7 ms·

No, it isn't "stealing". You're not depriving them of the content, you're copying it. And you're not even depriving them of the price they charge to access that

by duozerk 10y ago

No, it isn't "stealing". You're not depriving them of the content, you're copying it. And you're not even depriving them of the price they charge to access that content, unless you would've bought it had it not been available through piracy. And that's I think really the exception, not the rule. I know I download a hell of a lot of movies, tv shows, etc. that I would definitely never watch if they were not available easily like that. As for the moral aspect of this, I personally consider that the advantages to society provided by the free, widespread availability of cultural material far outweighs the inconvenience to content distributors & creators; moreover, I consider downloading content 'illegaly' like that to be a form of social protest; to be practiced until their outdated, absurd model changes. Part of this is certainly me rationalizing my behaviour, but I genuinely believe that most of it is not. And when content is available without any form of DRM and with a minimal amount of intermediaries, I always pay for it (a good example is games through gog.com). Personally, I'll stop downloading illegaly when all content is available like that. And no, netflix doesn't cut it; I want the same, convenient service I get through piracy: a mkv/mp4/whatever without any form of DRM that I can store, read on any of my devices, copy, backup, etc.

Nelson69 10y ago
Sure, it's all virtual, you're not actually 'stealing' their money since you weren't actually going to pay for it anyways, but if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights. As the owner, they can copyright it, they can specify the terms by which you're allowed to view it or not view it. They can decide to not let you view it. You are taking that right from them. You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple. Sure, it's a big faceless corporation that already has billions of dollars, so it's as offensive. but it's basically the same thing as a GPL violation. Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways...
- duozerk 10y ago
  "You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple." Not exactly; I'm saying the benefits to society as a whole offered by the post-scarcity nature of data on the Internet (infinitely copiable with negligible cost) is so large that, in my opinion, their right to decide who should access the content is far less important and so should be ignored. It certainly sucks for them; and it certainly means that we need to think about new models to finance content creation (since we are living in a definitely scarcity-based society in real life, for now at least); but there you go. And you say they are the "owner" of the content; given the current laws, yes, "they" usually posess the content. But the "they" in question is very often great industry behemoths constructed on the old, physical model of distribution; regularly offering incredibly bad deals to content creators. As I said, when a content creator distributes its content directly or with a non-DRM intermediary (such as GoG) - and I consider, for example, both netflix and steam as little more than new forms of DRM - then I always pay for it. I pay for it because we still don't have a new model allowing free distribution of data while providing incentives for content creators (a global licence mechanism or something similar - easier said than done), and so I see it as a compromise in the meantime. It also encourages those new means of distribution.
  - spdustin 10y ago
    What about my case: I run a software training company. We provide streaming access to recordings made of the live session for which a student purchased a seat. Pay for a four day class, and you can stream the recording of that four day class for, at the least, 18 months. Why 18 months? That's all we promise, ideas end up being available for longer - five years and counting now - and in 18 months the class tends to have changed enough that we'd rather you just attend again (for free, if it's online). Do you have the right to pirate the videos that my students paid for? Do they have the right to share it with people who didn't attend the course, and are thus missing the context of the classroom experience (and the web site where updated materials/code samples are dispensed)?
  - coffeevradar 10y ago
    Rationalizing your own behavior of downloading content you like and enjoying consuming it as being a "benefit to society" is quite a stretch. Thinking that everything you do, even selfishly, is somehow ethically laudable is not a sign of maturity.
- bleachedsleet 10y ago
  You are assuming that everyone agrees copyright is a good thing...
  - Nelson69 10y ago
    I make no such assumption, I'm just pointing out that it's the current framework that we have and that with it content creators are given actual rights and among those rights is the right to significant control over distribution and consumption of their content.
    - bleachedsleet 10y ago
      You responded to a comment arguing that piracy could be considered a form of social protest. As such appealing to copyright seems a poor counter since copyright could be the very thing being protested. It's anecdotal at this point but also worth noting that the earliest conception of copyright in the colonial era had nothing to do with protecting creators and everything to do with allowing distributors and regulators get a piece of the pie.
    - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
      And the current framework hands out almost no punishments at all. Given the theory that social norms and laws are not what is written but what is enforced, then the current framework only supports limited cases of copyrights that apply generally between financially very well endowed entities. If the current framework written was fully applied, it would not last two full election cycles.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways... Why would you think people would disagree with that?
- uola 10y ago
  "[...] if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights" Don't confuse the economic and moral rights in copyright. When you copy something you aren't necessarily depriving someone of their rights so much as disregarding their awarded monopoly. Just like you usually do if you make moonshine or take a unlicensed taxi.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Curious that this argument only ever applies to the intangible bit patterns that define creative works, but never to the equally intangible bit patterns that define money. If I copy the numbers in a very rich person's bank account to my bank account, I haven't stolen anything from them. All I've done is made a copy of some information. And yet one kind of copying generates rants about the cultural value of free distribution, while the other generates nothing but fear and horror. It's all very strange. And not particularly thoughtful or consistent. IMO either you have a free economy, in which case you make every damn thing free, or you accept that rules of ownership are necessary and that the output of labour has value independent of the ease with which it can be copied. Claiming that rules of ownership are irrelevant for IP you personally want from others, but very important for IP you personally want to monopolise, is the very worst kind of special pleading.
- gue5t 10y ago
  I have no idea what you're talking about. The bit patterns in someone's bank account aren't money, they're just a record of money. If someone has 1000000 dollars, they will have a given bit pattern in their database row. But if two people have the same number of dollars, they aren't sharing money; they just happen to have the same amount at that moment. Money is the agreement that a given person has a given amount of money. That's why blockchains, which allow distributed consensus, can be used to establish currencies. If, by "intangible bit patterns", you mean the credentials for someone's bank account, this is also not the same as a copy of a creative work. By having a copy of credentials you have the ability to change how much money the person has. This is very illegal to do without consent. Analogously, nobody is suggesting we should be able to legally break into the author's computer and modify their copies of their book. Ownership is about control over things. The author has control over their copy, and I have control over mine.
- icebraining 10y ago
  either you have a free economy, in which case you make every damn thing free, or you accept that rules of ownership are necessary and that the output of labour has value independent of the ease with which it can be copied. Rules of ownership are necessary for rivalrous goods, and not for others. Citing Thomas Jefferson, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [(candle)] at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
aninhumer 10y ago
Do we have to do this song and dance every single time there's a discussion about copyright? This is yet another example of a semantic argument as a proxy for values. What matters is not whether piracy "is theft", it's how bad we think it is. But by framing the argument as a semantic one, it ensures that people will focus on technicalities and constantly talk past each other, all the while ignoring what actually matters. Agreeing to either definition of the word "theft" is not going to make either side suddenly change their opinion of piracy. So can we all just agree that copying a file without consent and taking a physical object without consent are qualitatively different acts, and have a direct discussion of their relative morality instead?
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > Do we have to do this song and dance every single time there's a discussion about copyright? This rather shows how hardened the fronts between the positions already are.

by duozerk 10y ago

Nelson69 10y ago

Sure, it's all virtual, you're not actually 'stealing' their money since you weren't actually going to pay for it anyways, but if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights. As the owner, they can copyright it, they can specify the terms by which you're allowed to view it or not view it. They can decide to not let you view it. You are taking that right from them. You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple. Sure, it's a big faceless corporation that already has billions of dollars, so it's as offensive. but it's basically the same thing as a GPL violation. Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways...

duozerk 10y ago
"You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple." Not exactly; I'm saying the benefits to society as a whole offered by the post-scarcity nature of data on the Internet (infinitely copiable with negligible cost) is so large that, in my opinion, their right to decide who should access the content is far less important and so should be ignored. It certainly sucks for them; and it certainly means that we need to think about new models to finance content creation (since we are living in a definitely scarcity-based society in real life, for now at least); but there you go. And you say they are the "owner" of the content; given the current laws, yes, "they" usually posess the content. But the "they" in question is very often great industry behemoths constructed on the old, physical model of distribution; regularly offering incredibly bad deals to content creators. As I said, when a content creator distributes its content directly or with a non-DRM intermediary (such as GoG) - and I consider, for example, both netflix and steam as little more than new forms of DRM - then I always pay for it. I pay for it because we still don't have a new model allowing free distribution of data while providing incentives for content creators (a global licence mechanism or something similar - easier said than done), and so I see it as a compromise in the meantime. It also encourages those new means of distribution.
- spdustin 10y ago
  What about my case: I run a software training company. We provide streaming access to recordings made of the live session for which a student purchased a seat. Pay for a four day class, and you can stream the recording of that four day class for, at the least, 18 months. Why 18 months? That's all we promise, ideas end up being available for longer - five years and counting now - and in 18 months the class tends to have changed enough that we'd rather you just attend again (for free, if it's online). Do you have the right to pirate the videos that my students paid for? Do they have the right to share it with people who didn't attend the course, and are thus missing the context of the classroom experience (and the web site where updated materials/code samples are dispensed)?
- coffeevradar 10y ago
  Rationalizing your own behavior of downloading content you like and enjoying consuming it as being a "benefit to society" is quite a stretch. Thinking that everything you do, even selfishly, is somehow ethically laudable is not a sign of maturity.
bleachedsleet 10y ago
You are assuming that everyone agrees copyright is a good thing...
- Nelson69 10y ago
  I make no such assumption, I'm just pointing out that it's the current framework that we have and that with it content creators are given actual rights and among those rights is the right to significant control over distribution and consumption of their content.
  - bleachedsleet 10y ago
    You responded to a comment arguing that piracy could be considered a form of social protest. As such appealing to copyright seems a poor counter since copyright could be the very thing being protested. It's anecdotal at this point but also worth noting that the earliest conception of copyright in the colonial era had nothing to do with protecting creators and everything to do with allowing distributors and regulators get a piece of the pie.
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    And the current framework hands out almost no punishments at all. Given the theory that social norms and laws are not what is written but what is enforced, then the current framework only supports limited cases of copyrights that apply generally between financially very well endowed entities. If the current framework written was fully applied, it would not last two full election cycles.
icebraining 10y ago
Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways... Why would you think people would disagree with that?
uola 10y ago
"[...] if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights" Don't confuse the economic and moral rights in copyright. When you copy something you aren't necessarily depriving someone of their rights so much as disregarding their awarded monopoly. Just like you usually do if you make moonshine or take a unlicensed taxi.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

Curious that this argument only ever applies to the intangible bit patterns that define creative works, but never to the equally intangible bit patterns that define money. If I copy the numbers in a very rich person's bank account to my bank account, I haven't stolen anything from them. All I've done is made a copy of some information. And yet one kind of copying generates rants about the cultural value of free distribution, while the other generates nothing but fear and horror. It's all very strange. And not particularly thoughtful or consistent. IMO either you have a free economy, in which case you make every damn thing free, or you accept that rules of ownership are necessary and that the output of labour has value independent of the ease with which it can be copied. Claiming that rules of ownership are irrelevant for IP you personally want from others, but very important for IP you personally want to monopolise, is the very worst kind of special pleading.

gue5t 10y ago
I have no idea what you're talking about. The bit patterns in someone's bank account aren't money, they're just a record of money. If someone has 1000000 dollars, they will have a given bit pattern in their database row. But if two people have the same number of dollars, they aren't sharing money; they just happen to have the same amount at that moment. Money is the agreement that a given person has a given amount of money. That's why blockchains, which allow distributed consensus, can be used to establish currencies. If, by "intangible bit patterns", you mean the credentials for someone's bank account, this is also not the same as a copy of a creative work. By having a copy of credentials you have the ability to change how much money the person has. This is very illegal to do without consent. Analogously, nobody is suggesting we should be able to legally break into the author's computer and modify their copies of their book. Ownership is about control over things. The author has control over their copy, and I have control over mine.
icebraining 10y ago
either you have a free economy, in which case you make every damn thing free, or you accept that rules of ownership are necessary and that the output of labour has value independent of the ease with which it can be copied. Rules of ownership are necessary for rivalrous goods, and not for others. Citing Thomas Jefferson, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [(candle)] at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

aninhumer 10y ago

Do we have to do this song and dance every single time there's a discussion about copyright? This is yet another example of a semantic argument as a proxy for values. What matters is not whether piracy "is theft", it's how bad we think it is. But by framing the argument as a semantic one, it ensures that people will focus on technicalities and constantly talk past each other, all the while ignoring what actually matters. Agreeing to either definition of the word "theft" is not going to make either side suddenly change their opinion of piracy. So can we all just agree that copying a file without consent and taking a physical object without consent are qualitatively different acts, and have a direct discussion of their relative morality instead?

wolfgke 10y ago
> Do we have to do this song and dance every single time there's a discussion about copyright? This rather shows how hardened the fronts between the positions already are.