Farhad Manjoo wrote, "Let's agree with the music industry that it is 'stealing.'"

No, no, and again, no. Downloading songs is not theft; it is copyright infringement, i.e. making a copy of something without permission. Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but the metaphor of theft is wrong for two reasons.

First, it is not always illegal to make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission, and the "stealing" label turns a very gray issue into something black-and-white. Manjoo himself showed how the industry is ready to call every copy "stealing," even if I'm making a tape for the car. We should not assent to this framing of the situation.

Second, there are rival and non-rival goods. Rival goods are those that, if I have it, you can't (e.g. if I eat this candy bar, you cannot eat the same candy bar). Digital copies of songs are non-rival, meaning that I can have it and you can have it too at the same time. Let's reserve the "stealing" label for rival goods and not pretend (as the RIAA likes to do) that downloading a song is the equivalent of breaking into my house and taking the silver.

So no, Mr. Manjoo, let's NOT agree that it is stealing.

Unless CDs come with a lock that prevents them from being ripped onto a computer, the recording industry's claim of "theft" is absurd.

I agree with the petty theft charge. The way I figure it, she's liable for 40 bucks and some community service.

The obtuse way the recording comapanies are pursuing this issue make me think that they have utterly lost touch with reality. Get with the program, dudes. Music has gone digital, and your over-priced CDs are looking pretty dull next to those shiny new MP3s.

I'm sorry you couldn't keep up with current technology, record industry. Go have a good cry and then suck it up and figure out a way to cash in like all the other good capitalists. Apple figured it out! If you can't, you lose, plain and simple.

I'm not agreeing with the RIAA that it is stealing; my point was that even if you go by their definition, the law's too severe. But for the reasons you state and others, of course, one can't agree with them in the first place.

How did it go from "downloading 1,700 files from Kazaa" at the top of the story to "stealing two CDs" at the end?

where penalties far exceed the damage incurred, this case is a travesty of fair play. the jury is beyond help, and her attorney is incompetent to defend against billion dollar funded corporate thugs. the judge should never have allowed this case to continue with criminal intent never established. RIAA grandstanding is reprehensible, both legally and morally. i shall learn every one of the songs and sing it loudly among all people in my groups, shall i be silenced as well? who is to police these corporate thugs? these laws are protecting the WRONG people!

The War on Piracy is just as sensible as the War on Drugs or the War on Terror. They're all three of them pits you can throw your money into without ever putting a dint in the problem.

And for that matter - not that it needs to be said again - statisticians who know more about this than any of us have repeatedly said that the impact on the industry is negligible.

As here:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

That's an old study but a study from 2007 said basically the same thing, namely, that people who download from peer to peer wouldn't have paid for the music anyway. If I remember correctly, they estimated the loss at under 300 albums per month in the US.

Whatsherface makes a pitiful case for the recording industry. The artists are fine because they make their revenue from live shows, but what of the poor labels? She makes an excellent point - we should all keep paying the record labels even though artists can now distribute their albums themselves (a la Radiohead). Why should the poor record labels lose revenue just because their function has become obsolete? I personally felt so sorry for all the blacksmiths put out of work by the invention of the automobile that I continue buying horseshoes by the dozen. Oh, and I pay for them again each time I move them to a different barn.

To the previous poster asking how it went from 1700 downloads to 2 CDs: 1700 is how many songs they say she downloaded, but 24 is the number she was charged with "stealing" - 24 songs is what the trial is actually over. 24 tracks is 2 CDs, and shoplifting two CDs - arguably a worse crime than "stealing" the equivalent in digital music - carries a much lighter punishment than this poor woman is facing.

For perspective, I should state that I'm a songwriter disturbed that others might want to deprive me of the right to decide for myself whether to charge for my work or give it away. My own view of the latest court judgment is that the fine, if anything, may be too low (but with a qualification I'll mention later). These fines are intended for (a) restitution; (b) punishment; and (c) deterrence of others. Deterrence requires that the "cost" of stealing (my word for it) should exceed the cost of paying for the music. However, the cost of stealing is calculated by multiplying the size of the fine by the probability of being caught. Realistically, that probability is less than one in ten thousand, and with this in mind, a fine of even half a million might be reasonable. Even so, my guess is that once the RIAA gets as much mileage as it can from the deterrence value of the news story, it will privately arrange with Jammie Thomas to mitigate her penalty to levels she can live with.Finally, my views on this don't contradict those of others who believe that the music business needs a new business model to adapt to changing times.

Fred Moolten