4 ms·

You can't "pirate" a car. If I took your car, you'd be less one car. If I copy a game, nobody is less anything. It would be as if I had a device that could d

You can't "pirate" a car. If I took your car, you'd be less one car. If I copy a game, nobody is less anything. It would be as if I had a device that could duplicate your car in 10 minutes, atom-for-atom. Clearly this would spell big trouble for the auto industry. We might even introduce laws which make this act illegal, or otherwise induce artificial scarcity so that the price of a car doesn't fall to zero, because we decided, as a society, that the auto industry is something we want to encourage. Maybe every car would require a special passphrase to start, and the car phones home via the cellular network so that no more than one passphrase can be active at a given time. Hmm. That sounds familiar. On the other hand, I'm not stealing someone's car when I duplicate it, am I? Suddenly there's this third party (the car manufacturer or retailer) who cares a lot about what I do with me car. They'd say, "No, it's bad for you to copy other people's cars" and do what they could to stop me. A very different situation from car theft today, which involves only two parties (me and the person I stole it from) and obviously and directly deprives said person of their car. Copyright infringement isn't theft, not legally, not historically, and not morally.

rick888 16y ago
"you can't "pirate" a car. If I took your car, you'd be less one car. If I copy a game, nobody is less anything." What if I "steal" your identity? Technically, you don't lose anything. I am just borrowing your information. Should this be okay too? How about a website that posts valid credit card information. Before someone actually uses the credit card, it's just numbers and letters on website. "Clearly this would spell big trouble for the auto industry. We might even introduce laws which make this act illegal, or otherwise induce artificial scarcity so that the price of a car doesn't fall to zero, because we decided, as a society, that the auto industry is something we want to encourage." There is no "artificial scarcity". The talented people that actually make software, music, and movies are scarce. This is what you are buying. If this wasn't the case, anybody could make Photoshop (not copy) in a few clicks. "Hmm. That sounds familiar. On the other hand, I'm not stealing someone's car when I duplicate it, am I? Suddenly there's this third party (the car manufacturer or retailer) who cares a lot about what I do with me car. They'd say, "No, it's bad for you to copy other people's cars" and do what they could to stop me." Not "stealing" per se, but if you took the original developers work and put them out of business because you were copying (and distributing) it for free, isn't it almost the same thing? I find these discussions really funny. A few weeks ago, there was a heated debate about the author from the thesis wordpress theme and wordpress. By creating the theme (and not giving back to the GPL), the author really wasn't affecting the original (since it technically was just a copy of some bits). Many people here were against him because of the political ideology behind the GPL. When the discussion leads to piracy and its effects (such as this one), everybody has a different opinion..... "Copyright infringement isn't theft, not legally, not historically, and not morally." It's counterfeiting, which is worse than theft. With theft, you aren't going to put a television company out of business because a few tvs got stolen out of the back of a van. When software is pirated (like in this article), it really can put a company out of business and destroy their entire revenue stream.
- rmc 16y ago
  > What if I "steal" your identity? Technically, you don't lose anything. I am just borrowing your information. Should this be okay too? You can't steal identity. You are instead impersonating someone and you are defrauding someone else. 'identity theft' is a new word for the ancient problem of fraud.
- dillydally 16y ago
  "What if I "steal" your identity? Technically, you don't lose anything. I am just borrowing your information. Should this be okay too?" Identity theft is a good example because it illustrates the way we call lots of things "theft" which aren't. Similarly, we might say that murder is "stealing someone's life." Anyhow, identity theft isn't theft, it's fraud. And if you pretend to be me so as to, say, extend yourself a line of credit, you're clearly doing harm to me (and my credit rating!), not to mention the counterparty you just (fraudulently) contracted with. "There is no "artificial scarcity". The talented people that actually make software, music, and movies are scarce. This is what you are buying. If this wasn't the case, anybody could make Photoshop (not copy) in a few clicks." You're parsing words here. Yes, the talent is scarce, but the means by which we reward that talent is breaking down because the marginal cost of media in a digital world is zero. "Not "stealing" per se, but if you took the original developers work and put them out of business because you were copying (and distributing) it for free, isn't it almost the same thing?" Well, personally, I distinguish between people who download something for personal use versus people who download something for the purpose of profiting off of it. The law distinguishes between these two types of copyright infringement, too. The former is not criminal, while the latter is. That's why Grandma gets sued by the RIAA, but pirates operating on a massive scale get arrested by the FBI. In any event, it's more about the macro trend of what would happen if such a technology existed. Right or wrong, it would fundamentally disrupt the economic system by which we produce automobiles. But I think it's clear that duplicating my neighbor's car is not the same as breaking into his car, hot wiring it, and driving off without his permission, right? "It's counterfeiting, which is worse than theft. With theft, you aren't going to put a television company out of business because a few tvs got stolen out of the back of a van." Er, again, no. Counterfeiting involves fraud. It's fraudulently passing off something as genuine which is not. That copy of Photoshop I download really is Adobe Photoshop (R), not a knockoff. I mean, it's bit-for-bit identical. If I start selling DVDs of Photoshop from my storefront that's also not counterfeiting, but would probably be criminal copyright infringement. If I were selling a DVD that I claimed was a legitimate, off-the-shelf copy of Photoshop with a license key and everything, but it wasn't, I suppose that would be both counterfeiting and copyright infringement. IANAL, so I don't know. Anyhow, in conclusion, yes, if we had the ability to duplicate cars, atom-for-atom, at no cost that would be a huge problem for the auto industry. People would lose their jobs. There would be massive disruption, economic loss (at least in the near-term), and a call from auto manufacturers to ban the practice. But it's still not theft. It's something else. "When software is pirated (like in this article), it really can put a company out of business and destroy their entire revenue stream." There are cases where that is true, but it's still not theft.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
On the other hand, I'm not stealing someone's car when I duplicate it, am I? Suddenly there's this third party (the car manufacturer or retailer) who cares a lot about what I do with me car. They'd say, "No, it's bad for you to copy other people's cars" and do what they could to stop me. It's not the copying of other people's cars that's the issue. They'd object just as much if you copied your own car multiple times and gave them to your wife and kids, or friends, neighbors, colleagues or customers. So at that point, they decide that it's no longer your car, all the cars are their cars, they just rent or license them to you in order for them to get around what common sense says you should be able to do with a physical object that you have paid for. Then they'll realize they can go further and stop you taking your car abroad, or stop you modifying it, or running a taxi service, or using generic fuel.
- dillydally 16y ago
  Yes, also true, and a very good point. This is why in the past we had three types of use: unrestricted use, fair use, and restricted (copyrighted) use. Now we only have fair use and restricted use.
goodgoblin 16y ago
Wow thats a great analogy. What if you had a nano-replicator? I guess at that point we would have to be nearing the end of scarcity, right? Because you'd only need 2 nano-replicators to turn dirt into just about anything. And I guess at that point people's motivations would radically shift as money was no longer required, since everyone would have the same 'means of production' (assuming the nano-replicator propogates, like everything else, and that the world isn't turned into grey sludge). But, until then, the people who make the software do need money, or rather to make software costs money and risk and the risk is undertaken with the expectation of making a return on their investment. Not in every case, but its usually pretty easy to tell whether something is for sale or not. Morally its kind of like the prisoner's dilemma. Its in everyone's best interests for people to buy software if they can afford it because it will lead to better software for everyone. But individually its better for pirates to not pay for the software because they get the software for free, and if enough people pay for it, they get the benefit of better software in the future. If everyone stole it, there wouldn't be any. Same for cars and whatever. It seems obviously wrong to me.

rick888 16y ago

"you can't "pirate" a car. If I took your car, you'd be less one car. If I copy a game, nobody is less anything." What if I "steal" your identity? Technically, you don't lose anything. I am just borrowing your information. Should this be okay too? How about a website that posts valid credit card information. Before someone actually uses the credit card, it's just numbers and letters on website. "Clearly this would spell big trouble for the auto industry. We might even introduce laws which make this act illegal, or otherwise induce artificial scarcity so that the price of a car doesn't fall to zero, because we decided, as a society, that the auto industry is something we want to encourage." There is no "artificial scarcity". The talented people that actually make software, music, and movies are scarce. This is what you are buying. If this wasn't the case, anybody could make Photoshop (not copy) in a few clicks. "Hmm. That sounds familiar. On the other hand, I'm not stealing someone's car when I duplicate it, am I? Suddenly there's this third party (the car manufacturer or retailer) who cares a lot about what I do with me car. They'd say, "No, it's bad for you to copy other people's cars" and do what they could to stop me." Not "stealing" per se, but if you took the original developers work and put them out of business because you were copying (and distributing) it for free, isn't it almost the same thing? I find these discussions really funny. A few weeks ago, there was a heated debate about the author from the thesis wordpress theme and wordpress. By creating the theme (and not giving back to the GPL), the author really wasn't affecting the original (since it technically was just a copy of some bits). Many people here were against him because of the political ideology behind the GPL. When the discussion leads to piracy and its effects (such as this one), everybody has a different opinion..... "Copyright infringement isn't theft, not legally, not historically, and not morally." It's counterfeiting, which is worse than theft. With theft, you aren't going to put a television company out of business because a few tvs got stolen out of the back of a van. When software is pirated (like in this article), it really can put a company out of business and destroy their entire revenue stream.

rmc 16y ago
> What if I "steal" your identity? Technically, you don't lose anything. I am just borrowing your information. Should this be okay too? You can't steal identity. You are instead impersonating someone and you are defrauding someone else. 'identity theft' is a new word for the ancient problem of fraud.
dillydally 16y ago
"What if I "steal" your identity? Technically, you don't lose anything. I am just borrowing your information. Should this be okay too?" Identity theft is a good example because it illustrates the way we call lots of things "theft" which aren't. Similarly, we might say that murder is "stealing someone's life." Anyhow, identity theft isn't theft, it's fraud. And if you pretend to be me so as to, say, extend yourself a line of credit, you're clearly doing harm to me (and my credit rating!), not to mention the counterparty you just (fraudulently) contracted with. "There is no "artificial scarcity". The talented people that actually make software, music, and movies are scarce. This is what you are buying. If this wasn't the case, anybody could make Photoshop (not copy) in a few clicks." You're parsing words here. Yes, the talent is scarce, but the means by which we reward that talent is breaking down because the marginal cost of media in a digital world is zero. "Not "stealing" per se, but if you took the original developers work and put them out of business because you were copying (and distributing) it for free, isn't it almost the same thing?" Well, personally, I distinguish between people who download something for personal use versus people who download something for the purpose of profiting off of it. The law distinguishes between these two types of copyright infringement, too. The former is not criminal, while the latter is. That's why Grandma gets sued by the RIAA, but pirates operating on a massive scale get arrested by the FBI. In any event, it's more about the macro trend of what would happen if such a technology existed. Right or wrong, it would fundamentally disrupt the economic system by which we produce automobiles. But I think it's clear that duplicating my neighbor's car is not the same as breaking into his car, hot wiring it, and driving off without his permission, right? "It's counterfeiting, which is worse than theft. With theft, you aren't going to put a television company out of business because a few tvs got stolen out of the back of a van." Er, again, no. Counterfeiting involves fraud. It's fraudulently passing off something as genuine which is not. That copy of Photoshop I download really is Adobe Photoshop (R), not a knockoff. I mean, it's bit-for-bit identical. If I start selling DVDs of Photoshop from my storefront that's also not counterfeiting, but would probably be criminal copyright infringement. If I were selling a DVD that I claimed was a legitimate, off-the-shelf copy of Photoshop with a license key and everything, but it wasn't, I suppose that would be both counterfeiting and copyright infringement. IANAL, so I don't know. Anyhow, in conclusion, yes, if we had the ability to duplicate cars, atom-for-atom, at no cost that would be a huge problem for the auto industry. People would lose their jobs. There would be massive disruption, economic loss (at least in the near-term), and a call from auto manufacturers to ban the practice. But it's still not theft. It's something else. "When software is pirated (like in this article), it really can put a company out of business and destroy their entire revenue stream." There are cases where that is true, but it's still not theft.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

On the other hand, I'm not stealing someone's car when I duplicate it, am I? Suddenly there's this third party (the car manufacturer or retailer) who cares a lot about what I do with me car. They'd say, "No, it's bad for you to copy other people's cars" and do what they could to stop me. It's not the copying of other people's cars that's the issue. They'd object just as much if you copied your own car multiple times and gave them to your wife and kids, or friends, neighbors, colleagues or customers. So at that point, they decide that it's no longer your car, all the cars are their cars, they just rent or license them to you in order for them to get around what common sense says you should be able to do with a physical object that you have paid for. Then they'll realize they can go further and stop you taking your car abroad, or stop you modifying it, or running a taxi service, or using generic fuel.

dillydally 16y ago
Yes, also true, and a very good point. This is why in the past we had three types of use: unrestricted use, fair use, and restricted (copyrighted) use. Now we only have fair use and restricted use.

goodgoblin 16y ago

Wow thats a great analogy. What if you had a nano-replicator? I guess at that point we would have to be nearing the end of scarcity, right? Because you'd only need 2 nano-replicators to turn dirt into just about anything. And I guess at that point people's motivations would radically shift as money was no longer required, since everyone would have the same 'means of production' (assuming the nano-replicator propogates, like everything else, and that the world isn't turned into grey sludge). But, until then, the people who make the software do need money, or rather to make software costs money and risk and the risk is undertaken with the expectation of making a return on their investment. Not in every case, but its usually pretty easy to tell whether something is for sale or not. Morally its kind of like the prisoner's dilemma. Its in everyone's best interests for people to buy software if they can afford it because it will lead to better software for everyone. But individually its better for pirates to not pay for the software because they get the software for free, and if enough people pay for it, they get the benefit of better software in the future. If everyone stole it, there wouldn't be any. Same for cars and whatever. It seems obviously wrong to me.