4 ms·

Stealing someone's intellectual property would imply that they no longer have the ability to sell licences or transfer the ownership rights of the intellectual

Stealing someone's intellectual property would imply that they no longer have the ability to sell licences or transfer the ownership rights of the intellectual property. So if it was actually possible to steal a song, what you'd be stealing is all future royalties on the song as well as the right to transfer ownership of the intellectual property to someone else, while at the same time preventing the original owner from doing the same. Which is, of course, preposterous. If someone infringes on your copyright, you can still continue selling licences as well as fully transfer ownership of the intellectual property. That's why it's not stealing. Note: I'm not condoning copyright infringement, just pointing out that it's not equivalent to stealing. I don't see the debate you're referring to. When the music industry chooses to redefine a word, pointing out that that's what they're doing is sufficient. I took the extra step of actually repeating the definitions here, but that shouldn't be necessary.

raganwald 17y ago
Hey, I don't disagree with your feelings on the matter, but there is still a logical fallacy in the way you put it the first time. Consider the following statements: 1. There must be some executive who agrees that there is a difference between copying and theft, and; 2. There must be some executive who agrees that since there is a fundamental difference between an act that gives to one without depriving another and an act which gives to one while depriving another, there must therefore be a fundamental difference between copying and theft, and; 3. There must be some executive who understands the difference between copying and theft. The first one makes it plain that there is debate as to whether X and Y are different. The second puts your terms on display for debate. The third assumes them.
- daveungerer 17y ago
  I'm not actually the person who made the first statement. But as I see it, he made 2 statements: 1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft. 2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries. Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    I agree with the way you have broken the statement up. Begging the question is not so much a logical fallacy as a tautological argument. The issue is that item 1 is not so much stated as assumed en passant. It's kind of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife." The statement is couched as being about point number two, but if we say either "yes, there are music executives who understand" or "no, you're wrong, no music executives understand," either way we are forced to agree with the first point. For the record, I agree with both points, but I also acknowledge that the matter is subject to debate.
    - daveungerer 17y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question I quote: This fallacy is often confused with begging the question, which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion. It does become a loaded question if you ask a music industry exec: "Are you aware of the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and stealing?" But, as the wikipedia article says, that's not the same as begging the question. In any case, it's not a loaded question, since it's not a question to begin with. The original poster did not ask us to answer the question about the record / film industry, while accepting his other statement. He was saying "I believe that there is a fundamental difference between X and Y, and am dismayed by the lack of understanding of this difference in the record / film industry". I doubt he had formal logic in mind. EDIT: But you do make some very points, and I'm willing to concede that I may be completely wrong about what the original guy was trying to say, or how it should be interpreted. I really should spend less time on HN :)
      - raganwald 17y ago
        Perhaps it is a loaded statement :-) Thanks, I learned something from your points and research.
        daveungerer 17y ago
        Yeah, learned something too. Thanks.

raganwald 17y ago

Hey, I don't disagree with your feelings on the matter, but there is still a logical fallacy in the way you put it the first time. Consider the following statements: 1. There must be some executive who agrees that there is a difference between copying and theft, and; 2. There must be some executive who agrees that since there is a fundamental difference between an act that gives to one without depriving another and an act which gives to one while depriving another, there must therefore be a fundamental difference between copying and theft, and; 3. There must be some executive who understands the difference between copying and theft. The first one makes it plain that there is debate as to whether X and Y are different. The second puts your terms on display for debate. The third assumes them.

daveungerer 17y ago
I'm not actually the person who made the first statement. But as I see it, he made 2 statements: 1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft. 2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries. Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.
- raganwald 17y ago
  I agree with the way you have broken the statement up. Begging the question is not so much a logical fallacy as a tautological argument. The issue is that item 1 is not so much stated as assumed en passant. It's kind of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife." The statement is couched as being about point number two, but if we say either "yes, there are music executives who understand" or "no, you're wrong, no music executives understand," either way we are forced to agree with the first point. For the record, I agree with both points, but I also acknowledge that the matter is subject to debate.
  - daveungerer 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question I quote: This fallacy is often confused with begging the question, which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion. It does become a loaded question if you ask a music industry exec: "Are you aware of the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and stealing?" But, as the wikipedia article says, that's not the same as begging the question. In any case, it's not a loaded question, since it's not a question to begin with. The original poster did not ask us to answer the question about the record / film industry, while accepting his other statement. He was saying "I believe that there is a fundamental difference between X and Y, and am dismayed by the lack of understanding of this difference in the record / film industry". I doubt he had formal logic in mind. EDIT: But you do make some very points, and I'm willing to concede that I may be completely wrong about what the original guy was trying to say, or how it should be interpreted. I really should spend less time on HN :)
    - raganwald 17y ago
      Perhaps it is a loaded statement :-) Thanks, I learned something from your points and research.
      - daveungerer 17y ago
        Yeah, learned something too. Thanks.