5 ms·

Digital goods are fundamentally non-excludable and non-rivalrous (sometimes anti-rivalrous, as with software). Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply. At wo

Digital goods are fundamentally non-excludable and non-rivalrous (sometimes anti-rivalrous, as with software). Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply. At worst it would be free-riding, which has different implications.

rhino369 11y ago
The idea that theft has to include rivalrous good is a strawman. You are just taking the difference between theft you don't like and pirating and then saying that difference is hugely important.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Hey, it isn't me making straw man arguments. It's the SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States Face it, you're a fringe view.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    That deals with only one criminal law: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113/2314 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113/2314 The code is: > Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud; or ....
baldfat 11y ago
> Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply The semantics of "theft" absolutely do apply Definition of theft: the act or crime of stealing. Definition of steal: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing So the people trying to get through the not stealing it is copying due to a technical definition of theft are wrong. Stealing is having a copy that you didn't get permission to take. My other ethics brain is wondering how NOT taking property but a copy seems to also allow sneaking into a movie theater, concert or sporting event to watch something. You are neither taking anything or even copying you are just watching. Is this also not theft?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  In which case properly delineating what "asking for permission" is becomes increasingly intractable. I have all sorts of images in my thumbnail cache that my browser has downloaded which nominally I do not have permission to keep, but are unavoidable artifacts of using the web via a graphical browser. Indeed, the lines of what is and is not implicit consent are very blurred. Not to mention that merely not being supposed to have something under a set of terms says nothing of the legitimacy of said terms.
  - oberstein 11y ago
    A lot of companies have provisions in their EULAs to allow for copies stored in RAM or by the browsers, e.g. http://storedvalue.com/en-US/terms-and-conditions http://storedvalue.com/en-US/terms-and-conditions and I believe streaming services are doing that as well since going to the monitor will require making copies and transforms of the data from the network. It's all pretty funny until someone gets sued.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Yes this is the cause of many crazy Internet stories of Instagram or FaceBook now own your photos. Photos on a public web page are implicitly giving you permission to view the photo and the technology need you to have a local copy for viewing. That does not mean you can grab the photos from say National Geographic and re bundle them put them on you website surrounded by adds. They are not giving you permission to do anything but view the pictures.

rhino369 11y ago

The idea that theft has to include rivalrous good is a strawman. You are just taking the difference between theft you don't like and pirating and then saying that difference is hugely important.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Hey, it isn't me making straw man arguments. It's the SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States Face it, you're a fringe view.
- baldfat 11y ago
  That deals with only one criminal law: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113/2314 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113/2314 The code is: > Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud; or ....

baldfat 11y ago

> Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply The semantics of "theft" absolutely do apply Definition of theft: the act or crime of stealing. Definition of steal: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing So the people trying to get through the not stealing it is copying due to a technical definition of theft are wrong. Stealing is having a copy that you didn't get permission to take. My other ethics brain is wondering how NOT taking property but a copy seems to also allow sneaking into a movie theater, concert or sporting event to watch something. You are neither taking anything or even copying you are just watching. Is this also not theft?

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
In which case properly delineating what "asking for permission" is becomes increasingly intractable. I have all sorts of images in my thumbnail cache that my browser has downloaded which nominally I do not have permission to keep, but are unavoidable artifacts of using the web via a graphical browser. Indeed, the lines of what is and is not implicit consent are very blurred. Not to mention that merely not being supposed to have something under a set of terms says nothing of the legitimacy of said terms.
- oberstein 11y ago
  A lot of companies have provisions in their EULAs to allow for copies stored in RAM or by the browsers, e.g. http://storedvalue.com/en-US/terms-and-conditions http://storedvalue.com/en-US/terms-and-conditions and I believe streaming services are doing that as well since going to the monitor will require making copies and transforms of the data from the network. It's all pretty funny until someone gets sued.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Yes this is the cause of many crazy Internet stories of Instagram or FaceBook now own your photos. Photos on a public web page are implicitly giving you permission to view the photo and the technology need you to have a local copy for viewing. That does not mean you can grab the photos from say National Geographic and re bundle them put them on you website surrounded by adds. They are not giving you permission to do anything but view the pictures.