6 ms·

A pirated copy doesn’t need to equate to a lost sale in order for it to be stealing. You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. Whet

by kbos87 9y ago

A pirated copy doesn’t need to equate to a lost sale in order for it to be stealing. You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. Whether it’s a physical or nonphysical good is completely beside the point.

aidenn0 9y ago
English is certainly imprecise, but I would claim that if I commit some act X, and you have no less property than if I had not committed act X, then whatever else we can say about act X, I fell confident that it is not stealing.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  And yet people get all worked up about "stolen" passwords. I still have my password. What's the problem?
  - executesorder66 9y ago
    > "stolen" passwords That's also wrong. What actually happened is that a database of password hashes was _copied_ not stolen. So yes your password wasn't stolen. The problem is a security/privacy problem. If someone made a copy of your house keys, that's a problem, because now they can enter your house. But they didn't steal your keys, they copied them. Same with the password. They didn't steal your password, but they have a copy, so they can use it to log into your accounts.
    - aidenn0 9y ago
      Identity "theft" is also one of those confusing terms. We already have a word for it: impersonation. Though in fact sometimes things can be stolen via identity theft; in particular if someone abuses your credit it can deny you future credit, so they have stolen the good-will or trust of creditors in that case. This would be an example of an intangible good being stolen.
pharrington 9y ago
Are you asserting that the salient moral property of theft isn't a party removing a thing from another party, but rather a party gaining a thing made by someone else?
- pwaai 9y ago
  Unfortunately, this is what people who claim piracy is evil thinks. You obviously can't afford Final Fantasy 7 or Megaman Legends so by deriving pleasure from an unauthorized copy, you are a thief and lacking in moral fiber Sir!
jstanley 9y ago
> You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. A person who creates or owns a piece of information still has it after you "steal" it. That's the difference between a physical and a nonphysical good. (I'm not saying distributing copies of copyrighted works is automatically OK, just that your justification for it not being OK doesn't hold water).
executesorder66 9y ago
> You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. Really? So they no longer have it, because I took theirs? Or, do they still have their copy, and I have mine, and I didn't take anything that was owned by them? If I make an exact copy of your car and drive off in it, are you gonna complain that I stole your car?
- prepend 9y ago
  They may not even know that you have it. So it’s like giving money a natural right and enforcing it. A very odd mindset, but one I encounter frequently. They did this class in my kid’s 5th grade where someone came in and said making tapes was illegal. And asked about parents who copied stuff. I was so pissed but the school got a tv or DVD player or something stupid.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. By this definition every website you visit on the internet that you did not create yourself is stealing.
analognoise 9y ago
#this I can't believe people here don't think it's piracy or stealing, just because it doesn't deprive someone else of their object (as in the case of a physical good). If I took your journal entries from your room, and copied them all, and put them on the internet - that's not stealing, because I returned the journal? No, that's still theft. If someone stole bread, how would you feel about It? Screw that person right? What if they were stealing the bread from someone who would never notice the loss, and it was for their hungry kids? Suddenly it seems more reasonable. So both of these examples show (pretty goddamn clearly) that the whole "it isn't depriving the original owner of a physical item" thing is total, and absolute, hogwash. Clearly that point is totally irrelevant to ownership.
- Endy 9y ago
  > If I took your journal entries from your room, and copied them all, and put them on the internet - that's not stealing, because I returned the journal? No, that's still theft. No, that's merely duplication and proliferation of media and information into the public domain; information wants to be free & media calls for an audience. The sole concern at that point would be how you gained access to the media - did you cause any provable harm? In other words, let's say you're my friend. You come in to my room, I leave my journal entries open and you surreptitiously copy them while I'm getting coffee for us. You leave the journal undamaged and make your duplicates public. The only harm you did was cause me to not trust you personally and no longer allow you in my home. If, on the other hand, you broke into my home, causing real physical damage in some way, as well as making me fear for my own personal wellbeing, then yes, you have provably harmed me in a legally actionable way. In either case, nothing was stolen. Emotional and in the latter case physical damages were done because you have duplicated personal information without my consent. A piece of released or published software is decidedly not personal information. In fact, the number of abstraction layers between a user and the creator(s) of a game usually mean that pirated copies cause no emotional harm whatsoever to the author(s). > If someone stole bread, how would you feel about It? Screw that person right? What if they were stealing the bread from someone who would never notice the loss, and it was for their hungry kids? Suddenly it seems more reasonable. If you are depriving someone of a basic foodstuff, and their only means of procurement and providence is legally labelled as theft, then you are perpetrating an unjust society. That's my opinion on that.
asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
Look it's not stealing - stealing is a concept related to physical goods. That doesn't mean that it is right. Piracy is still wrong even though it is not stealing. And the GP seems morally confused. Sharing FLOSS software is very very different morally to pirating games.
- WillReplyfFood 9y ago
  If i look at the effects of piracy - which is a humanity happy and busy without environmental damage, and the damage which is one guy not getting to buy his third yacht- yes, thats a good trade. Its also one of the reasons why most governments of this world are in so lackluster pursuit of piracy. Why would one want to take away the opium from the masses?
WillReplyfFood 9y ago
How dare him aquiring the same opportunitys and destroying the economic protectinon ring you errected around your kids.
andrewaylett 9y ago
Theft -- in UK law -- is the intentional taking of someone's property with the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently. That's why there's a specific offence of "Taking Without Owner's Consent" when you steal a car to joyride in (and crash and burn, rather than sell on): otherwise it's too easy to claim you only "borrowed" the car and intended to give it back, at which point it's not a crime any more.
prepend 9y ago
This is an interesting philosophical point that I think needs to be debated and established in law. Stealing is based on natural law of depriving someone of a thing. If I make a copy you may value that, but the copy doesn’t deprive you of anything. What if you whistle a tune and I think about it? I’ve deprived you of value you by paying nothing but thinking of your whistled tune over and over. I don’t think it’s an accepted truth that just because someone creates something that they must be compensated. Especially if it costs money for society to enforce. There’s tons of these mental exercises. If I add a TOS to this comment saying it’s worth $1k and by reading, you must pay; do you owe? Did you steal my value without my consent? That’s why stealing is based on clear harm through depriving of property. And fair use was established to allow reasonable noncommercial use. My biggest complaint is that IP maximalism is not something society as a whole agreed to. It seems that IP holders just decided for society.

by kbos87 9y ago

aidenn0 9y ago

English is certainly imprecise, but I would claim that if I commit some act X, and you have no less property than if I had not committed act X, then whatever else we can say about act X, I fell confident that it is not stealing.

tedunangst 9y ago
And yet people get all worked up about "stolen" passwords. I still have my password. What's the problem?
- executesorder66 9y ago
  > "stolen" passwords That's also wrong. What actually happened is that a database of password hashes was _copied_ not stolen. So yes your password wasn't stolen. The problem is a security/privacy problem. If someone made a copy of your house keys, that's a problem, because now they can enter your house. But they didn't steal your keys, they copied them. Same with the password. They didn't steal your password, but they have a copy, so they can use it to log into your accounts.
  - aidenn0 9y ago
    Identity "theft" is also one of those confusing terms. We already have a word for it: impersonation. Though in fact sometimes things can be stolen via identity theft; in particular if someone abuses your credit it can deny you future credit, so they have stolen the good-will or trust of creditors in that case. This would be an example of an intangible good being stolen.

pharrington 9y ago

Are you asserting that the salient moral property of theft isn't a party removing a thing from another party, but rather a party gaining a thing made by someone else?

pwaai 9y ago
Unfortunately, this is what people who claim piracy is evil thinks. You obviously can't afford Final Fantasy 7 or Megaman Legends so by deriving pleasure from an unauthorized copy, you are a thief and lacking in moral fiber Sir!

jstanley 9y ago

> You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. A person who creates or owns a piece of information still has it after you "steal" it. That's the difference between a physical and a nonphysical good. (I'm not saying distributing copies of copyrighted works is automatically OK, just that your justification for it not being OK doesn't hold water).

executesorder66 9y ago

> You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. Really? So they no longer have it, because I took theirs? Or, do they still have their copy, and I have mine, and I didn't take anything that was owned by them? If I make an exact copy of your car and drive off in it, are you gonna complain that I stole your car?

prepend 9y ago
They may not even know that you have it. So it’s like giving money a natural right and enforcing it. A very odd mindset, but one I encounter frequently. They did this class in my kid’s 5th grade where someone came in and said making tapes was illegal. And asked about parents who copied stuff. I was so pissed but the school got a tv or DVD player or something stupid.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>You took something of value that was created or owned by someone else. By this definition every website you visit on the internet that you did not create yourself is stealing.

analognoise 9y ago

#this I can't believe people here don't think it's piracy or stealing, just because it doesn't deprive someone else of their object (as in the case of a physical good). If I took your journal entries from your room, and copied them all, and put them on the internet - that's not stealing, because I returned the journal? No, that's still theft. If someone stole bread, how would you feel about It? Screw that person right? What if they were stealing the bread from someone who would never notice the loss, and it was for their hungry kids? Suddenly it seems more reasonable. So both of these examples show (pretty goddamn clearly) that the whole "it isn't depriving the original owner of a physical item" thing is total, and absolute, hogwash. Clearly that point is totally irrelevant to ownership.

Endy 9y ago
> If I took your journal entries from your room, and copied them all, and put them on the internet - that's not stealing, because I returned the journal? No, that's still theft. No, that's merely duplication and proliferation of media and information into the public domain; information wants to be free & media calls for an audience. The sole concern at that point would be how you gained access to the media - did you cause any provable harm? In other words, let's say you're my friend. You come in to my room, I leave my journal entries open and you surreptitiously copy them while I'm getting coffee for us. You leave the journal undamaged and make your duplicates public. The only harm you did was cause me to not trust you personally and no longer allow you in my home. If, on the other hand, you broke into my home, causing real physical damage in some way, as well as making me fear for my own personal wellbeing, then yes, you have provably harmed me in a legally actionable way. In either case, nothing was stolen. Emotional and in the latter case physical damages were done because you have duplicated personal information without my consent. A piece of released or published software is decidedly not personal information. In fact, the number of abstraction layers between a user and the creator(s) of a game usually mean that pirated copies cause no emotional harm whatsoever to the author(s). > If someone stole bread, how would you feel about It? Screw that person right? What if they were stealing the bread from someone who would never notice the loss, and it was for their hungry kids? Suddenly it seems more reasonable. If you are depriving someone of a basic foodstuff, and their only means of procurement and providence is legally labelled as theft, then you are perpetrating an unjust society. That's my opinion on that.

asfdsfggtfd 9y ago

Look it's not stealing - stealing is a concept related to physical goods. That doesn't mean that it is right. Piracy is still wrong even though it is not stealing. And the GP seems morally confused. Sharing FLOSS software is very very different morally to pirating games.

WillReplyfFood 9y ago
If i look at the effects of piracy - which is a humanity happy and busy without environmental damage, and the damage which is one guy not getting to buy his third yacht- yes, thats a good trade. Its also one of the reasons why most governments of this world are in so lackluster pursuit of piracy. Why would one want to take away the opium from the masses?

WillReplyfFood 9y ago

How dare him aquiring the same opportunitys and destroying the economic protectinon ring you errected around your kids.

andrewaylett 9y ago

Theft -- in UK law -- is the intentional taking of someone's property with the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently. That's why there's a specific offence of "Taking Without Owner's Consent" when you steal a car to joyride in (and crash and burn, rather than sell on): otherwise it's too easy to claim you only "borrowed" the car and intended to give it back, at which point it's not a crime any more.

prepend 9y ago

This is an interesting philosophical point that I think needs to be debated and established in law. Stealing is based on natural law of depriving someone of a thing. If I make a copy you may value that, but the copy doesn’t deprive you of anything. What if you whistle a tune and I think about it? I’ve deprived you of value you by paying nothing but thinking of your whistled tune over and over. I don’t think it’s an accepted truth that just because someone creates something that they must be compensated. Especially if it costs money for society to enforce. There’s tons of these mental exercises. If I add a TOS to this comment saying it’s worth $1k and by reading, you must pay; do you owe? Did you steal my value without my consent? That’s why stealing is based on clear harm through depriving of property. And fair use was established to allow reasonable noncommercial use. My biggest complaint is that IP maximalism is not something society as a whole agreed to. It seems that IP holders just decided for society.