Reminder 1: Copyright Monopoly Infringement Isn’t Stealing (Says The US Supreme Court)

Over the Yule holidays, I’ll be running a series of reminders of some of the most useful talkbacks. We open with one of the more common ones: copyright industry lawyers tend to insist that violation of the copyright monopoly is “stealing”. But in the judicial field, lawyers always go by what the courts say, and the US Supreme Court says it isn’t.

Lawyers defending the copyright monopoly love to throw false analogies around, even when those analogies have been explicitly rejected by Supreme Courts. It would be an understatement to call this practice dishonest.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case Dowling vs United States, the Supreme Court explicitly valued whether copies could be regarded as stolen goods under the law, and held that they could not.

Instead, “interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ‘[…] an infringer of the copyright.'”

There is absolutely no reason to accept this fallacy, especially not from a copyright industry lawyer, who should know better (and deserves getting that pointed out).

Now, even if the US Supreme Court had said something differently, it would still not be stealing from a philosophical, political, economical, or moral angle. The US Supreme Court adds the judicial angle to this, which is useful against lawyers and corporations, specifically.

UPDATE: As Mikael Nilsson points out in the comments, courts have even grown so tired of this false and dishonest rhetoric from the copyright industry that courts have explicitly banned the copyright industry from using “stealing” and similar words in their argumentation. While that wasn’t the Supreme Court, it still bears mentioning.

Next: Copyright monopoly enforcement in typical online cases violates fundamental human rights.

Rick Falkvinge

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. He lives on Alexanderplatz in Berlin, Germany, roasts his own coffee, and as of right now (2019-2020) is taking a little break.


  1. RB

    Now, this makes sense, despite my scepticism in other related areas. Maybe this can be the start of finding some solutions, at last !

  2. Zirgs

    It is still wrong to consume works that you like and not pay the author for them.

    1. Morgz

      Yeah, but no. And not at all. That’s a very closed minded view of what is happening.

      Often the author does not retain the copyright, for example THE ENTIRE MUSIC INDUSTRY! So having distribution cartels which make it prohibitively difficult to get large sales without subscribing to their methods and selling your works. Of course, nobody is forced to “sign up”, it is generally accepted as a necessary evil.

      There are cases where the original authors want to share their works but are unable to as they were contracted out of that ability. So that’s still cool…?

      Also, this fixed price crap is ludicrous. People consume far more media than they are capable of paying for a 1990s prices. While every other industry had to become more efficient, the entertainment industry has just enjoyed the free run that better technology and social media has afforded them, while crying poor about piracy.

    2. Rick Falkvinge

      You’re throwing words around in a way that make them not mean anything. As works cannot be “consumed”, exactly what action do you mean is wrong?

      The above sentence, as I understand it, condemns libraries as wrong (as books are read and the author isn’t paid). Are you opposed to public libraries?

      Happy Yule,

      PS: No, the author isn’t paid in most libraries. Even with the so-called “library award”, only the person who makes it available in the local language is paid – usually the translator. When Harry Potter is checked out of a Swedish library, J. K. Rowling doesn’t get a penny.

      Further, the law says that publishers are under obligation – as in, forced – to send copies for free to the largest libraries when a new book is published, so even the original copy isn’t bought.

      1. Brian D. Meeks (@ExtremelyAvg)

        When people check out digital books from the library, the author gets a little over a dollar.

        I’ve had 42 check outs this month of my Henry Wood Detective books this month.

        So, in some instances they do get paid…just not for print books.

        1. gurrfield

          You could pay creators you like at if you wish. Or become a creator and have other people support you. 1$ per piece is a quite common support option.

    3. manen

      maybe, maybe naught

    4. gurrfield

      You should read up on what “consume” means. Nothing is “used up” or destroyed if I listen to a song or watch a movie. The digital copy is still there and not a bit less quality or more “used” than before.

      1. Lonepine

        Oh not this ridiculous argument again?

        Hey mr Pirate? How about this? If you don’t want to pay for something … Keep walking. No artist owes you anything. You are not entitled to anything for free unless you’re invited.

        It costs me a lot to do what I do. I expect to be compensated by willing buyers. That enables me to practice my profession. My ability to control who can make coupes is critical to the value of my work. Copyright both protects my rights, and motivates me to continue creating. There is a clearly demonstrable public good that flows from this. The entire Age of Enlightenment rests on it.

        It’s dishonest and fallacious to go on using the sharp business practices of large studios and record labels as justification for ripping off hard working artists, many of whom have nothing to do with Holkywood or major labels.

        What a stomach turning compendium if self justifying crapola this site is. Creepy.

        Thomas below is completely correct. The jerk with an eye patch needs to go back to school and get some lessons on the true meaning of the words he twists. Some guidance on morality and ethics would also be helpful.

  3. Thomas

    From a legal perspective this is yesterdays news.
    However, from a natural language perspective the word “steal” still applies, at least in Swedish and English. The Oxford Dictionary has the following definition:
    “take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it”.
    So mr Falkvinges attempt to introduce some Orwellian new language is simply not correct.

    Merry Christmas

    1. Rick Falkvinge

      Except you’re twisting the word “property” to mean something it doesn’t. The copyright monopoly is a limitation of property rights, as described (among others) in the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Copyright monopoly code (which lists six specific actions that are reserved for the copyright monopoly holder, regardless of whose property it is).

      You can’t argue some kind of common sense to define a word, and back it up with definitions that say the completely opposite thing.

      Happy Yule,

    2. Sven Slootweg

      Just one little problem with that: you’re not actually -taking- anything. You’re copying it. The second issue with your stated definition, is that you can’t “return” information or culture itself, only a direct physical representation of it.

      This was actually addressed previously by Falkvinge:

    3. kowalski

      No, it isn’t stealing even by that definition. Nothing has been ‘taken’.

    4. Thomas

      There seems to be two semantic lines of defense from the pirates. Which in itself is no surprise, of course all perpetrators wants to define their acts as morally good.
      The first semantic game is to to decline that IP should be property. Mr Falkvinge, please remember that we are not discussing legal terms, so your reference is without value. There are many examples of where we apply the word steal, without an explicit definition of property. And the word “property” is in brackets, just as a supplementary clarification.

      The second semantic game is to introduce a loss in the definition. To steal is an act of the perpetrator, any loss of the victim is not included in the definition. Please remember, this is plain language – not legal wordings.
      To steal one’s heart is another example of where the word steal is used without actually taking anything.

      It is Christmas time, so please keep playing around with the semantics.
      But also consider the old saying:
      “By whatever name, a rose still smells as sweet – and a pig as foul”

      1. next_ghost

        In plain language: Copyright is not property, copyright is a destructive monopoly.

        1. Lonepine

          Now that is worse than wrong. It is blatantly pig ignorant. You ought to make an effort to get better informed. But I expect you will be allergic to the truth. Most thieving pricks tend to blame their victims after all.

      2. jc

        Even if stealing were possible without causing a loss (it isn’t), it would be defined as obtaining something which is not yours without permission from the owner. Making a copy is changing something which was already yours into something new. Nothing is obtained by the “perpetrator” which was not already possesed by them in a different form.

        Besides, since stealing is only considered wrong because of the loss it causes to another person, if it were possible to actually steal without causing a loss for the person being stolen from, then nobody with any common sense would consider it wrong in those cases.

      3. Caleb Lanik

        Semantics are important, particularly when pirates are accused of crimes. The distinction between unauthorized copying and theft is incredibly important morally and legally. Copyright infringement is in most jurisdictions a civil matter rather than criminal. Theft involves depriving someone of their physical property, unauthorized copying means using your computer to arrange the bits on your hard drive into a particular arrangement without a license. Copyright makes certain numbers illegal without a license. Copyright infringement comes with statutory damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars where walking into a store and stealing the same e.g. DVD would result in a minor fine.

      4. Thomas

        It is indeed amusing to read the slithering semantics in the comments, how you desperately are trying to cover your greed with a thin layer of decency.
        And what else could you do? You have to defend the very foundation of your perceived right to enjoy music and movies without paying. From that perspective, discussions are futile. But please let me point out some obvious mistakes that you are doing.
        next_ghost: Please do your homework.”Copyright” is not property, but a legal framwork. So your comment is just stupid. And yes, copyright gives the same right as any other industries to do business. The same “monopoly” applies to H&M and IKEA as well as Apple and Sony.

        jc: I am not sure what you mean – but I assume that you want to express that you are just changing the binaries on your harddrive? The question is, how can you claim the ownership of the binaries on your harddrive, but deny the ownership on the same binaries for the copyright owner? Either way, you are making a fundamental mistake. The code is just the media, we are discussing the content. After ten years, you pirates still can not understand this fundamental difference – amazing stupidity!

        Caleb Lanik – please read the comments befory replying. This discussion is about that the word “steal” is correct to use in a natural language. We are not discussion the legal language.

        1. Ano Nymous

          They are NOT the same binaries. They are identical binaries.

          I suppose you have a pen somewhere. I do too, but that doesn’t mean I own YOUR pen, and you don’t own MY pen. Same with binaries.

          I claim ownership of the binaries on my hard drive because I paid for the hard drive, and I paid for the electric power required to modify it’s magnetic fields into the pattern I want it to have. The binaries on my drive are the arrangement of magnetism in a vast number of groups of tiny particles. I claim ownership of that, BUT not of identical magnetic particles, arranged in an idential way, in somebody else’s HDD. I do not deny anyone anything by copying it.

        2. jc

          Thomas, in addition to what Ano Nymous said, we live in a physical world, and content is itself physical. The content of one file and the content of another identical file are not literally the same content, but it is common to refer to them as the same in the same sense as we may refer to two or more cars of the same model as being the same car. But if you and I own the same car, it doesn’t mean we drive the same vehicle, or share ownership of the same piece of property. Likewise, even though two files may have the same content, they don’t actually contain any of the same materials, and the content of each can be fully owned by separate people without them sharing ownership of anything that actually exists.

        3. Caleb Lanik

          And I feel that natural language should make a distinction between the two. Copying and stealing are two very different things, both legally as I explained, and in general. Calling copyright infringement in “natural language” paints a false picture of what is happening.

          If I tell you that someone stole from my restaurant, that implies that they either ate my food and left without paying or broke in and stole objects out of the kitchen etc. If all they did was cook at home, that’s not stealing even though my restaurant made less money because people didn’t eat there. Piracy is the same thing. If I want an audiobook, I could pay e.g. Audible several thousand times the marginal cost of each copy, or I could go to one of there competitors who can make copies so cheaply they give them away. Not buying something from someone is not the same thing as stealing from them in natural or legal language.

        4. Thomas

          jc hits the nail on the head (Swedish expression – I hope that it translates) He writes “we live in a physical world”
          And this is where you pirates are so lost. You are still stuck in a “physical world” when the rest of us has taken many steps forward, beyond the steam engines.
          The three companies that has changed our live most are probably Google, Facebook and Apple. They have all changed the world by non-physical products. (The fundamental change that Apple did with iTunes, appstore and iPhone were all changes driven by software, not hardware)
          Even this blog is non-physical – it is truly a contradiction in terms to claim that the world is physical in a non-physical media. Very funny!

          This is the problem with you pirates, that you are stuck in the same rhetoric as if we still lived in the 20th century. It is like discussing with my grandmother, please step up to the new and exciting world where we are no longer stuck in the old physical world. The rest of us left the age of steam engines many, many decades back!

        5. jc

          Thomas, the expression “non-physical” means spiritual. Maybe you’re religious, but I’m not, and I’m fairly certain that anything which can be interacted with or observed through physical means must itself he physical.

          Regardless, software is indeed physical, as it is physically stored and processed by a computer. Why would you think a computer produces heat, if all it’s doing is pulling information from a non-physical source (after all, heat itself is physical)?

          And this blog is physical, as it is physically stored on a server, and data about it is physically sent to your computer whenever you load a page. Then your computer physically processes the data, and physically displays images. Nothing non-physical is involved or occurs in that process.

          In fact, I’d say that pirates are one step closer to reality than you are, because you’ve allowed yourself to be blinded by the illusion that computers are somehow magical. They’re just machines, like mechanical clocks or steam engines. The moving parts are just too small to see, but they are physical, and they can only act upon physical things.

          Talking to you is like talking to a child who still believes in Santa Claus. Grow up.

        6. gurrfield


          there is no such thing as a non-physical product. Since you can’t own anything non-physical. A “Product” is something which switches ownership when you pay for it – that is not the case with anything covered by IP.

          You still try and justifying paying for old achievements and old labour. But people in service oriented business who have to perform new work for every new paycheck – they just won’t accept to pay you for your old work when you can get them to do new work for you for the money you pay them.

          That is what copyrights and patents have become – a bad excuse to sit on your ass and get money off old achievements without having to face competition.

        7. Thoams

          Do you really claim that software has a physical size? Weight? That you can touch software?
          You know, all the attributes to physical things.
          It is not magic in any way – just not physical.

          Gurrfield – are there no non-physical products? How about music? Or World of Warcraft? Or software products? Or a SW upgrade to your car?
          Just a few examples….

        8. jc

          “Do you really claim that software has a physical size? Weight? That you can touch software?”

          Well, duh. Do you even know what physical means? It refers to matter and the various phenomena that interact with matter. The particles which software consists of, either while stored or while running, have volume and mass, albeit exceedingly small amounts of each. And while in a way you could touch an electric current, I wouldn’t recommend it.

          If your confusion is with the fact that the same software can be on multiple computers at the same time, then recall what I said about content a few comments ago. More than one person can purchase the same coffee from starbucks, but of course the physical, actual coffee each consumes is not the same. In the same sense, two computers can run the same software, but the physical, actual software being executed is not the same.

          “are there no non-physical products? How about music?”

          Sound waves are physical.

        9. Thomas

          Dear JC – you are back to the slithering semantics again – very far from the real world. Have you ever paid any attention to the fundamental differences between software and hardware?
          Please do!
          How come that you pirates are so stuck in the old fashioned hardware focused mindset? The rest of the world left that many decades ago. Please, step out of your small country huts and join the new world. It is exciting and fun 🙂

        10. TG

          Thomas, I’d be interested if you can show me an example of software or music existing independently of physical matter. We live in a physical universe, not a platonic one. Software and music are merely ways of arranging existing physical objects, not objects in and of themselves.

          The magnetic domains on my hard disc are my property. I should be free to arrange them in any configuration I choose, just as I am free to arrange my hair in any style I choose. Attempts to forbid me from doing so, without any contractual agreement, amounts to partial theft of my property.

          You seem to think that such theft is justified, based on a thinly-disguised Marxist “labour theory of value”. Marxism was completely discredited by the end of the last century; it’s time you caught up and joined us in the new world.

        11. gurrfield

          Hi again Thomas.

          “How about music? Or World of Warcraft? Or software products? Or a SW upgrade to your car?
          Just a few examples….”

          World of warcraft: you pay continously every month for the service they do when updating the world, fixing bugs, adding new features. More like a service than a product, really.

          You may pay bands you like to be able to keep doing music. There is no reason at all that music must be sold as a “product”.
          That’s the way it worked to have it for a while – some 50 – 100 years of human history or so (roughly speaking most of the 20th century). Music was made before that too you know. Vivaldi didn’t need the BPI. Beethooven didn’t need copyright. (as a sidenote: Leonardo Da Vinci didn’t need patents) We’ve had folk songs for as long as there were people and language. Probably before money existed as well.

        12. jc

          “Dear JC – you are back to the slithering semantics again”

          I would recommend you look up a definition of the word “semantics”.

          “Have you ever paid any attention to the fundamental differences between software and hardware?”

          You mean that hardware is a device or machine, and software is a series of instructions for that machine? The instructions are physical, of course, and interact physically with the hardware. This is obvious because physical things can only be interacted with by physical things.

          “How come that you pirates are so stuck in the old fashioned hardware focused mindset?”

          Please explain what you mean by “hardware focused mindset.” By context, it would seem that you mean focusing on physical reality, and not on whatever imaginary world you live in.

          “The rest of the world left that many decades ago.”

          Nobody I know or have ever met has presented me with the level of idiocy to claim that things can be both non-physical and real. Sorry, but that way of thinking was abandoned with the advent of science.

        13. Thomas

          Dear JC – I am sure that you know World of Warcraft?
          And I sincerely hope that you are aware of that the world that you are playing in is not for real? The quests that you are doing are not actually happening in the real world? All the monsters that you are facing are not real, alive monsters of flesh and blood.
          I hope that I don’t spoil your gaming experience, but WoW is not for real, not happening in your physical world.

          Perhaps you should talk with people outside your little box? Who knows, you could learn something 🙂

        14. jc

          Thomas, you’re just arguing against yourself at this point. Of course things which are not physical are not real, that’s the point. And when something appears to be something it’s not, we call it an illusion. When you see images on a screen while playing a video game, they look as though they are coming from the fictional world presented by the game, but they are not. Instead, changes in the images on the screen correlate to changes in physical data being processed by your computer (and in world of warcraft, on a remote server as well). The illusion is that something which is physical, and therefore real (images on a screen) is made to look like it came from something that is not physical, and therefore not real.

    5. gurrfield

      Property is scarce, digital copies are not.

      1. Thomas

        You are so funny and ignorant, gurrfield.
        Do you really mean that the price of iPhone is driven by scarcity? The last time I checked there is no scarcity. I can easliy buy one now. Or ten, or hundreds or thousands of iPhones right of the shelf.
        So your argument fails – there is no scarcity, prices are not driven by scarcity.

        1. gurrfield

          An iPhone is not a “digital copy” – it is a physical product. We were talking about copyrights which apply to information and not patents which apply to physical products.

          You are not even funny. When we discuss one matter you rapidly change topics when you can’t argue with me any longer.

        2. Thomas

          Phew…. my point is that pricing is not based on scarcity.
          But based on value.
          Fundamental difference!
          So your point on scarcity is , well pointless.

        3. Ninja

          Actually, if you buy several thousand you’ll drive the prices up since there’s a limit in the manufacturing structures and possibly in raw materials. You’d have to copy a song several bazillion times to make storage scarce enough to hold them. But it would be a crisis of demand, not supply as in there are only so many cars that a city can fit before collapsing even if there’s an infinite source of cars.

          I’m not sure if it’s clear but iphones are driven by scarcity. Songs and other things that are merely in the digital format are not. The value of a digital file is zero. It’s what’s built around it that has value. I’ll pay to go to a show featuring my favorite artist, I’ll even donate money for said artist if I feel it is worth it. Actually that’s why I can’t understand copyrights on music/books/whatever from dead people.

        4. Thomas

          Ninja – you really don’t have any clue.
          In the old school economy the price per unit falls if you increase the volume. However, this in not valid for products like the iPhone. The price is not based on cost, but on value.
          A fundamental difference! This is standard pricing theory since 1970 or something. Apparently you pirates are still stuck in the old school economy as well, 19th century, steam engine economy.

        5. gurrfield

          “Phew…. my point is that pricing is not based on scarcity.
          But based on value.
          Fundamental difference!
          So your point on scarcity is , well pointless.”

          But Thomas, you are basing “value” on prohibition – prohibiting others from doing things their own way and competing. Copyrights and patents are tools to enforce a higher price, when competition – be it hobby competition or professional competition – would have made it possible to lower the prices.

          Apple’s products are very cleverly advertised, but also they have lots of patents to enforce the prices to be higher. It was not long ago they won a patent battle vs Samsung which disallowed Samsung to sell mobile phones in the US.

          If you can get rid of competition as copyrights and patents do, of course you can press upp the “value”. But that is by prohibition and monopoly and does NOT add value to the buyer.

        6. Thomas

          Once again, the real world proves you wrong Gurrfield.
          Since all the millions of iPhone buyers actually thinks the value is higher than the price, your little theory is not correct.
          And, once again, to claim that the smartphone market is a monopoly is just stupid and ignorant!
          Apple is for example being beaten by a new competitor in China, which by the way is the largest market for mobile devices. Xiaomi started in 2010 and is now number 3 or 4 in the Chinese market. So the competition works really well!
          I would also say that the fate of Nokia and Blackberry is also a living proof that this market is very healthy from a competition perspective.

        7. Zirgs

          Actually, if you buy several thousand you’ll drive the prices up
          Wholesale suppliers will not even bother with you if you’ll try to order anything less than several thousands of units.
          And if you buy in large quantities then the price per unit is a lot lower.

        8. Per "wertigon" Ekström

          “I would also say that the fate of Nokia and Blackberry is also a living proof that this market is very healthy from a competition perspective.”

          In what cave are you living, mister?

          There are two operating systems on the smartphone market today – Android, and iOS. Then there are a few would-be contenders as well, but Android has 80-90% of the market at this point and steadily climbing. Apple is repeating their mistake with the PC market and will within a few more years become that “hip alternative” bought by “smug people” who like to feel superior.

          Apple has shown the way – but they fail to keep on leapfrogging. Atleast Android isn’t half as bad to migrate from as a Windows -> GNU/Linux transition, so Open Source is slowly getting there. But still…

        9. gurrfield

          “Since all the millions of iPhone buyers actually thinks the value is higher than the price, your little theory is not correct.
          And, once again, to claim that the smartphone market is a monopoly is just stupid and ignorant!”

          Wow you even know what they think? You are a mind-reader then? I’m not very much into pseudo psychology

          No seriously. Just because many people buy something does not mean they would not have bought anything else – if they had the choice. They might just have thought “Damn it I can’t buy the more pricey Samsung so I have to do with this one”.

  4. Anonymous

    good to have you point this out again Rik. the problem, however, is getting those that already know it, on the industries side, to both acknowledge it and to stop using the term. when judges dont chastise those lawyers, solicitors or whatever when they keep using the term, they will keep using it!
    as for the ‘fundamental human rights’ aspect, it’s again down to the various courts to not just recognise it but to accept it and again point it out to the industries concerned!
    as with all your articles, the truth is there, but convincing us isn’t the issue. getting those in positions of power to accept things is the problem, especially when they receive ‘encouragement’ from the industries to reject the truth. get accepting ‘encouragement and lobbying funds’ illegalised and perhaps then there can be some progress! until then, it’s a case of pissing into the wind!

  5. Mikael Nilsson

    This reminds me of

    These comments also make it clear that we must move away from more words regarding coyright:
    own, take, consume, property, sell, buy,

    Et cetera.

    1. Rick Falkvinge

      Good point. Updating the article to include it.

    2. gurrfield

      Yes, to “buy” or “sell” something which is not property is meaningless mumbo jumbo talk. You could say “invest in”, but then again you don’t invest in any property, but the creators efforts to produce new originals for you.

      1. Zirgs

        you don’t invest in any property, but the creators efforts to produce new originals for you.
        Yes, and it is wrong to not do so.

        1. gurrfield

          Well… if you hear/see something you like but you are not ready to invest in it – suit yourself if you can’t get any more of it in the future. There is always a price for not investing – and that is you might miss out on something you would have liked if the creator could afford to put the effort into doing it.

          1. You hear / see something a creator has produced.
          2. You decide if you like it or not.
          3. Based on 2 you either do not want to invest in it or you do want to invest in it. If you did not like it enough you shouldnt have bought it anyway.


  6. moondad

    Copyright is dead. Everything is free. Certain people who can afford military force behind them claim control. Their control is a joke. Someday, like all prohibitionists, they will fade fade away. I don’t know what kind of world that will be but it could be any kind.

  7. John Q Public

    One may argue that it is out moral duty to infringe copyrights belonging to large media conglomerates, particularly those that have purchased all the major news sources (TV networks, cable news stations, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, etc.) and then discontinued their budgets for investigative reporting.

    All news sources have stopped investigating serious events whose discovery may cause embarrassment or harm to advertisers or potential advertisers, as well as to the federal government.

    The whole point of a free press is to take some of the power away from large moneyed interests and governments, and enable the voting public to make informed decisions about important issues.

    Or as James Madison expressed it:
    “A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

    Put simply: Big Media has destroyed the free press, which is an essential component of Democracy. Without a free press, there is no Democracy. So, if you reward Big Media by giving them money for their products, you are subsidizing the destruction of Democracy. By contrast, if you download/pirate their products, you are forcing them to waste tons of money running around in circles with pointless legal battles, ultimately making enemies of the the courts and the general public, who are getting tired of Big Media’s obsession with absolute control over their products.

    So: download download download, and siphon off as much as you possibly can from this terrible Beast which has done so much harm to the public interest.

    1. Lonepine

      Ah, the familiar cry of assholes trying to justify being assholes with romantic battle cries. So it’s your duty now to rip off Hollywood and Capitol Records?


      Piracy has destroyed the Free Press. Just as it has decimated the music industry, and is now doing the same to the film industry. You’re chasing non existent paranoid demons. The root problem is ordinary people trying to get something for nothing, and an avalanche of asshole online disrupters working overtime to make it possible. The snakes are eating themselves.

  8. NinjaVideo - Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy

    […] copyright violation is not “theft” or “stealing”, even if the New York Times says the government thinks […]

Comments are closed.