Copying ≠ Theft

It's all in the semantics...

Print Friendly and PDF


  1. Interesting timing for me -- I'm typing notes from Sound Unbound (Paul D. Miller/DJ Spooky) and some of the essays deal directly with this issue of copying v. stealing. It's a really complicated issue with so many layers -- for instance, just one layer is that it places "art" in the marketplace, which then commodifies it, which then takes away from its "artness," meanwhile, the "artist" is trying to make a living...

  2. Anonymous3:15 PM

    yeah... it is very complicated. i think of this in terms of indigenous knowledge, and how botanists, anthropologists, and capitalist-driven companies have taken plants used by indigenous peoples, 'copied' and tested their chemical properties, and sometimes made millions. Meanwhile, indigenous groups remain marginalized, poor, and exploited. The question though - is this stealing? Is this copying? The law does not yet have a problem with this kind of copying/stealing, so another question is: why can westerners NOT copy/steal music/art from other westerners, but westerners CAN copy/steal knowledge/science/art from non-westerners?
    The world is unjust.

  3. Anonymous5:36 PM

    What an interesting application of this line of reasoning (to indigenous knowledge)! I would lean toward 100%, outright theft; however, in the absence of copyrights, there is no case, right? Is that what it comes down to, then -- that indigenous groups must secure rights to their knowledge??? And that brings up a whole other host of issues...


Having trouble leaving a comment? Some browsers require acceptance of 3rd party cookies. If you leave an anonymous comment, it may need to be approved.