Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people, the Obama administration has a dark side. Joe Biden and many others on staff come straight from the RIAA camp, and it shows. Today, the Obama administration disregarded every US law relating to theft and copyright by stating that piracy is “flat, unadulterated theft”.
US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke talked about copyright enforcement yesterday in Nashville, Tennessee, and in his speech, he reiterated that the Obama administration believes piracy is theft, even though the laws of every modern nation – including the US – sees quite a clear and distinct difference between the two.
“And I think it’s important to lay down a marker about how the Obama administration views this issue,” Locke said, “As Vice President Biden has said on more than one occasion, ‘Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft’, and it should be dealt with accordingly.”
It’s an interesting proposition, one that goes against 200+ years of US and western law. I’m assuming, therefore, that the Obama administration is working on a proposal to massively overhaul US copyright and criminal law to ensure that the act of theft includes both real theft as well as piracy.
Also, as pointed out by Ars Technica, this means we can stop with these bizarre statutory damages. “There’s much to be said for this view of ‘dealing with’ piracy,” argues Nate Andersen, “Which is why we have long argued that the judgments handed down in P2P lawsuits against twenty-something music fans have been ludicrous. $1.92 million? $675,000? No one walking out of a Walmart with a stack of Richard Marx discs under his arm would be subject to such penalties.”
It’s interesting to see how Locke inadvertently touches upon the very core of the issue at hand – namely, what is the role of copyright law? “Recently, I’ve had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy,” he said, “One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to ‘be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon’.”
And this is the very core of the matter. Copyright law was never meant to provide songwriters with golden parachutes – it was meant to promote the arts, which is a completely different thing. Earlier this year, I quoted a British pamphlet from 1735, a pamphlet against perpetual copyright (pretty much what we have now).
I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire… it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers.
The author of this pamphlet clearly understood what copyright was meant to do. Sadly, the content industry’s popcicle has penetrated governments the world over so deeply that otherwise intelligent people like Biden and Obama have lost any form of rational thought when it comes to copyright and intellectual property.
With these incredibly incompetent people at the helm of copyright/IP “reform” in the US, there doesn’t appear to be light at the end of the tunnel. It won’t be long now before monitoring software will come pre-installed on all your devices. I’m sure someone will be able to link it to 9/11, which pretty much green-lights everything.
Lord Camden said it best when he warned for perpetual copyright. “All our learning will be locked up in the hands of the Tonsons and the Lintots of the age. […] Knowledge and science are not things to be bound in such cobweb chains.”
Sometimes I’m embarrassed that I live in this country…
Don’t worry it’s the same nearly everywhere else..
If something’s the same just about everywhere else, it’s usually because of the United States’ heavy influence on the world. I also am embarrassed (and downright pissed) at times to be an American.
I’m sure things will change worldwide eventually, give it 300 years or so…
I’m not surprised you equate piracy to legal.
What a nice libelous statement from you, thanks.
I never once said copyright infringement was legal – never once, not ever.
I understand how US administration vs. copyright winds up here, but how about we keep our opinions about this or the prior US administration off this site. I’m happy to discuss politics but here would only be the place if its proper policy regards tech.
Copyright and how it is applied has very much to do with technology, especially networked technology and audiovisual applications. How a government handles such things and what the implications may be to us, the technical audience, is very important. Therefore I do feel such discussions are right at home here.
Agreed.
I actually would prefer read this stuff:
“Commodore USA to relaunch Amiga brand with series of AROS desktops”
instead of non-sense politics.
That just got out, and it’s 2:15 at night here. Be patient.
… and you are not sleeping yet!… you would be a good software programmer
If piracy is theft then Katrina should have been a capital crime.
Amen! Let’s go arrest the Coriolis effect RIGHT NOW.
After reading that Hyperion is taking legal actions against Commodore USA, I actually prefer read about Obama guvernment policies.
What a dirty world, my God!
We have different words because they do mean different things. There should not be a value judgment just because we use a different word.
Theft – removing a possession from its lawful owner without their permission.
Piracy – using something which you do not have permission to use while not impacting the use of the lawful owner.
Note, the above are not legal or formal definitions, but my lame attempt to provide the distinction.
This does not preclude piracy from being harmful. It is still a crime. It is just not theft.
However, I think the real term you’re looking for is “Copyright Infringement”… as the term “Piracy” is sufficiently ambiguous and shouldn’t be used in the first place.
Edited 2010-08-31 22:34 UTC
I couldn’t agree more! No matter that some individuals in “the scene” have embraced the pirate label; no one downloading music, software or movies is doing so with a clipper ship and guns blazing.
Real piracy still exists too, in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, all along the coasts of Africa, and even in the Caribbean Sea. It’s a real and serious thing; lives are sometimes lost and it always involves violence of some kind as well as physical theft. I feel that labeling copyright infringers as “pirates” is just as silly as labeling computer criminals “hackers”, though for different reasons.
Unfortunately, the label has been maintained for so long I fear it will remain indefinitely.
You are taking the hard work of others without paying for it.
Sneaking into a concert is also theft even though you didn’t leave with anything material.
I could care less about what any president or court says. When you take the work of others without payment you are stealing. The fact that reproduction costs are nil is irrelevant. That’s simply the nature of the product.
Edited 2010-09-01 08:04 UTC
Sneaking into a concert is breaking and entering, not theft. If you stand outside ArenA stadium in Amsterdam during a concert, you can hear the music – without paying. Is that theft too?
If you’d walk past my house now, you could hear me playing The Velvet Underground’s “Heroin”. Is that theft too?
If I open my window while driving, people can hear me playing albums. Is that theft?
Edited 2010-09-01 08:26 UTC
Well, in the UK you can’t even do that, it would be at least “copyright infringement”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0128383597.shtml
Bloody ridiculous!!
The act of sneaking in the B&E is one thing, but recording a performance without permission is a different matter once you get inside. I’m thinking wiretapping-related laws in the US, YMMV in Netherlands.
Bands and other acts know that music will leak out from the venue, but you’re paying to visually seeing the band up close (relative to your tickets), seeing the stage performance (lighting, etc…) and music in high quality, rather than hearing muffled sounds in the distance.
Edited 2010-09-01 12:21 UTC
Hah! If only. I would gladly pay the $100+ CDN ticket price for a lot more acts … if they would actually spend 10 minutes (or more!!) getting the acoustics right, instead of just flipping every dial to 11 and going for coffee.
There’s nothing worse than going to a concert and not understanding a thing they are saying, or even being able to figure out what song is playing, because there’s 120,000 Watts of pure noise being pumped off the stage.
I’ll spend $20 CDN on a CD with good acoustic (although those are getting harder and harder to find) levels and listen at home, thank you very much.
Yes it is theft just like skipping out on a taxi cab or a massage session. Sneaking into a movie theater is also theft.
You’re taking a service without paying for it.
Not sure why you were voted a 10. It’s called theft of services and every Western country has a statute for it.
No because they are charging to get into the concert.
Do you really not see the difference?
I could care less about what any scientist or astronaut says, the word is definitely flat.
You see, it’s easy to believe your opinions as fact if you disregard what the professionals tell you.
Sneaking in to a concert doesn’t involve any taking, so by your own definition it’s not stealing.
You say that “When you take the work of others without payment you are stealing” bur this definition is obviously overly-broad: Many things are given away without payment and if I take them I am not stealing. I don’t mean to be pedantic here but if you cannot even define theft in a way which doesn’t trip over lawful actions that you probably agree with then how can it possibly be a correct definition? If you wish to dispute the legality of taking things without payment for which no payment was requested or desired then we can have a different discussion, but I will presume that you have the sense not to come out against libraries or free samples.
Stealing is when you have something and I take it FROM you. “Stealing” of information is a misnomer. In the USA theft is normally defined at the state level, so let’s look at what California says about it (since we may presume that many recording artists and movie studios are based out of California).
California Penal Code ^A§ 484:
I have taken the liberty of placing in bold the relevant portions, as I understand it. The portions about fraudulent representation and pretense don’t seem to apply to copyright infringement and look like they’re intended to make cheating and conning fall under theft.
So far it looks like your definition is not very good, and my off-the-cuff definition is holding up. Dare we press on? The rest of section 484 concerns renting, leasing and card fraud so without objection I’ll skip on a bit.
^A§ 485 is similarly unrelated to copyright infringement, dealing with lost property. ^A§ 486 and 487 divide theft into grand and petty and specifies what counts as grand theft. In all cases the language does not allow for non-physical items to be included.
^A§ 488:
So even if you’re right then “piracy” is “petty theft.”
^A§ 489 and 490 talk about punishment, prison terms and so forth. It also goes in to a few specifics which do not apply, including recording films in a movie theater. In this case it’s clear that the crime is “interfering with and obstructing those attempting to carry on a lawful business” and not theft.
I could go on but by now I think my point stands:
Copyright infringement != theft.
Or, in other words, you’re wrong.
I’ll just note, to clarify, that the reason I mentioned petty theft is that the california code mostly defines grand theft as beginning at things valued $100 or $400, depending on the type of item. This suggests that multi-thousand dollar damages for “theft” of an MP3 would be inappropriate since an MP3 is not included in any of the things indicated as being grand theft.
It’s called theft of services, look it up. You took their time and effort without compensating them. It’s theft.
It’s just as much theft as going to a therapist for an hour and then skipping out on the bill. Just because there was no of transfer physical property does not mean that theft did not occur.
Yes some people give away things for free. Not sure how that negates anything I have said.
I already stated that my belief is based in principle, not law. By showing me a bunch of penal codes you only show that you missed the point.
Just because Cuba legalized theft when they seized private property does not mean that their actions were principled or that theft did not occur.
Piracy can be just as destructive to a producer as theft, or do you deny this?
You’re taking the intellectual property of others without payment, and that is theft. I could care less about how some state classifies it. It’s just as unprincipled as material theft.
My position is based on principle and as such you cannot tell me I am wrong. You can only disagree with me and explain why.
I don’t make a moral distinction between theft of material property or intellectual property. Both can destroy a business and both involve taking without permission. I could care less about any legal distinction anymore than I care about legal distinctions between theft and larceny. It’s all the same area of unethical activity: theft.
You are wrong, because you don’t understand the difference between taken something and making a copy of it and as such the basis of your “principle” is wrong.
And yes we can tell you, you are wrong, because reality matters.
No taken something implies that something has been removed. Illegal copying takes nothing.
Good thing that illegal copying is not taking anything from anyone.
With the nature of the product theft is impossible, unless the medium it’s stored on is stolen.
Since you’re not dealing with legal definitions, but with man-on-the-street definitions, I’ll counter you.
Maybe “theft” is limited to your definition, but “stealing” certainly is not.
Plaigerism, the unauthorized use of others’ words without attribution, is considered often referred to as “stealing words”.
Corporate espionage where one company obtains the business secrets of its competitor is “stealing business secrets”.
A student obtaining the questions and answers to an exam before taking the test is said to have “stolen the test”.
In these cases, the offended party still possesses the original items, but stealing has indeed occurred, in the colloquial sense.
And of course, there are phrases like “stealing a kiss”, which are about unauthorized action rather than change of possession of an item, yet the word “steal” is still used.
Even a student simply copying answers from the brainiac sitting next to him while the test is in progress is often said to have “stolen the answers”.
And since this is a tech blog, we’ve all seen the claims that a company that adopted (even loosely) the ideas of another’s previously released product “stole” the ideas.
As for piracy of IP, the actual “theft” in question is is the “theft” of the copyright holder’s ability to exercise his/her legal rights wrt the IP in question as he/she sees fit. It’s like sneaking in to a movie theater to whatch a movie free of charge. I’d say that a person that did that stole from the movie theater, even though the movie theater didn’t have any items removed from their possession. Downloading a movie, song, software, video game, etc, and using it without authorization (for example, without due payment), is the same as sneaking into the theater (only the latter at least takes some courage! lol), so I’d say stealing has occurred just like it did in the sneaking into theater case.
And colloquially, “steal” = “theft”. I don’t see why people get outraged when someone says “piracy is theft”; we know that the phrase means unauthorized use rather than removal from possession.
The classic wrongs are lie, cheat, steal, harm, kill. So I guess “piracy = cheating” would be preferrable to “piracy = theft” for some, but I don’t think the distinction makes much of a difference (again, I’m not talking of legal definitions). Maybe people sleep better at night thinking of themselves as cheaters rather than stealers or theives, so they cling to the distinction between theft/steal and cheat.
Edited 2010-09-01 09:30 UTC
Yes, copyright infringement is colloquially referred to as stealing. This is not a very profound statement, though. To say that copyright infringement is theft sounds like it is presenting a moral argument against copying per se, but in reality fails to do so, IMHO.
To go through your list:
* Plagiarism is misleading, or essentially lying. It is essentially claiming authorship when this is not the case.
* Espionage generally involves tactics such as becoming an employee and then breaching confidentially, or trespassing.
* Obtaining test answers in advance, much like plagiarism, is misleading, or essentially lying.
* “Stealing a kiss” might refer to unwanted physical contact.
* Copying test answers, again, much like plagiarism, is misleading, or essentially lying.
Copyright infringement might prevent the copyright holder from receiving potential income, if the copyright holder would have received income had the copyright infringement not taken place. However such income is only expected in the first place because copyright law grants the copyright holder the legal right to it. Had there been no such law, there would have been no such expectation of income. Justifying copyright law on the basis of lost income, then, is a circular argument.
Copyright law was originally justified:
(UK Statute of Anne / Copyright Act 1709)
or
(USA Constitution)
And this remains the only coherent (non-circular) argument for it, IMHO. As such, copyright infringement is wrong because it is a violation of democratically agreed law. This is an important distinction because it means we have a right to democratically change it. If we didn’t, then it wouldn’t be a democratically agreed law, and there would be no moral justification for it at all.
I just saw an ad wrt “identity theft”, a phrase that is another example of the term “theft” or “steal” used in a situation where there isn’t necessarily a removal of possession from the rightful owner. Just throwing it out there.
I think the distinction is highly important. The people speaking of copyright infringement in terms of “theft” tend to do so because they are being intentionally inflammatory and wish to dramatize the extent to which they have been victimized. It is more accurate to say “cheating” as you note and this is also less inflammatory. In the public consciousness a thief is a very bad sort of person who is doing a great deal of harm and the owners of the copyrights would like to borrow the negativity the public feels toward such persons. Infringing on copyright is, however, not a very harmful activity–certainly not on the same order as “regular” theft!–so I contend that to equate the two is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.
If we’re to have a proper debate over the role of copyright and the rights of the public vs. the rights of the author it is best to remain clear and honest on all sides. One way in which the “traditional media” side likes to bolster their position is by using poisonous, loaded language like “theft.” By choosing the language for the debate they instantly start with a strong emotional advantage that they do not necessarily deserve. When I see someone using such language I must assume that he is doing so either out of ignorance, having been suckered by this kind of debate-framing language, or malice, intending to sucker more people and limit the scope of the debate to the questions and attitudes where he knows he can score points easily. It is for this reason that I take great exception to the use of such terms and will always speak against them, deny their appropriateness and attempt to replace them with “copyright infringement” or other accurate and appropriate terms wherever I can.
Tommorow, he is expected to give press conferences about the wetness of water, the brightness of the sun, and hey, what’s all this black stuff doing floating about in the Gulf?
Let’s apply this back to books, shall we? Australian publishers have made a felon of me because i happen to own a kobo (a very nice and affordable ebook reader). The books that I, and likely many others of the OSAlert readership read, mostly sci-fi and fantasy the Australian publishers haven’t purchased the ebook rights for. If I want to read anything by Peter F Hamilton, I’m forced to either spoof my IP to buy from an American store, doubtlessly infringing not just on Australian rights-holders’ copyrights but also on import laws, or outright pirate the ebooks. Piracy is easier, obviously cheaper, and in fact more legal than actually buying a product! Most of the ebooks I’ve pirated, however, are morally greener because I already own the dead tree forms.
That’s one of the areas where I have a real problem with modern copyright law, and the DMCA specifically. Fair use has been thrown out the window; long gone are the days when one could legally make a “working” copy of software, music or especially movies so the original can be archived. Back in the old days (the 80s for me) I remember even my cartridge-based TRS-80 games had a clause in the beginning of the manual stating I could make an archival copy.
Nowadays, the discs themselves are copy-protected and we have to violate the DMCA just to exercise fair use. It’s greedy bullshit and it sucks, but when even the most progressive president we’ve had in years is against copyright reform, what can we do?
> It won’t be long now before monitoring software will come pre-installed on all your devices. I’m sure someone will be able to link it to 9/11, which pretty much green-lights everything.
Either that or drugs, illegal gambling or child pornography. At the moment it seems popular among politicians in the EU to want to fight child pornography using internet filters or data retention. Of course the pro-copyright lobbyists are aware of this and are trying to take full advantage of it.
^aEURChild Pornography Is Great,^aEUR Anti-Pirates Say
http://torrentfreak.com/%E2%80%9Dchild-pornography-is-g…
Either that or drugs, illegal gambling or child pornography. At the moment it seems popular among politicians in the EU to want to fight child pornography using internet filters or data retention. Of course the pro-copyright lobbyists are aware of this and are trying to take full advantage of it.
The frightening thing about this is that most often than not the politicians have absolutely no idea what they are in fact trying to push through: they don’t understand how the filtering system works, they don’t understand its limits, and they refuse to listen to criticism. Once the filtering system is in place there is absolutely nothing stopping large corporations from gaming the system to their own ends.
A politician pushing for something he doesn’t understand is a lot worse than a politician who doesn’t do anything. It’s like firing a nuke without knowing the direction it’s aimed at.
Edited 2010-08-31 23:17 UTC
in this respect, our new boss is same as the old. Most media OWNERS are Republicans so Rep Presidents see Copyright as a business-ownership thing, like giving away other corporate favors. Democrats are on the other side because artists, authors, musicians tend to be focused on people-issues (Democrat) and copyright violations take away their pay.
Both sides like the control copyright offers as well. Republican publishers use their “ownership” to quash or belittle things they don’t like. Democrats like the platform for popular people to sway opinion.
Tom: doing what I think are some great things for the American people
Yep, bankers, Hollywood and rich people love him.
The unemployed middle class is having second thoughts.
I agree…this posted article and header is too politically *hot*. This action by the administration is consistent with its constituency and policies. RIAA and other “big hollywood” interests are very solid democrat. Time to move along.
Sadly, I doubt it will be within my lifetime that we have a Libertarian or other freedom-loving party member as President, and even then Congress will still be full of the usual greedy, ignorant rats.
The U.S. democratic system is great when it works, but getting it to truly work for the people is the problem. If nothing else, I think political lobbying should be outlawed; the people may vote in the representatives but the corporations spend millions to change the way those representatives think and vote. It’s not fair to the people.
@Berend de Boer – if I could mod you up I would. It’s amazing how the Dems claim that the Repubs is all about protecting the rich. Meanwhile, the rich are all rallying for the Dems – there is a reason why. Obama is nothing but a shill for big money and has done more damage before his 1st term is up than the previous administration did in two entire terms. And no, I wasn’t a fan of the previous administration either. The dollar is weaker (while Obama continues to have more money printed and spent for his lobbyists), unemployement is horrible (but it’s okay, but it’s “change” right?)…….
Middle-class, economically productive, self-reliant, single, white male consumer of technology — about to get screwed again.
Funny how this administration is “pro-little-guy” when it costs me money, and pro-corporation when — you guessed it — it costs me money. I ought to get a dinner at the White House for as much as I have, and will have, funded them.
You’re talking about me?
I must confess! I only use both pirated and open source softwares, hear downloaded mp3s, read magazines achieved dubiously, use internet without paying and watch DvDrip movies 
Edited 2010-09-01 04:55 UTC
Taxes are lower, not higher. As reported in right-leaning Forbes (as in Steve Forbes) Magazine:
More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.
As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.
According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.
It’s a common mistake.
Actually, Wall St. stopped donating after the passage of financial reform.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/wall-street-donations-shift…
Follow the money to see what bankers think about this administration’s policies.
As far as “rich people” benefiting disproportionally from the current administration’s policies: that;s just silly talk.
This amounts to “you’re not fixing an epic disaster which occurred under the last guy’s watch fast enough!” This truly is the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and unemployment is a lagging indicator.
Are you suggesting Hoover-nomics?
How did cutting spending work out under Herbert Hoover leading into the Great Depression?
How did increasing spending work out for FDR?
How does history remember those policies?
If balancing the budget is your concern, then you must favor allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the richest two percent. That is not a “new tax” by the way. It’s the current law mandated by the use of reconciliation to pass the bill in the first place, and would save 1 Trillion $.
It’s 3.7 Trillion if you allow them to expire for everyone, which pays for TARP (which was not passed by this administration, contrary to popular belief) and The Stimulus.
Also, contrary to other mythology propagated by politicians seeking (re-)election, cutting taxes (surprisingly) does not balance a budget.
Some of you guys sound misinformed on political issues.
P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president?
Edited 2010-09-01 08:33 UTC
“P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president? ”
Y’know, you really can’t just go around making stuff up like this and expect a pass.
Go look at the Congressional Budget Office data*. (I hope you’re not like other Reagan-haters to whom I’ve pointed this out, who insist that the CBO just isn’t as reliable source of information on the economy as MoveOn?)
Look at 1981 (when President Reagan took office) and 1989 (when he left office).
The deficit grew from 2% to 3% of GDP.
Now look at 2009 (when President Obama took office) and today (the dashed line).
The deficit grew from 3% to 6%, with projections of 9% by the end of 2010.
Yes, sure, the economy is bad – but it was a disaster when Mr. Reagan took office, too (remember 14% inflation and 20% mortgages? No, you probably don’t). When he left office, inflation was only 3% and mortgage rates were down to 7%. The economic recovery begun under his watch continued right up until 9/11. Winning the Cold War was just gravy.
Set aside your hatred for a moment and let your inner geek emerge – look at the data. Reagan is remembered so fondly by most Americans** because his policies worked.
Will Mr. Obama’s? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.
* See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml#1100451. That huge freaking cliff on the right is Mr. Obama’s “spend us into prosperity” strategy at work.
** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_t…. Ronald Reagan places 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 9th in recent polls seeking the best president in all of history.
You do realise the US has been bankrupt for years, right?
Morally or fiscally?
We’re not fiscally bankrupt until we default, as I understand the term. Call me an optimist, but as we recovered from the Nixon / Ford / Carter fiasco, we can recover from the Bush / Obama fiasco (not to absolve congress by using names of convenience, of course). We just desperately need some competent leadership.
We’re not bankrupt yet, but we’re so far into the red that if the rest of the world started calling on us to pay our debts, we’d all be learning to speak Chinese in a few years.
Not making anything up. Perhaps it’s my fault for trying to be too succinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_ter…
Change in Debt/GDP (like I said “by percentage”)
Bush II (R): +27.2%
Clinton (D): -9.7%
Bush I (R): +15%
Reagan (R): +20.6%
Carter (D): -3%
Ford/Nixon (R/R): -2.8%
Kennedy/Johnson (D/D): -16.6%
So, I guess I stand corrected. Reagan had the second largest increase in debt as a percentage of any modern president. I guess I heard that stat before Bush II’s 2nd term was completed, and the Tea Party failed to enlighten me since then.
I will never disparage the CBO. I believe what they say, be it about deficits or how the health care legislation reduces them. I’m never selective about that.
The wars were not on the books before he took office, he inherited the greatest economic disaster since the great depression. Paul Krugman won a Nobel prize in economics, and he supports even a second stimulus.
Still, this is just academic. Perhaps the only thing that Dick Cheney and Paul Krugmen agree on is that “Deficits don’t matter”. One of those guys won a nobel prize for economics by the way.
Strangely, there was no tea party to “refudiate” Cheney for that statement. Sometimes I wonder if the teabaggers want limited government, or government limited to conservatives
I was born two months later, but I don’t remember the Civil War either if you want to look at it that way.
You forgot about the Bush I recession, which was followed by 8 years of prosperity under Clinton.
Also, you forgot to mention that the “Carter Recession” was official in 1982, which was the second year of Reagan’s term.
That is a popular myth, which is cogently debunked here:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm
… and on many other sites
A lot of people make that mistake, though.
I bear neither hatred nor much of an inner geek. I am just interpreting the data and calling it like I see it.
Even Bush Sr. (famously) referred to Reaganomics as “Voodoo-Economics”, and as we saw in August ’08, the final verdict on that was not pretty.
It really doesn’t matter to me much how “most Americans” view Reagans legacy. Most Americans are skeptical or non-believers in climate change, evolution, Obama being a Christian, Obama being American, and under who’s watch TARP was passed.
What would a poll about Jim Crow in South Carolina 1960 show?
Again, largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover (R) taught us that not spending is a disastrous policy in such circumstances.
Those who do not understand history are destined to want to repeat it.
Besides, this congress can’t get anything passed. Under Reagan about 6% of legislation went to filibusterer. Now it’s more like 40%.
Also, TARP was as big as the Stimulus, passed under Bush, and benefited no one but the people who were deregulated into precipitating the crisis we find ourselves in today.
Your assertion that the chart proves Obama is increasing the national debt disproportionately is a misrepresentation of the data.
Obama spent a few billion bailing out GM, and 780 billion on the stimulus whereas bush spent 700 billion on TARP, about another trillion on bail outs, a several trillion on tax cuts, and about a trillion on both wars.
Check out this article on MSN about how the total cost of the Bush era was about 12 Trillion (with a capitol “T”) dollars.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTradin…
40% of Obama’s stimulus spending was in tax cuts (republican platform), and if you like the CBO you must agree that health care reform reduces the deficit, so that cannot count against obama by your metrics.
The bottom line here is that blaming Obama for the national debt is about as fair as blaming him for the mortgage meltdown of ’08, the wars, the bush tax cuts, and the bush bailouts.
Still don’t care much for public opinion polls. Still, by your own reference FDR blows Reagan out of the water in everything but a few recent public opinion polls (see also: biased and unscientific).
FDR’s margin of victory increases when you discount the opinions of the laity.
Since the only fact you disagreed with me on was the debt number, which I have just clarified, then can I assume we are in agreement on everything else?
For instance, you must be against extending the Bush tax cuts (the ones increasing the debt which were passed through reconciliation).
Finally, here’s another fun fact:
http://ei-forum.com/2008/11/04/stock-market-returns-democrats-vs-re…
The New York Times has published a really interesting chart/study showing that under a Democratic Presidency the average yearly return is better and that a $10,000 investment in the S&P in 1929 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only and to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9% under Democratic Presidents:
By the way, this was in 11/08. The S&P dropped another 10% before Obama was inaugurated.
Edited 2010-09-01 10:49 UTC
“I wonder if the teabaggers…”
“I bear neither hatred…”
Um hm. A most telling slip in your screed.
Hate is a strong word. I’m just poking some fun at my fellow Americans.
Besides: the teabaggers christened themselves as such, and I’m glad you brought that up.
It gives me a chance to point out that they are an antitax movement that doesn’t understand tax policy (e.g. only 4% correctly claim taxes have gone down since Obama took office), and juxtapose that concept with the fact that they called themselves teabaggers without understanding the connotations of their own label.
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-t…
I don’t hate the tea party. I kid because I love.
Edited 2010-09-01 11:21 UTC
Why am I not convinced? You’re blinded by your own hate.
For example, with every evidence of a straight face, you credited President Clinton for the fiscal situation in 2000, but blamed President Reagan for the fiscal situation in 2008. Didn’t they teach you in school that President Clinton served after President Reagan?
Let me guess: You were kidding there, too.
You admitted that your initial swipe at Mr. Reagan was wrong. Your next step is to realize that Mr. Obama’s eye-popping deficits are no more in the “don’t matter” category than Mr. Bush’s – they are a grave danger to our country. Get past the “R’s bad, D’s good” chant from your non sequitur-laden earlier post. Judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their state.
It’s not too late.
Dunno. For instance, I really don’t hate bush. When he dodged those shoes and smirked at his assailant I was proud to be an American.
If you read carefully you will see that I blamed Reagonomics (e.g. deregulation and regressive “trickle down”/”voodoo economics” tax policy) for ’08, not Reagan himself.
That’s a bit of a misrepresentation. I admitted that Reagan oversaw the SECOND biggest increase in debt by percentage of GDP in the modern era, behind Bush II.
At first I thought it was the largest, but turns out Bush II edges him out.
You make it sound like it detracts from my point.
I can’t realize that because it isn’t true. This is only Obama’s debt to the extent that it is also Obama’s bush tax cuts, Obama’s wars, Obama’s TARP, Obama’s bail outs, Obama’s medicare part D, etc. (in other words, not at all).
Yes, Obama did bail out GM, but they have repaid that loan. Yes, Obama did push for a stimulus but that wasn’t some tax-and-spend whim. It was 40% tax cuts and more importantly it was necessitated by the complete and total failure of Reaganomics (not Reagan per se), and what everyone agrees is the greatest economic disaster since the 1920s.
Yes, Obama pushed for health care reform (read: campaign promise), but you cited the CBO earlier, and we both know the CBO scores that bill in the positive, so that can’t count against the debt.
Why do you assume that I hate all R’s? From Lincoln to Teddy R to Eisenhower to Nixon and Bush I’s foreign policy, I have a lot of good things to say about Rs.
There are even a lot of things I like about Bush II, but policy wise I’m in the 80% of Americans that give him a negative approval rating.
That hardly makes me radical.
My point is, blaming Obama for the deficit/debt might fly for a cable news audience, but it is hardly a fair assessment.
Edited 2010-09-01 12:09 UTC
“Why do you assume that I hate all R’s?”
Because everything you said about R’s up until this post was bad, and everything about D’s was good? Because you responded to a critique of both R’s and D’s with an off-the-wall attack on President Reagan, who served before you were even born? Because you called a predominately Republican group a vulgar name?
I’m happy to acknowledge the change in words in your last post, and hope that represents a different heart than your earlier words implied.
“blaming Obama for the deficit/debt”
There you go again. When did debt enter the conversation? We’re talking about the deficit. It’s a critical distinction – you can inherit a debt (at least in government); you can’t inherit a deficit. The deficit belongs to the current president and congress alone – they voted for it and signed it into law, to their shame. They can correct it by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or both. If they won’t, citizens should replace them with someone who will.
As I said elsewhere on the thread, calling it the “Obama deficit” is a convenience – bills of revenue originate in the house. It’s quicker than saying “the deficit of President Obama and the 111th Congress”, even though the latter is more accurate.
However, the bottom line is that the level of spending advocated by the Obama administration and passed by the 111th Congress relative to revenues is both indefensible and unsustainable. You don’t need to be an R to figure THAT out.
And with that, I leave for work. That’s for the chat, off-topic though we were.
The so-called attack on Reagan was not off-the-wall, it was an entirely factual statement. People who are not wearing rose-colored glasses can easily see the economic harm that Reagan’s policies have done, both during and after his terms.
The “Teabaggers” named themselves that, and indignantly refused to change it for quite some time. I was not the only one giggling behind my hand while they were going on about it. In addition, last I heard the tea partiers insist also that they are not a Republican group…
It is entire defensible, as many have done and continue to do, and is known to be unsustainable. It is not suggested that deficit spending go on forever, unless your name is Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan who seemed quite happy to have a deficit.
To FuriousGeorge I must add: Dear sir, I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Don’t stop posting (you’re better at it than I am.)
“The “Teabaggers” named themselves that”
Ah, another Dr. Laura fan. Welcome to OS News!
“tea partiers insist also that they are not a Republican group”
“predominantly Republican” means “composed predominantly of Republicans”, it doesn’t imply an official affiliation.
“The so-called attack on Reagan was … an entirely factual statement”
“Off-the-wall” means “bizarre”, not “in error”. For example, if I responded with “But President Clinton was impeached!”, it would be off-the-wall even though entirely factual.
However, the statement wasn’t factual.
First, the statement erroneously used “deficit”, which is quite different from “debt”. “Debt” is the total amount owed. “Deficit” is the difference between revenue and expenditures. See the difference?
Even corrected to read “debt”, though, we agreed that the statement misses – President Bush had a higher percentage increase in *debt* than President Reagan – but nothing like what Mr. Obama (and the 111th Congress!) has already achieved, of course.
Sorry for all the definitions, but it’s hard to respond to a post where the meaning of so many words is misunderstood. Are you a non-native speaker of English, by chance? If so, then you’re writing very well – I mean that sincerely. English is a tough language to master; French is relatively easy, and I still manage to butcher it badly (to the great amusement of my French friends ;-).
(If you missed the point of my allusion to Dr. Laura, google her recent rant over Blacks routinely using a vulgar name that starts with “n”, and what she learned about how well that justifies an outsider using the same term.)
As you can see from this reference I cited earlier, the statement was only factually incorrect to the extent that Bush II was worse than Reagan, making Reagan the “Reagan Debt Increase” only the second largest in modern history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_ter…
Also, it is a bit unfair to claim Obama’s will be worse than Reagan’s when (a) The 2009 budget was mostly Bush’s, and (b) that statement assumes GDP won’t grow. His term isn’t over yet and we are looking at Debt/DGP.
Also, there is the whole matter of the largest Economic Meltdown in the modern era starting about 60 days before he was elected.
Obama spending must be viewed in that context, because as Herbert Hoover taught us, you don’t cut spending in a recession, and no respected economist today would suggest the administration should.
Citing Reagan’s Debt provides context to the debate taking place in this thread, which is a subset of the national debate.
Edited 2010-09-01 20:01 UTC
Debt != Deficit.
It’s a really important distinction that I thought we had cleared up. We’re just going in circles if we can’t agree on fundamental terms from the dictionary.
Your original statement was “P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal ***DEFICIT*** as a percentage of any modern president?” (emphasis added). I’m thinking you meant “debt” here, correct? At least, the figures you quoted show percentage change of debt, not percentage change of deficit.
Even so, I said nothing about whether “Obama’s [debt] will be worse than Reagan’s”. Again, I was going by the CBO data, which shows Mr. Obama’s *deficit* in the current fiscal year to be by far the largest in US history, which has achieved – PAST tense – a record *debt* increase for the current year.
It’s not at all unfair to point out that fact.
And the danger is very real if he (and the congress) don’t reverse that trend PDQ.
The way you phrased it made it sound like I was born after Reagan.
I didn’t even really misspeak. Since Reagan/BushI/BushII all oversaw the greatest increases in the debt as a percentage of GDP of any modern presidents (by far) then they also oversaw the largest annual deficit increases as a percentage of GDP.
In response to your post, which came after, I’ve been careful to be specific, so there is no point in continuing to belabor this point.
NP
Sure, but keep in mind: The Bush Tax Cuts, The Two Wars, Medicare Part D, and much of TARP also figure into these fiscal years.
These are astronomically expensive. Over ten years they will add up to several stimulus packages. Complaining about the “Obama Debt/Deficit” is tantamount to complaining that he has not undone the Bush era of Reagonomics fast enough.
There is also the matter of the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, which any economist will tell you necessitates spending.
You could argue about how the money is spent, for instance I would have liked to see less tax cuts in the stimulus. However, arguing that money should not be spent amounts to Hoover-nomics.
That was just my source for when the fiscal year starts, which explains why the ’09 deficit was more Bush’s than Obamas.
I think you are misreading the data. The stimulus, which is the only significant spending bill passed by the congress/administration, is not yearly. As a result the deficit since the ’09 Bush numbers is shrinking and should continue to shrink for a few years.
Take it from a conservative blogger who is addresses this myth: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11094
Edited 2010-09-01 22:18 UTC
“I think you are misreading the data. The stimulus, which is the only significant spending bill passed by the congress/administration, is not yearly. As a result the deficit since the ’09 Bush numbers is shrinking and should continue to shrink for a few years.”
I hope this is true. I fear it’s not. Just a quick google reveals this out of Washington today: “Obama said this week his advisers are looking for additional tax cuts and spending measures as ways to boost the economy.” — http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/116795-romer-call…
I can’t help but believe the President’s words over your hopes. Spending is addictive, and I fear President Obama is an addict. *sigh*
“Take it from a conservative blogger who is addresses this myth: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11094“
Interesting read, thanks! It says three things to me:
* “Fans should be far angrier with the starting pitcher” (people should blame President Bush more than President Obama). Exactly – you’ll notice I haven’t defended Mr. Bush once – not once – in this entire thread. “Obama wants to be Bush on steroids” pretty much sums up my feelings, although I tend to consider Mr. Bush to be “President Obama, Jr.”
I did defend President Reagan – it’s where we started so long ago – but remember, the economy literally boomed on his watch after the long nightmare of Nixon/Ford/Carter. His other achievements are remarkable as well; reading about them in a history book (or worse, on a revisionist website) frankly doesn’t do them justice. Pointing to a brief recession during the first Bush administration doesn’t detract in the slightest from the delight we experienced at a president who actually had a clue.
That bastion of far right radicalism, Saturday Night Live (hope you’re picking up the sarcasm here), actually did a most memorable skit in late 1984 which quickly showcased a long list of Mr. Reagan’s accomplishments, followed by the headline, “Elect Mondale President”. Pause for effect. Wait for it. Wait for it. “Make Reagan KING!”
It was proof to me that Mr. Reagan had really turned the corner, and his historic landslide (he carried every state but one, and of course DC, in 1984) didn’t surprise me in the least.
* “Obama has been serving up softballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor’s. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids.” This is exactly the point I keep making.
* “America’s fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. If Obama wants to rejuvenate the economy, he should abandon the Bush policies of big government and interventionism and instead go with free market policies that actually work.”
Amen and amen – and again, thanks for the link.
It is true, but at the same time I hope he continues to spend. I’m no expert, but my favorite economists support a second stimulus, and as a result so do I.
I don’t expect to get much agreement from you or the do-nothing congress on that though.
I would make the point that unlike Bush (Medicare Part D, Tax Cuts for Wealthy, War in Iraq), Obama has his hand forced when it comes to spending because we are in a recession.
I’m glad I was able to point you to a conservative blogger you enjoy, but I was only trying to illustrate the point that even conservatives who are in the know and being honest know that you can’t really blame Obama for the Debt/Deficits.
I take the rest of his post with a grain of salt. At the end of the day he is a functioning in the capacity of a conservative blogger, not an economist.
About the author:
Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy (ed. AKA Trickle Down Economics). Mitchell is a strong advocate of a flat tax (ed. non-Progressive Tax) and international tax competition. Prior to joining Cato, Mitchell was a senior fellow with The Heritage Foundation (ed. Uber Conservative Think-Tank), and an economist for Senator Bob Packwood and the Senate Finance Committee. He also served on the 1988 Bush/Quayle transition team and was Director of Tax and Budget Policy for Citizens for a Sound Economy (ed. Uber Uber Conservative Think-Tank).
It’s safe to say that this guy is honest and ideologically consistent, but not exactly a moderate.
Edited 2010-09-01 23:33 UTC
“I don’t expect to get much agreement from you or the do-nothing congress on that though.”
Yes, I think I understand your positions and rationales much better now – thanks for sticking with me through it all. You’re more interested in shortening the recession and believe more spending accomplishes that goal, while I’m much more interested in not emulating the Greece debt crisis or defaulting on our massive debt altogether. Guess we’ll settle our differences with an election or something, despite your lack of faith in public opinion.
Either way, I hope the best approach prevails. Thanks again for the interesting discussion.
Yeah, I’m not much of a student of history, but I would consider myself more of an FDR-ist than a Hoover-ist.
I suppose in some ways America is like Greece, and in other ways it isn’t. Whether it’s more of the latter than the former is a debate in and of itself.
I’ll take my chances with that
Can you blame me? The average person is pretty dumb! Just ask them about evolution or climate change or the religion/nationality of our commander and chief and bare witness.
Amen to that, brother!
No, thank you for being able to disagree without being disagreeable.
For some strange reason people across the anonymous interwebs feel emboldened to act like jerkoffs whenever I have the audacity to not share their opinions.
Edited 2010-09-04 12:37 UTC
That was in the context of everything in the thread to the point of my post being both critical and factually incorrect.
It would be no more fair for me to claim that everyone who posted the inaccurate statements I addressed hate all D’s or economists.
It wasn’t an attack, it’s a fact which I hoped would add some context to this debate.
I assume Lincoln and Buchanan served before you were born, but that doesn’t make you unqualified to have an opinion as to their administrations.
By the way, I said I was born two months before Reagans inauguration, not before his presidency.
They self-anointed themselves “teabaggers”, but I won’t accuse you of being hypersensitive about this. I thought I was teasing innocently, but if I offended you I apologize.
I changed my words to the extent that the subject changed from “Obama = tax and spend for the rich and wall street” to “why do you hate everything republican”. Had we stayed on our first tangent you would have found the tone of my response largely unchanged.
You can’t? The 2009 fiscal year started 7/1/08.
Let’s say I’m the president in 2008, and I spend a trillion dollars in bail outs, about another trillion on a TARP program combined with two wars which are not part of the budget. I do this all after the 2008 budget and before the 2009 budget.
Let’s say you become the president in 2009.
All the aforementioned spending is now on your deficit. You have inherited it.
This is common propaganda, and should be understood in context. See a more complete explanation here:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2010/01/cato_dont_blame_1.h…
Aside from the Stimulus, please name the largest unsustainable big spending legislation that this administration/congress own. You may be surprised by what you find.
Keep in mind that the CBO, which you rightly referenced earlier for their non-partisanship, has unequivocally said that HR-Reform is not only sustainable but profitable in the long term, so that can’t count.
Good talking to you.
Edited 2010-09-01 19:34 UTC
On break.
No need to apologize over the vulgar name – I’m not a member of any Tea Party groups. But do read the Dr. Laura reference above. Just because somebody in a group uses a vulgar name for it doesn’t mean it’s all right for others to use that name.
If Mr. Reagan was “inaugurated” before you were born, didn’t he serve before you were born? Do his first two months not count as “service”? Guess I don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to draw here.
Your original Reagan statement referenced an increase is *deficit*, but you meant *debt*. That’s an important difference, as I explained above, and caused a lot of the confusion. Sorry, I was a little slow to identify why we were talking past each other there.
I’ll concede that Mr. Obama could inherit deficit during the first year of his term – I hadn’t thought of the disconnect between term and fiscal year (thanks!). Of course, we’re in his *second* year, and so the deficit in question is his own (and the congress’, of course). The CBO data shows that to be *far* larger than the Obama / Bush deficit or indeed any deficit in the history of the country. *That’s* the problem to which I’m pointing rather doggedly here.
According to Wikipedia, the top 5 federal budget categories are Social Security (21.05%), defense (16.85%), medicare (13.34%), welfare et. al. (11.77%), and debt service (8.50%). What were you expecting to surprise me here?
The debt service is exactly my point. Deficits increase it. Big deficits increase it really fast. It’s already far too big. Let’s stop doing that. Hope Mr. Obama and the *next* congress (R or D) get a grip on it the way Mr. Clinton and the R congress of the 90’s did.
But before anyone can even argue against TARP and the stimulus, they must accept as fact that the stimulus had no effect. Unfortunately we have this nasty thing called reality, one where the real world data does not simply suggest but proves that without TARP + stimulus we would most definitively gone into a great depression. FYI, there are numerous sources, including the CBO (as well as that liberal commie bastion Moody^aEURTMs Analytics) who have pretty much specifically stated this on record.
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession….
I wonder what the deficit and debt would be like if we went into another Great Depression? I wonder who would get the blame for that? What I think is really scary is that if we actually accept the argument that the stimulus and TARP spending was “dangerous”, then the alternative given the facts is ludicrous.
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts” -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
By quoting me and later saying “FYI” it looks like you think I was making the point that “the stimulus is a failure”, when in fact I agree 100% with your statement.
The point I was making was that, aside from the stimulus, this administration/congress has done very little to increase the debt, and yes, I do agree the stim was necessitated by the current economic situation.
For instance, Health Care was a trillion dollar bill, but the CBO says it will reduce, not increase the debt over 10 years.
Yes, the administration did bail out the auto-industry, but in the grand scheme of things that is a fraction of a percent of the increase in spending we’ve seen since 2000. Also, unlike Medicare Part D, the Bush Tax Cuts, or at least one of our Two Wars, it’s easy to make the case that the auto bail out was necessary to save a large sector of our Economy.
Hell, I support a second stimulus.
P.S. I think it’s worth mentioning at some point that I disagree with the current administration’s position that priacy = theft.
Edited 2010-09-01 22:58 UTC
By definition. Piracy: [mass noun] the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. The association of copyright infringement with piracy implies that it’s theft.
There’s a difference between (a) taking property unlawfully, (b) reproducing material unlawfully, and (c) acquiring unlawfully reproduced material. Why should (c) be treated *worse* than (a)?
I’ve heard this argument many times before. Sure, piracy does not make you a thief, but it does make you a douchebag.
So, which would you rather be… a thief or a douchebag? I’ll leave it up to you.
At least being a douchebag isn’t a crime (yet)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piracy
the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
It’s in every dictionary and everyone knows what he is talking about. Sorry if you don’t like the definition but it is commonly accepted.
“Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people…”
Oh, you mean like the 1.4 TRILLION dollar annual Federal debt that future generations will be saddled with???
Right, because GWB had no effect on the deficit.
I’ll admit, I started this, but my only problem was the first sentence. Since Thom’s not getting paid for this (that I know of) lets not do bunches of “The current administration sucks” posts. I don’t want to see those or even a bunch of “The previous administration sucks” posts because most US citizens fall into one camp or the other (and I suspect a plurality of the rest of the world’s residents would say “They both suck”) and I don’t want to hear it on a tech site.
There seems to be a one sided view here. A movie company invests millions to produce a movie (many people btw get employed by such projects) only to have people illegally copy and distribute such content. It makes no difference if the distribution produces financial gains, the fact is that the movie company loses revenue due to such illegal use. Is that fair? We all like free stuff but how many would feel happy if they invested a lot of effort (e.g. to develop music, or a novel, or a program) only to lose on potential revenue due to illegal copying and distribution.
Sure, one can argue that copyrights are violated and I agree, but either way you are stealing revenue from the producers of such content. Don’t agree to terms preventing you from playing that music file on a different device than what you paid for? Then don’t buy the damm song in the first place. No one is forcing you to purchase them. Grow up kids.
Wrong.
Stealing revenue and denying revenue are *very* different things.
Stealing revenue suggests that there was a) revenue to be made in the first place, and b) rather than the copyright owner receiving it, the infringer received it instead.
What you’re describing is what generally happens when an infringer sells bootleg copies of a copyrighted work. And even then, there’s no guarantee that the buyer would have paid full price (there have been plenty of studies that suggest this is true).
Piracy can destroy a market just like wanton theft and that is not debatable.
That is not debatable.
Theft denies revenue and so does piracy. To the producer who loses an investment to piracy it might as well have been theft. The effect is the same.
Explain this to me.
I’m a huge fan of Garbage, including their obscure b-sides, which can ONLY be obtained from the web. One of their b-sides is “Candy Says”, a cover from The Velvet Underground. As such, I got interested in The Velvet Underground.
Consequently, I decided to check them out. I downloaded a few of their albums (legal in The Netherlands), and was thoroughly impressed. Since I always buy my music, I went to my local record store, and bought three Velvet Underground albums.
Without me “pirating” these albums to try them out, I would’ve never spent the money to buy the actual albums. How have I deprived anyone of income here? Hasn’t my “piracy” actually earned them money?
If I would not have liked their albums as much, I would’ve simply deleted the downloaded mp3s, and be done with it. They won a customer through what you call “piracy”.
Weird, huh, how the world works?
You think that’s how the world, aka the world of piracy works?
Sure anyone can do that, but most really don’t.
Weird, huh, how the world works?
How do you know?
RIAA advocates such as yourself claim that every downloaded song/film constitutes a lost sale, something based on absolutely nothing. As such, I think I’m entitled to make a similarly nonsensical claim: namely, that all downloaded music/films are eventually bought.
Both claims have no footing in reality – yet somehow mine is more idiotic than yours?
That’s funny, I like that.
I never said every song download is a lost sale, because people that do download music probably wouldn’t be able to pay for it all.
Your claim that I am an advocate, and then desperately try to associate me with an assertion I did not make?
Now whose footing is not based in reality?
Edited 2010-09-01 12:28 UTC
Your argument kind of assumes that a bunch of kids are going to turn around and pay for the game or movie they just downloaded? You really believe that?
Well if so, call me at 555-555-1212 with your credit cards ready, because I have some cheap bridges for sale in Brooklyn.
You are as idiotically childish as the same editors at Ars who whine about ad revenue loss (content costs, nothing is for free) then turn around and defend piracy as if content is free, nothing costs.
Maybe you pirate defenders should just shut the f–k up, go produce some actual content, then come back and provide a model whereby you can produce quality without cost. Until then, you are an ignorant and hypocritical child that needs to get out in the world.
Edited 2010-09-02 23:37 UTC
This is easy to say. Saying this is really easy. I can say that piracy increases revenue for artists, you can say it decreases revenue for artists. We’re both really good at saying things!
Care to cite some numbers somewhere? I’d prefer a neutral source such as a study *not* funded by a party with a financial interest in one outcome or another. There are some, but not many, of those. I’ve looked at a few. Care to guess what they say?
tl;dr Links or it isn’t true.
Explain how piracy denies revenue?
Certain types of software cannot be localized in parts of Asia because the piracy rates are too high. There aren’t enough paying customers to cover the costs. Too many people download or buy the $2 pirated version on the street and deny the producer revenue.
This is not simply a problem in poor areas either. South Korea is a middle income country but has a culture of piracy which disrupts the software market.
Whether you call it denying revenue, cutting revenue or taking revenue the effect is the same. You’re reducing revenue by allowing people to use a $0 clone instead of compensating the producer. 100% piracy completely eliminates revenue for the producer and 0% completely prevents losses from piracy.
Call it whatever you want but piracy can be just as destructive as breaking into a business and stealing the cash register. Whether or not you call it theft or denial of revenue is just semantics.
Doesn’t that say more about how over-priced things are, if people are willing to go to a shady dealer and pay $2, instead of going into a store and paying $100?
If you go this way, organisms like SonyMusic and the RIAA
a/Steal most of an author’s revenue (leaving him less than 3% off a CD’s price while the author made most of the material present on said CD)
b/Make you pay a tax on recordable supports as a compensation of private copy right AND now prevent you from making a private copy of your legally-bought CDs. (DADVSI in france, I think in the US it’s called DMCA)
c/Claim that those against full monitoring of the web “were the same that sold butter to Germans during the war” (sigh)
In the best interest of authors, we should get rid of those parasites and adopt another economic model where authors freely distribute their records on the web and as a compensation get rewarded through a tax on internet access price, just like we pay in order to listen to music on the radio.
That is not debatable either. Sounds out of fashion, though.
Edited 2010-09-01 08:17 UTC
Theft denies revenue and so does piracy. To the producer who loses an investment to piracy it might as well have been theft. The effect is the same.
It just simply isn’t all that clear-cut, you know.
First of all, a person who downloads pirated stuff would not necessarily buy anything even if there was no pirated copies available. As such, not all pirates can be counted as lost sales.
Secondly, many times people sample stuff by getting pirated copies and then make the decision to by more and authentic copies. Such pirates would actually count as gained sales.
Thirdly, not all pirated downloads are for unauthorized uses. For example, if a person has already bought a music CD, but the CD has copy-protection which prohibits said person from copying the songs to a mobile music player: in many countries it is legal to bypass the copy-protection in such cases, and often it’s just easier to download copies where the protection has already been bypassed and then use those in the said mobile device; the outcome is exactly the same. Of course the industry would want it to be illegal everywhere to bypass such and would want to force people to have to buy copies of those songs for every device they wish to use but it doesn’t work like that. Again, these cases can be counted as “lost sales” only, and I mean only, in countries where backups and fair use of legally obtained material is illegal.
Tell that to my 400+ movie collection of which most was bought because I saw the downloaded version first. Or to my PS2 and PS3 which was bought because GTA SA and GTA4 came out on those first and I had become a fan of the series playing illegal copies on my PC.
Illegal copying is not the same as theft no matter how many times people like you spread the lie.
I could use the lie “This is not up for debate” but that would be dumb, since we are clearly having it.
It is people like you that are ruining the arts and sciences. Copyright was put in place to promote the arts and sciences – not as a license to print money. By sucking on big content’s popcicle, you are redefining copyright into a license to print money, which will hurt the promotion of arts and sciences more than any downloading will ever do. Just read and listen to anything by Lessig, and how the broken copyright system is holding back education and science. That is going to come back and bite Americans in the ass.
It is short-sighted and an insult to the clever men and women who came up with the concept.
Edited 2010-09-01 08:19 UTC
If you invest money, you take a risk…
If you are investing a lot of money to produce something that can be trivially reproduced while intending to sell it at a HUGE markup relative to its reproduction cost you are taking a massive risk. It’s your own fault if consumers wise up and you make a loss.
There are risks in any investment. You, as the producer, must assess those risks before you begin and take in to account those risks when you decide on a price. Don’t produce anything if you cannot expect a profit *despite* copyright infringement and don’t sell your product at a price where you cannot expect to profit *despite* copyright infringement. If you do you are a fool and I’ll take my free copy, thanks.
Also, I’d like to single this out:
You do not have any legal protection for potential revenue and you should not have such protection. If we had this I could say that I might start a band and it might become popular and I might produce an album and it might be pirated by you and I might therefore have lost revenue, so pay up. Once you get in to “potential” it becomes a mad-house, you simply cannot go there.
I sometimes go over to the house of a good friend of mine and listen to his albums. He’s not paying anyone a performance fee. I’m not paying anyone. I am, clearly, stealing from the artists. Right?
I agree entirely. I don’t purchase them, in those cases. In those cases I infringe some copyright and bypass all such agreements. Glad to know you approve.
… I remember there was some legal brouhaha regarding those nifty electoral posters with the effigy of Mr. Obama and a possible copyright infrightment issues.
Also, I suppose Obama’s campaign is in no hurry to pay up royalty for adopting (or is it translating) the “si se puede/si podemos” slogan from the UFW.
I would like if some crafty lawyer would finally make sure the words of some US politician come back to bite them in the proverbial ass.
Well this is flat, unadulterated stupidity
As mentioned by someone over at Ars Technica… AV/SW piracy is technically much closer to counterfeiting than theft. After all it’s about making copies, DUH!
Stange how nobody is making that obvious comparison very often. Perhaps it just does not sound bad enough?
Edited 2010-09-01 08:47 UTC
This whole matter is a completely imbecilic joke. And it’s played on us.
Let’s take a look at this. Who’s really complaining? The publishers, editors, distributors, etc, represented by huge powerful wealthy entities like the RIAA and MPAA, etc, etc.
Why? They say they are losing money and that way they can’t provide the contents to the target audiences.
Really???!!!
How about restrictions on products delivered (or not!) to said audiences? DVD region restrictions, no availability of products on some regions even with demand present??
I already said it once and I will keep saying it. This is not about copyright infringement or theft. Those excuses are just a cover-up for the real agenda, which is absolute control of any distribution means, be it tangible or intangible.
They want to control how the audiences get the products they want us to have!
So, all this debate about theft or not? Smokescreen.
Edit: spelling.
Edited 2010-09-01 09:13 UTC
The real reason for this debate (“if piracy is theft or not”), is, as always, money.
By pirating, some people are derived of money they would have if their stuff was not pirated.
By pirating, some people enjoy goods that did not pay for.
Piracy is theft.
Let’s be honest for a minute. The only reason we, the common folks, say it is not is because we want to justify our behavior, i.e. the illegal downloading of software, songs, etc.
Except.. In The Netherlands, and most of Europe, it’s not illegal.
Which makes sense. Copyright is a state-granted monopoly on distribution. Downloading is not distributing, and as such, you;re not violating copyright by downloading. Uploading, or making available in any other way, is distributing, and as such, that IS a violation of copyright.
Indeed. Downloading is not violation of copyright, it’s theft. Like when you steal a book from a bookshop.
Except, when you steal the book from the bookshop, the book is no longer there.
It’s like making a copy of the book at the book shop – they can still sell the book (i.e. they never lost anything)
If the person making the copy of the book never intended to buy it in the first place, how was there something lost here?
If they turn around and sell the copy they made, that becomes slightly more nefarious, but you have to admit, the book was not stolen.
Theft and copyright infringement cannot be compared on equal levels.
You confuse the medium (the book) with the content (the actual text of the book). Stealing a book is the same as downloading content because in both cases the content already exists elsewhere: when you download something, you download a copy of the original, when you steal a book, you steal a copy of the original.
How about lost revenue?
What if I walk into a library and make a copy of a book rather than checking it out to read it for a week… that’s also copyright infringement, and no revenue is technically “lost”. What if they check out/borrow the book, and make a copy out of convenience in the future to reference it (when they could just borrow it repeatedly any time they needed anyway)?
These are also illegal copyright infringement, but cannot be treated as theft/stealing (unless they keep the book they borrowed without the owners permission).
Your suggestion that revenue is lost when someone makes an unauthorized copy of a work is a weak argument in the first place – as there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place. That doesn’t make it any less illegal, but there is no guarantee of revenue to the content owner to begin with – nobody is forced to purchase a book, and there are already plenty of ways to legally read a book without actually paying for it.
What if the library charges for renting books? then revenue is certainly lost.
It’s still theft: the next time you reference the book, you wouldn’t have paid the price to read it.
I am sorry, I don’t understand your above quote. What do you mean by “there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place”? if a library lends books, and charges for them, then borrowing the book and copying it denies the library revenue, which is clearly theft. If a library lends books, but doesn’t charge for them, then it means the author and the library has made a deal that suits both, so copying the book is not theft: neither the author or the library expect to make any revenue after this deal anyway.
What I mean is that a book is not necessary to live life – so nobody is required to buy them in the first place.
There is no guarantee that they would have purchased it anyway, even if they did not get it for free illegally.
Thus, claiming that every copied book is a lost sale is wrong – and equating the creation of an illegal copy as theft is also wrong by derivation. Furthermore, since making a copy does not remove the original item from the store, the store owner hasn’t actually lost something as a result.
I realize people are pissed that copyright infringement is rampant, and very likely costing people lost revenue – but you can’t outright merge the two concepts together and call them one crime… that’s simply not the reality of the situation.
Edited 2010-09-03 21:13 UTC
Nothing is necessary to live life, except water and food.
The law does not recognize ifs. Since they got the book, they obviously needed it, so if they were legal they would have purchased it.
Bah, the argument is extremely weak. It’s only an excuse made up by us the illegal downloaders to justify our actions.
The theft is not the material stolen, it’s the lost revenue. That’s where the theft is.
Lost revenue.
You don’t need to merge the two concepts, since it’s one concept in reality: one person removes from another person something of value.
Only if the person who made the illegal copy:
a) would have bought it if he/she didn’t make the copy.
b) doesn’t buy it afterwards.
Maybe. Not enough to make it theft.
Theft is taken something that belongs to others. Since illegal copying is just making a copy leaving the original there it was, nothing has been taken.
“Piracy” is NOT theft. It can’t be.
This is another great example of silly political word-games.
My guttural reaction to that headline when I read it was “ummm ‘taxes’ cough, that feels like piracy too”.
You do realize that taxes have gone down in the last 24 months, and are now at their lowest level in 60 years, right?
I ask because there seems to be an implication in your statement that someone is “pirating” more of your money than usual through taxation.
Taxes are down … that’s hilarious!
And yes, that’s exactly what I was hinting at.
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic.
In case you aren’t please see this article:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-…
Taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, though I can see how some of the propaganda out there today would lead you to believe otherwise.
It’s a common misconception among people unfamiliar with tax policy (e.g. the tea party “antitax movement”).
I am sorry that some of us are not delusional robots that need FOX news to tell us how to think. Those of us with more than 2 working brain cells use this great ability that has been around for ages; independent thought. Try it sometime if it doesn’t give you a headache.
Sorry for being rude, I just have no tolerance anymore for extreme stupidity, which you seem to suffer from. It is sad that people this woefully uninformed, ignorant, and downright dumb, can vote. It is the one failure of democracy that the idiots are allowed the same vote as those that actually take the time to inform themselves.
You would think a movement centered around taxes would at least spend the whole 2 minutes figuring out taxation levels. Fucking hell, the Idiocracy is here folks, enjoy.
I agree in principal, but in practice it would be reminiscent of the “literacy tests” which were once employed to suppress the black vote.
How could you quantify idiocy without a test of some sort, and how can you solve the problem of the inherent bias of any standardized test?
Regardless of the interesting topic of debating the fundamental differences between property theft and copyrights….
Why do we NOT see articles on OSAlert and others about how many people do NOT see a problem with the copying and (notably) distributing of copyrighted works?
I mean… would we even have to discuss the differences between theft and copyright if people were doing the right thing with regards to copyright holders?
Just something to think about… “Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.”
As a teacher, I have done random surveys (nothing official, just raising of hands, etc.) and even in our most “moral” and “conservative” institutions the violation of copyrights is VERY high (>75% of students in Junior High and High School).
The Internet makes is easy… and unfortunately, it has made many of us into abusers.
No… I don’t like it that I’m NOT allowed to make personal copies of media like DVDs. I do not like DRM and how it prevents me from making copies…. (though there are illegal mechanisms). And so… I don’t like “the man” for putting a heavy weight on my shoulders because “the kid” down the street is distributing 50,000 songs, 400 DVDs and 1000 pieces of commercial software illegally (“kid” believes it’s ok because he/she is NOT charging for the “service”).
Sometimes we LOSE our freedoms universally due to the irresponsible behavior of a few. This is sad. But again, what I used to see as a “few” is a rapidly growing segment (from my unscientific surveys).
As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you’ll see a single article on OSAlert even suggesting that it is wrong…. perhaps the “rapidly growing segment” has already grown to consume OSAlert as well??
Probably because I, the main supplier of news on OSAlert (99%) live in a country where downloading of copyrighted material is NOT a copyright violation because our copyright law is closer to what it is supposed to be; a temporary monopoly on distribution to promote the arts and sciences – not a license to print money.
So, aside from the fact that I have no moral objections towards downloading, I have no legal blockades either.
As a sidenote, the only thing I download are TV shows, since most of them aren’t even broadcast here. I buy all my other stuff (games and music).
Who decides what is “right” and “wrong”? Without getting deep in to philosophy can we agree that it is either a deity or some form of communal decision? Most people in history will agree that the source of right and wrong broadly fall in to these two categories.
If copyright infringement is wrong it must be so because some preponderance of persons has agreed that it is so. At some point, say in one generation from now, when (say) 75% of adults do not believe that copyright infringement is wrong, will it be wrong?
What obligation do you have to preserve the current mores of society against the tide of change? You are under no such obligation and should do so only in as much as you think that such mores ought to exist. By teaching your daughter to believe something that will soon be a minority opinion you are attempting to stem the tide change to the social consciousness. Was that your intent?
I would say that people are valuable, and it is wrong to cause harm. Democratic agreements allow us to benefit by working together. Breaching democratic agreements prevents this benefit. (Deities don’t come into it, IMHO.)
That said, I think democratic agreements should only go so far in restricting people’s liberties, and I think copyright law as it is oversteps.
I don’t think anyone has a moral right to make a living by restricting the liberty of others.
Didn’t work very well for Socrates. I think sometimes we need to exercise our democratic rights to change unjust laws.
The situation has changed considerably since copyright law was first introduced. Initially, copyright only applied to books, and printing books required the time-consuming process of setting up a printing press. Thus, copyright law only restricted commercial public distribution. Nowadays the restriction on copying has become a restriction on personal liberty.
How many of these people steal? (I mean actually steal.) Much fewer? Perhaps it is because they can tell the difference between something that is inherently immoral, and something that is a societal convention?
It is sad when people’s liberty is lost, and I think we ought to have good reasons whenever we do this.
Out of interest, if your daughter did download copyrighted material from the Internet (and assuming copyright law to be just) how much harm do you think she would actually cause to copyright holders?
Even more interesting, would you punish her the same for downloading 10 songs off the Internet, as you would for stealing a CD from Wal-mart?
You know, it’s brave for people to try convince others here that it’s wrong to take copyrighted stuff for free. But let’s face it. It’s a choice between
a) free stuff ! no limits ! more for me ! more “freedom” for me (at the cost of others)
b) the “right thing”
I mean, in a minute you’re going to ask why people become atheists …
You must have seen the “strength” of their argument here, you complain about it, rightly so. One cannot morally defend the taking of other people’s labour and products without compensation. Depending on how exactly it’s done, the names for it vary from paedophilia, over slavery, to theft, to “piracy”. But it’s all a technicality, as the simple truth is that the taking itself is wrong.
It’s wrong. However, if you wish to have an easy life, like slavery, piracy sure is a sweet-sounding option. You know, except for the other guys. The same goes for piracy (and for “government theft” like in Cuba. After all, they got national healthcare for that. You know, the national healthcare that people run from)
And if one is atheist (“amoral”), only one’s own pleasure matters (which is the real reason for being pro-immigration, ie. slave labour, or as close as you can get to it without sounding like a muslim). Now I’m not saying the two are necessarily related, just drawing a comparison.
You won’t convince people to start acting moral all of a sudden. Except, perhaps, with constantly applied violence. So the real question of piracy is :
Are you prepared to create a police state, which makes microsoft/apple DRM seem positively benign and liberating, are you prepared to create one with ridiculous punishments for piracy, or are you pro-piracy ?
I am not native English speaker, but I don’t know any other term to describe stealing which is more apppropriate than theft. I’ve never liked mr. Obama, but, this time he is right.
“some great things for the American people”
Wow, I must have totally fscking missed those things
Food for thought, to all those who believe content needs stronger copyright restrictions…
We’ve entered the era where information retention and retrieval is becoming more and more important to humankind.
Imagine that eventually we’ll all have some kind of personal information storage/retrieval device that we carry with us (or even have implanted in us!) – perhaps we use these devices to store all the information we encounter on a daily basis, stuff we see, stuff we hear, etc… and then we use these devices to recall information during our standard routine.
The copyright laws that we define today will greatly impact what we can do with the technology tomorrow. Reading a book, watching a video, or hearing a song already makes a copy in our brains that we can bring to the front of our minds whenever we want to recall it. Unfortunately our memories aren’t always so foolproof like digital storage, and tend to degrade – but who says it will always be that way?
We have to have a progressive view of this stuff. We have to realize that purchasing a physical item in order to experience content is no longer a reality – humans want to spread information (content), they want to communicate it to each other. It’s a natural tendency to repeat what you’ve heard/seen to another individual. The methods that we do that is often via a digital medium these days, and content/information creators are gonna have to live with it one way or another.
Piracy is theft. Ignorance is strength. War is peace.