5 ms·

I generally agree with the statement that "piracy" is usually about market failure, but it seems to be pretty clearly about money here. Someone stole and edited

I generally agree with the statement that "piracy" is usually about market failure, but it seems to be pretty clearly about money here. Someone stole and edited that content and was subsequently selling it elsewhere...

coretx 10y ago
If we as two individuals or "we" as society at large ever wish to have a non-political thus solution focussed debate or discussion on piracy; one of the first preconditions would be the need for understanding the ontological nature of things and therefore for example not using emotionally loaded descriptions such as "Theft". It's not only factually incorrect, it's also misleading to masses of intellectually less gifted people. In fact, it even makes some of them agressive, totally destroying whatever rational thinking processes that might have been going on. You'll probably agree when i claim that's not constructive at all.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  No, I don't agree. If someone spends time creating course content, someone else steals it and sells it, "theft" is exactly the correct word. If you do this in Kindle World - copy words from a book, and sell them as your own in a different book with your name on it - you get taken down and thrown out, and the author may sue for lost income. Online course content is no different. It's theft. There is no other word for it.
  - coretx 10y ago
    The law disagrees with you virtually all over the world. What you call "theft" in the case of your example is called copyright infringement, and in the case of large scale infringement with a commercial motive it's called piracy. (Yet not within a UN or EU setting, due to actual seafaring pirates being mentioned in various treaties.) These are facts I just presented to you, now please take into account that sensible people tend to discuss facts, and debate opinon; not the ohter way round because that would seem ehhwr, you probably get the point. Besides the legal reality contradicting your statement, both ontological and metaphysical reality also contradicts you. One of the characteristics or nature of "theft" is that the (previous) owner is being left empty handed... Due to the nature of a copy, this is clearly not the case. Enough words spend on the ludicrous "theft" hollywood spindoktering "word". Let's be adults here. Due to existing legislation, the so called rights holder has a reasonable expectation regarding the amount of income he can generate due to copyright legislation. In almost every country, it's a legal principle to be able to draw certainty from the law. This works out pretty well in almost every field of law yet it absolutely does not in the case of copyright legislation due to the fact that virtually everyone commits copyright infringement with incredible ease plus the fact that compelling people to comply with the law can basically only be properly executed post instating a surveilance/police state. What we see here, is legislation dictating how we run our business, almost drafting complete businessmodels; followed by "promises" granted by this very same legislation not being uphold and potentially costing us a lot of money. This is a problem, and obviously undesireable. Business should decide on their business models within the boundaries of the law. Not legislators. From this notion forward we might actually be capable of finding a solution that works for everyone. Dropping words like "Theft", and criminalizing humanity while assaulting their associated rights and proclaiming that the current situation should be uphold is going to get us nowhere besides more of the same problems. By now, 2016, it would no longer be strange to conclude that both friend & foe, citizen & creator, are done with that type of Sht and desire real solutions on the table a.s.a.p ! So please, i beg you. Next time in a similair situation; explain to people how potentially lost income plays a role in someone his daily life and how unfair this can be, add appropriate details, arguments, facts, whatever you like! But please* cut the "theft" crap. Thank you in advance!
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      When you put your name on someone else's work, I am comfortable calling that theft. That is an issue completely separate from copyright. You're barking up the wrong tree.
      - coretx 10y ago
        You are totally right when you say it's not about copyright, especially if you are currently residing in the United States where the origin of copyrights are to be found in a really nice and sensibe constitutional clause. In France however it's the moral rights of the author being what the copyright legislation is being centerd around, so there it would be about copyright. In the UK copyright originates from allowing the Throne to commit censorship, so that's neither about moral rights nor about economical rights. It's about political rights. Plagiarism however, is plagiarism. Theft is Theft, and infringement is infringement. All three totally different "things", that's the tree i'm barking up.
        mannykannot 10y ago
        The "it can't be X because it's Y" claim, when Y does not exclude X, is such a common bogus argument that there is probably a name for the fallacy.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  "Theft" carries the right meaning in this case. Ironically, your attempt to disqualify it from the discussion is exactly the sort of self-serving wordplay that you are complaining about.
contravariant 10y ago
I also think that there's a big difference between distributing illicit copies of a work and plagiarising it for profit. The first might be considered market failure but the second most certainly is not.
mfjordvald 10y ago
With the specific sentence mentioned Troy is not referring to the Udemy content but rather a more general piracy case. So while Udemy is clearly about money the general piracy case referred to probably isn't.

coretx 10y ago

If we as two individuals or "we" as society at large ever wish to have a non-political thus solution focussed debate or discussion on piracy; one of the first preconditions would be the need for understanding the ontological nature of things and therefore for example not using emotionally loaded descriptions such as "Theft". It's not only factually incorrect, it's also misleading to masses of intellectually less gifted people. In fact, it even makes some of them agressive, totally destroying whatever rational thinking processes that might have been going on. You'll probably agree when i claim that's not constructive at all.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
No, I don't agree. If someone spends time creating course content, someone else steals it and sells it, "theft" is exactly the correct word. If you do this in Kindle World - copy words from a book, and sell them as your own in a different book with your name on it - you get taken down and thrown out, and the author may sue for lost income. Online course content is no different. It's theft. There is no other word for it.
- coretx 10y ago
  The law disagrees with you virtually all over the world. What you call "theft" in the case of your example is called copyright infringement, and in the case of large scale infringement with a commercial motive it's called piracy. (Yet not within a UN or EU setting, due to actual seafaring pirates being mentioned in various treaties.) These are facts I just presented to you, now please take into account that sensible people tend to discuss facts, and debate opinon; not the ohter way round because that would seem ehhwr, you probably get the point. Besides the legal reality contradicting your statement, both ontological and metaphysical reality also contradicts you. One of the characteristics or nature of "theft" is that the (previous) owner is being left empty handed... Due to the nature of a copy, this is clearly not the case. Enough words spend on the ludicrous "theft" hollywood spindoktering "word". Let's be adults here. Due to existing legislation, the so called rights holder has a reasonable expectation regarding the amount of income he can generate due to copyright legislation. In almost every country, it's a legal principle to be able to draw certainty from the law. This works out pretty well in almost every field of law yet it absolutely does not in the case of copyright legislation due to the fact that virtually everyone commits copyright infringement with incredible ease plus the fact that compelling people to comply with the law can basically only be properly executed post instating a surveilance/police state. What we see here, is legislation dictating how we run our business, almost drafting complete businessmodels; followed by "promises" granted by this very same legislation not being uphold and potentially costing us a lot of money. This is a problem, and obviously undesireable. Business should decide on their business models within the boundaries of the law. Not legislators. From this notion forward we might actually be capable of finding a solution that works for everyone. Dropping words like "Theft", and criminalizing humanity while assaulting their associated rights and proclaiming that the current situation should be uphold is going to get us nowhere besides more of the same problems. By now, 2016, it would no longer be strange to conclude that both friend & foe, citizen & creator, are done with that type of Sht and desire real solutions on the table a.s.a.p ! So please, i beg you. Next time in a similair situation; explain to people how potentially lost income plays a role in someone his daily life and how unfair this can be, add appropriate details, arguments, facts, whatever you like! But please* cut the "theft" crap. Thank you in advance!
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    When you put your name on someone else's work, I am comfortable calling that theft. That is an issue completely separate from copyright. You're barking up the wrong tree.
    - coretx 10y ago
      You are totally right when you say it's not about copyright, especially if you are currently residing in the United States where the origin of copyrights are to be found in a really nice and sensibe constitutional clause. In France however it's the moral rights of the author being what the copyright legislation is being centerd around, so there it would be about copyright. In the UK copyright originates from allowing the Throne to commit censorship, so that's neither about moral rights nor about economical rights. It's about political rights. Plagiarism however, is plagiarism. Theft is Theft, and infringement is infringement. All three totally different "things", that's the tree i'm barking up.
      - mannykannot 10y ago
        The "it can't be X because it's Y" claim, when Y does not exclude X, is such a common bogus argument that there is probably a name for the fallacy.
mannykannot 10y ago
"Theft" carries the right meaning in this case. Ironically, your attempt to disqualify it from the discussion is exactly the sort of self-serving wordplay that you are complaining about.

contravariant 10y ago

I also think that there's a big difference between distributing illicit copies of a work and plagiarising it for profit. The first might be considered market failure but the second most certainly is not.

mfjordvald 10y ago

With the specific sentence mentioned Troy is not referring to the Udemy content but rather a more general piracy case. So while Udemy is clearly about money the general piracy case referred to probably isn't.