Copiar não é roubar -- "Copying Is Not Theft" sung in Brazilian Portuguese!

Fernando Chiocca of has re-recorded our Minute Meme Copying Is Not Theft — with the vocal track sung (and sung well) in Brazilian Portuguese!

You can also download a hi-def version here.

Thanks, Fernando, for helping to spread the word!


Re: Copiar não é roubar -- "Copying Is Not Theft" sung in ...


People in denial usually laugh at the thing (being a thief) that they are in denial about.

While brushing on Law 101, you might want to brush up on PR 101.

The classic case is Nixion saying, "I am not a crook." Everyone now thinks Nixon was a crook.  All people hear is “I AM A CROOK” thinking why do others think he is a crook.  Although Nixion could not be convicted of possession of stolen property because he was a different type of crook.

If I were an immature 16-year old thief, I would laugh at your stupidity, as you stupidly laugh, but such sophomoric behavior is below me. 


Re: Copiar não é roubar -- "Copying Is Not Theft" sung in ...

If you are going to invoke Law 101 you might want to refresh your memory of same.  The violation of copyright is  infringement which is legally very different from theft.  "Theft" is a label hammered into our heads by big media companies because they knew that "infringement" just didn't sound so serious to the public at large.  So, honest, copying IS NOT theft.

Re: Copiar não é roubar -- "Copying Is Not Theft" sung in ...


So Nixon is not a “crook” because he never possessed stolen property? 

And that supreme court case that pirates like to quote to rationalize their theft does not say “very different.”  It say “it fits, but awkwardly” and “colloquially” you can be called a thief.

Don’t get your law from pirates on Wikipedia and criminal file-stealing sites. 

Re: Copiar não é roubar -- "Copying Is Not Theft" sung in ...

It is exactly the figurative use of "theft" that is at issue here. 

"Crooks" are not necessarily "thieves".  Money launderers are "crooks" but they are not "thieves" (although they tend to work with thieves).  People who run illegal gambling operations are "crooks" but they are not thieves.  Counterfeiters (at least, those who sell their product for others to spend) are "crooks" but not, simply by the act of counterfeiting, thieves.

The Supreme Court does not adjudicate language.  Comments on what "colloquially" can be called theft are not, in and of themselves, legal rulings-- they are expressions of non-legal opinion used to bolster a legal opinion.  Nobody is bound by those comments any more than they are bound by aesthetic, moral, economic or religious opinions expressed in the course of a Supreme Court ruling.  Supreme Court justices are as susceptible to the mistaken notions of the general public as is anyone else; there was a time when members of the Supreme Court would have told you that black people are not fully citizens, that women are too emotional to be allowed to vote...the list of mistakes is long. I am not surprised that the Supreme Court is currently getting issues related to copyright wrong.  I am confident that, within the next ten or twenty years, they will be substantially revising their opinions in this area.

I worked for twenty years as a litigation assistant at one of the largest law firms in the country.  I am not a legal expert (and neither, I am guessing, are you) but I am not unfamiliar with legal issues.  More relevat than my pedigree, however, may be the fact that I have read several (maybe five) books on copyright law over the last two years.  I assure you that I am not relying on either Wikipedia or the Web in general for my understanding...although both can be the source of a great deal of good information.