. If I walk into a Wal-Mart, take a CD off the shelf, and walk out without paying, that is theft. If I download a CD without the authorization to do so, that is copyright infringement. When I make a copy of a CD, I have not permanently deprived the owner of the property. The motion picture and recording industries want Americans to buy into this notion that copyright infringement is theft. It is not, plain and simple.