13 ms·

> Because it is stealing. In theft you take something from someone else, and they are then deprived of what you took. I take your loaf of bread, you have one l

by e12e 10y ago

> Because it is stealing. In theft you take something from someone else, and they are then deprived of what you took. I take your loaf of bread, you have one less loaf of bread. If I copy your movie, you still have your movie. Now, if I (somehow) get hold of a copy of a digital file you want to sell me, you'll be less likely to be able to get me to buy it (although, studies have shown that those that copy content a lot, also tend to pay for content a lot). So we need another word than "theft" - and that word certainly isn't "piracy" - people that violate copyright, rarely murder people or disrupt trade routes and critical infrastructure. I'm not saying we don't need some system of compensation if we want to continue to produce art - but just as a boycott is a very passive act of resistance, so is not paying for crippled (DRM) content. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that there's a need to prove that someone watching a copy for free would be more likely to pay for that copy than go outside and play a game of catch if the content wasn't available for copying.

jjaredsimpson 10y ago
If I copy all your emails and financial records have I harmed you? Are you only harmed if I remove your access to those records?
- reloop 10y ago
  These arguments always comes up in these types of discussions. In reality though personal information has far less protection than commercial information. If you take nude pictures of yourself you might as well keep your credit card in frame, since that's essentially the only way someone would be sentenced for copying them later.
- AtheistOfFail 10y ago
  No. If you begin committing identity theft, Yes.
- mcdoug 10y ago
  That's yet a different issue. Watching an old episode of Seinfeld does not violate anyone's privacy. Theft: you have a painting. I took it. Copyright infringement: You painted a painting. I took a picture of it and sold/gave away prints to all my friends. Violation of privacy: I got into your phone and looked at all your dick pics. Warrantless search: The police got into your phone and looked at all your dick pics, possibly finding evidence of a crime. They are different issues which can look similar at times, but are actually completely separate. Pretending like they are is just adding muck to this discussion.
  - ramshorns 10y ago
    There's one more separate issue. Piracy: You have a ship. I climbed aboard, murdered some of your crew, and took control of your ship or stole some of your belongings.
    - EpicEng 10y ago
      Yes, that's completely the same thing as downloading a movie illegally.
    - grzm 10y ago
      English words admit to multiple, distinct definitions.
- MrPlow442 10y ago
  I'd say that by simply copying and reading those emails and financial records you haven't done any harm. If you've used the knowledge gained from those documents to deprive someone of their finances(theft) or any such malicious action I'd say you've harmed the owner of these documents. Disclaimer: I do not condone piracy, I just believe you've made a logical fallacy.
- bo1024 10y ago
  That's an invasion of privacy and violates all kinds of laws and ethical standards. If you reproduce my song without my consent, that's a violation of a very specific law which allows me a temporary* restriction on your rights. The ethical question raised, I think, is of a very different nature. *temporary: used to be ~20 years, now is until 70 years after I die.
senior_james 10y ago
'hacker' has also changed meanings. There isn't much you can do about it. That's the nature of language. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it's counterfeiting. It's 100X worse because instead of just stealing some physical items like a television, it's devaluing the television to the point where it can no longer be sold.
- nyolfen 10y ago
  and yet people still buy media
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  It certainly can still be sold, just look at music. The industry recaptured a lot of people through a combination of affordable DRM free purchases and easy-to-use streaming. Video is getting there, they just allowed license restrictions and greedy pricing get in the way. It's not that people wont pay for media content, it's that they won't allow rent seeking behavior to stifle cultural innovation and enjoyment. I view trying to silo culture to extract maximal rent as considerably worse than taking away their artificial monopoly in response.
tedsanders 10y ago
Thought experiment: What if the copyrighted material was code instead of media? Suppose company A invests $500M in writing code for a major new product. Development finishes and they begin selling the product and slowly recouping their costs. Now, company B comes along and surreptitiously hacks into company A, copying their their source code (they haven't stolen the source code, only copied it). Company B now begins selling a copycat product for far less than A wants to charge, destroying A's ability to earn back its investment. Has company B committed a crime? Certainly company B let company A keep its source code, but by copying the source code it did not let company A keep its way of earning money.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Yes, copyright/patent infringement (depending on the exact details). But there are circumstances that might mitigate how the public (and perhaps law) feels about that, eg, if company B bought a copy of the software and slightly modified it to work on a new operating sysem, then sold just the changed version.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  They hacked the other company (one crime) and infringed the copyright of the other company (second crime). But I think you've got a couple of holes in your simile. Source code is a much more powerful thing to have than the final product. I can't remember a time where a movie's entire set of footage and effects assets were leaked/stolen, and the equivalent of a movie being leaked is compiled binaries being leaked, and that happens all the time. I'd also judge selling an illegally copied thing to be a worse offense than giving away an illegally copied thing. > Certainly company B let company A keep its source code, but by copying the source code it did not let company A keep its way of earning money. And yet, companies still make software, movies, music. I'd be more worried if those businesses were made non-viable due to copyright infringement losses and more sympathetic if I thought something copyrighted today would exit copyright within my lifetime.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  More equivalent argument: company A makes a product. Consumer A who would not pay the asking price for the product downloads the trial then sets their system clock back 10 years and uses that product for free for personal non-commercial enjoyment a few times over the course of a few years. They technically violated the license agreement but did not profit from their circumvention. They would not have otherwise paid the asking price, so a sale is not realistically lost.
dghughes 10y ago
Even though it's a copy you gained something without effort or compensating the creator. The effort of creating the thing you have a copy of is how it gains its value.
- macguy 10y ago
  The creator has not lost anything. It is not zero sum. They haven't lost money, they haven't lost time...
  - jjaredsimpson 10y ago
    This line of thinking can only be followed by selfish motivated reasoning. Suppose I bake 100 brownies and try to sell them one morning. I sell some and as I'm packing up my booth you take one and eat it. You argue, "I was never going to pay for a brownie, I didn't want it that badly, and anyway you can't sell them tomorrow because they will be stale." There is something deeply wrong and immoral about this way of thinking. The idea that you alone get to value someone else's work output to be zero and then take that output and claim it has no value, and that the taking causes no harm. It is theft. But you don't want to be called a thief. So you play semantic games.
    - flukus 10y ago
      If I take your brownie that's a brownie you can no longer sell or eat, this isn't the case when you copy software. If they stole a brownie you threw in the trash would you still call them a thief?
      - jjaredsimpson 10y ago
        But you didn't copy the music and then delete it. You enjoyed it. There was a gain on one side and nothing exchanged for that gain. The lack of reciprocity is the root issue.
        flukus 10y ago
derekp7 10y ago
It is theft of service. Same as if you went in for a haircut, and didn't pay for it. You just stole the service provider's time. The only difference with copyrighted works is that the multi-million dollar price tag on it is divided up among all the people who purchase it. The harm caused is that you are denying the copyright owner their legal monopoly rights on distributing copies, therefore devaluing their virtual asset.
- exo762 10y ago
  > It is theft of service. Same as if you went in for a haircut, and didn't pay for it. You just stole the service provider's time. What does matter is marginal cost of providing service. In this case it is ZERO. So no, it is not stealing. Nowhere close.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Do you disagree only with the term stealing? Do you believe there is anything wrong with the behavior?
    - macguy 10y ago
      If you wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content there is no loss.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        So to go back to derekp7's analogy, if I wouldn't have otherwise purchased the haircut, then there's no loss to the barber?
        hueving 10y ago
        No, because the barber had to expend effort and resources on you.
        dkonofalski 10y ago
hsod 10y ago
]This semantic tangent has been derailing these conversations on forums across the internet for years. I think it's time to put it to bed. No one is confused about this usage of the word "stealing," nor is your specific definition the only valid one. We don't need another word, "stealing" is just fine.
- stonogo 10y ago
  No. This 'semantic tangent' has very real consequences. The propaganda equating copyright infringement with robbery is bullshit, but bullshit with a purpose: getting the government to pick up the task of copyright enforcement, because it's too costly to make sense for the lobbying organizations to do it themselves. If we accepted your handwaving, people charged with actually robbing someone's home and people charged with downloading half a season of Glee would face the same sentencing standards. That is obviously deranged. So, no. The debate must continue, until consensus is reached and the matter fixed in law.
  - hsod 10y ago
    > If we accepted your handwaving, people charged with actually robbing someone's home and people charged with downloading half a season of Glee would face the same sentencing standards. Can you expand on this? Seems like a non-sequitur.
    - hueving 10y ago
      You are equating making a copy with theft.
- mercer 10y ago
  While I'm happy for you that you feel comfortable deciding that this can be put to bed, clearly many people feel differently. I'd argue that merely the observation that many intelligent, morally sensitive people here on HN feel differently should be enough to realize that this is not a 'tangent' that can be 'put to bed'. Why would you even put it like that, knowing that there is such disagreement?

by e12e 10y ago

jjaredsimpson 10y ago

If I copy all your emails and financial records have I harmed you? Are you only harmed if I remove your access to those records?

reloop 10y ago
These arguments always comes up in these types of discussions. In reality though personal information has far less protection than commercial information. If you take nude pictures of yourself you might as well keep your credit card in frame, since that's essentially the only way someone would be sentenced for copying them later.
AtheistOfFail 10y ago
No. If you begin committing identity theft, Yes.
mcdoug 10y ago
That's yet a different issue. Watching an old episode of Seinfeld does not violate anyone's privacy. Theft: you have a painting. I took it. Copyright infringement: You painted a painting. I took a picture of it and sold/gave away prints to all my friends. Violation of privacy: I got into your phone and looked at all your dick pics. Warrantless search: The police got into your phone and looked at all your dick pics, possibly finding evidence of a crime. They are different issues which can look similar at times, but are actually completely separate. Pretending like they are is just adding muck to this discussion.
- ramshorns 10y ago
  There's one more separate issue. Piracy: You have a ship. I climbed aboard, murdered some of your crew, and took control of your ship or stole some of your belongings.
  - EpicEng 10y ago
    Yes, that's completely the same thing as downloading a movie illegally.
  - grzm 10y ago
    English words admit to multiple, distinct definitions.
MrPlow442 10y ago
I'd say that by simply copying and reading those emails and financial records you haven't done any harm. If you've used the knowledge gained from those documents to deprive someone of their finances(theft) or any such malicious action I'd say you've harmed the owner of these documents. Disclaimer: I do not condone piracy, I just believe you've made a logical fallacy.
bo1024 10y ago
That's an invasion of privacy and violates all kinds of laws and ethical standards. If you reproduce my song without my consent, that's a violation of a very specific law which allows me a temporary* restriction on your rights. The ethical question raised, I think, is of a very different nature. *temporary: used to be ~20 years, now is until 70 years after I die.

senior_james 10y ago

'hacker' has also changed meanings. There isn't much you can do about it. That's the nature of language. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it's counterfeiting. It's 100X worse because instead of just stealing some physical items like a television, it's devaluing the television to the point where it can no longer be sold.

nyolfen 10y ago
and yet people still buy media
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
It certainly can still be sold, just look at music. The industry recaptured a lot of people through a combination of affordable DRM free purchases and easy-to-use streaming. Video is getting there, they just allowed license restrictions and greedy pricing get in the way. It's not that people wont pay for media content, it's that they won't allow rent seeking behavior to stifle cultural innovation and enjoyment. I view trying to silo culture to extract maximal rent as considerably worse than taking away their artificial monopoly in response.

tedsanders 10y ago

Thought experiment: What if the copyrighted material was code instead of media? Suppose company A invests $500M in writing code for a major new product. Development finishes and they begin selling the product and slowly recouping their costs. Now, company B comes along and surreptitiously hacks into company A, copying their their source code (they haven't stolen the source code, only copied it). Company B now begins selling a copycat product for far less than A wants to charge, destroying A's ability to earn back its investment. Has company B committed a crime? Certainly company B let company A keep its source code, but by copying the source code it did not let company A keep its way of earning money.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Yes, copyright/patent infringement (depending on the exact details). But there are circumstances that might mitigate how the public (and perhaps law) feels about that, eg, if company B bought a copy of the software and slightly modified it to work on a new operating sysem, then sold just the changed version.
khedoros1 10y ago
They hacked the other company (one crime) and infringed the copyright of the other company (second crime). But I think you've got a couple of holes in your simile. Source code is a much more powerful thing to have than the final product. I can't remember a time where a movie's entire set of footage and effects assets were leaked/stolen, and the equivalent of a movie being leaked is compiled binaries being leaked, and that happens all the time. I'd also judge selling an illegally copied thing to be a worse offense than giving away an illegally copied thing. > Certainly company B let company A keep its source code, but by copying the source code it did not let company A keep its way of earning money. And yet, companies still make software, movies, music. I'd be more worried if those businesses were made non-viable due to copyright infringement losses and more sympathetic if I thought something copyrighted today would exit copyright within my lifetime.
seanp2k2 10y ago
More equivalent argument: company A makes a product. Consumer A who would not pay the asking price for the product downloads the trial then sets their system clock back 10 years and uses that product for free for personal non-commercial enjoyment a few times over the course of a few years. They technically violated the license agreement but did not profit from their circumvention. They would not have otherwise paid the asking price, so a sale is not realistically lost.

dghughes 10y ago

Even though it's a copy you gained something without effort or compensating the creator. The effort of creating the thing you have a copy of is how it gains its value.

macguy 10y ago
The creator has not lost anything. It is not zero sum. They haven't lost money, they haven't lost time...
- jjaredsimpson 10y ago
  This line of thinking can only be followed by selfish motivated reasoning. Suppose I bake 100 brownies and try to sell them one morning. I sell some and as I'm packing up my booth you take one and eat it. You argue, "I was never going to pay for a brownie, I didn't want it that badly, and anyway you can't sell them tomorrow because they will be stale." There is something deeply wrong and immoral about this way of thinking. The idea that you alone get to value someone else's work output to be zero and then take that output and claim it has no value, and that the taking causes no harm. It is theft. But you don't want to be called a thief. So you play semantic games.
  - flukus 10y ago
    If I take your brownie that's a brownie you can no longer sell or eat, this isn't the case when you copy software. If they stole a brownie you threw in the trash would you still call them a thief?
    - jjaredsimpson 10y ago
      But you didn't copy the music and then delete it. You enjoyed it. There was a gain on one side and nothing exchanged for that gain. The lack of reciprocity is the root issue.
      - flukus 10y ago

derekp7 10y ago

It is theft of service. Same as if you went in for a haircut, and didn't pay for it. You just stole the service provider's time. The only difference with copyrighted works is that the multi-million dollar price tag on it is divided up among all the people who purchase it. The harm caused is that you are denying the copyright owner their legal monopoly rights on distributing copies, therefore devaluing their virtual asset.

exo762 10y ago
> It is theft of service. Same as if you went in for a haircut, and didn't pay for it. You just stole the service provider's time. What does matter is marginal cost of providing service. In this case it is ZERO. So no, it is not stealing. Nowhere close.
- grzm 10y ago
  Do you disagree only with the term stealing? Do you believe there is anything wrong with the behavior?
  - macguy 10y ago
    If you wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content there is no loss.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      So to go back to derekp7's analogy, if I wouldn't have otherwise purchased the haircut, then there's no loss to the barber?
      - hueving 10y ago
        No, because the barber had to expend effort and resources on you.
      - dkonofalski 10y ago

hsod 10y ago

]This semantic tangent has been derailing these conversations on forums across the internet for years. I think it's time to put it to bed. No one is confused about this usage of the word "stealing," nor is your specific definition the only valid one. We don't need another word, "stealing" is just fine.

stonogo 10y ago
No. This 'semantic tangent' has very real consequences. The propaganda equating copyright infringement with robbery is bullshit, but bullshit with a purpose: getting the government to pick up the task of copyright enforcement, because it's too costly to make sense for the lobbying organizations to do it themselves. If we accepted your handwaving, people charged with actually robbing someone's home and people charged with downloading half a season of Glee would face the same sentencing standards. That is obviously deranged. So, no. The debate must continue, until consensus is reached and the matter fixed in law.
- hsod 10y ago
  > If we accepted your handwaving, people charged with actually robbing someone's home and people charged with downloading half a season of Glee would face the same sentencing standards. Can you expand on this? Seems like a non-sequitur.
  - hueving 10y ago
    You are equating making a copy with theft.
mercer 10y ago
While I'm happy for you that you feel comfortable deciding that this can be put to bed, clearly many people feel differently. I'd argue that merely the observation that many intelligent, morally sensitive people here on HN feel differently should be enough to realize that this is not a 'tangent' that can be 'put to bed'. Why would you even put it like that, knowing that there is such disagreement?