4 ms·

#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 physica

#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.
- Mindwipe 9y ago
  > 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. That's not even remotely true (incidentally this would be illegal in the UK and a court would grant an injunction on publication under breach of confidence, precisely because it's such a shitty thing to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis...).
  - asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
    > That's not even remotely true (incidentally this would be illegal in the UK and a court would grant an injunction on publication under breach of confidence, precisely because it's such a shitty thing to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis...). Yes but they would not charge you with theft. Which includes "the intention to permanently deprive"... Copying someone's private data is not theft. That doesn't mean that it is morally or legally OK (it's not - it's another crime). It just means that theft is a specific crime based on taking fungible chattel with the intent to not give it back.
    - analognoise 9y ago
      So you narrowly redefine theft to not include intellectual property or any non-physical good. IANAL - but I don't think this would fly in any jurisdiction anywhere. Is this definition specific to a country whose laws I'm not familiar with?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > So you narrowly redefine theft to not include intellectual property or any non-physical good. Theft in law generally only applies to tangible personal property, not intangible personally property and not real property. That's not a redefinition, just the long-existigng definition.
pharrington 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." Yes, the original taking of the journal is literally depriving someone else of their object. A future return of the object clearly does not mean the original deprivation never happened. The point you're making about unauthorized distribution of private thoughts is about violation of privacy. Violating a person's privacy certainly is a bad thing. Theft is a different bad thing. (The analogy you're looking for is copying someone's paywalled blog) "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." You're trying to move the goalposts by conflating the literal deprivation of objects with copying information that all parties are trying to proliferate. The emotional appeal, besides not being as agreeable as you think, has nothing to do with the issue. A plentiful, though limited resource is just that. (Yes, one of the many reasons theft is bad is because it invariably angers the thieved and violates their sense of justice - the difference in argument is postulating the emotional impact of an action vs instructing the reader to feel a certain emotion).
- analognoise 9y ago
  My arguments are based on ownership - you didn't create the (game, book, journal entries, code, artistic item, music, whatever), but somehow because you've decided to take advantage of content creators by belittling their ownership to declare theft a victimless crime. Also, people are convinced by arguments they have an emotional connection to - not postulates. You're always instructing the reader how to feel - if the reader can't see what you're doing, and still consider your argument, they're uneducated. That's no sleight against them - as it is massively effective, and it is not permanent. Look at the last US election.
  - pharrington 9y ago
    If you're going to reply to a comment, reply to the words written. My comment doesn't describe anything as victimless crimes. I have a rough understanding of human persuasion and decision making. Persuasion is not my goal. I am trying to engage with other people, read their knowledge and opinions, compare those to what I understand about reality, express my understanding, and when there are inconsistencies, attempt resolving them with some combination of verification of facts and revealing of core principles. Often times, this leads to me realize I had an incorrect thought about something, so I update my understanding of the world accordingly.

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.

Mindwipe 9y ago
> 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. That's not even remotely true (incidentally this would be illegal in the UK and a court would grant an injunction on publication under breach of confidence, precisely because it's such a shitty thing to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis...).
- asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
  > That's not even remotely true (incidentally this would be illegal in the UK and a court would grant an injunction on publication under breach of confidence, precisely because it's such a shitty thing to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis...). Yes but they would not charge you with theft. Which includes "the intention to permanently deprive"... Copying someone's private data is not theft. That doesn't mean that it is morally or legally OK (it's not - it's another crime). It just means that theft is a specific crime based on taking fungible chattel with the intent to not give it back.
  - analognoise 9y ago
    So you narrowly redefine theft to not include intellectual property or any non-physical good. IANAL - but I don't think this would fly in any jurisdiction anywhere. Is this definition specific to a country whose laws I'm not familiar with?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > So you narrowly redefine theft to not include intellectual property or any non-physical good. Theft in law generally only applies to tangible personal property, not intangible personally property and not real property. That's not a redefinition, just the long-existigng definition.

pharrington 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." Yes, the original taking of the journal is literally depriving someone else of their object. A future return of the object clearly does not mean the original deprivation never happened. The point you're making about unauthorized distribution of private thoughts is about violation of privacy. Violating a person's privacy certainly is a bad thing. Theft is a different bad thing. (The analogy you're looking for is copying someone's paywalled blog) "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." You're trying to move the goalposts by conflating the literal deprivation of objects with copying information that all parties are trying to proliferate. The emotional appeal, besides not being as agreeable as you think, has nothing to do with the issue. A plentiful, though limited resource is just that. (Yes, one of the many reasons theft is bad is because it invariably angers the thieved and violates their sense of justice - the difference in argument is postulating the emotional impact of an action vs instructing the reader to feel a certain emotion).

analognoise 9y ago
My arguments are based on ownership - you didn't create the (game, book, journal entries, code, artistic item, music, whatever), but somehow because you've decided to take advantage of content creators by belittling their ownership to declare theft a victimless crime. Also, people are convinced by arguments they have an emotional connection to - not postulates. You're always instructing the reader how to feel - if the reader can't see what you're doing, and still consider your argument, they're uneducated. That's no sleight against them - as it is massively effective, and it is not permanent. Look at the last US election.
- pharrington 9y ago
  If you're going to reply to a comment, reply to the words written. My comment doesn't describe anything as victimless crimes. I have a rough understanding of human persuasion and decision making. Persuasion is not my goal. I am trying to engage with other people, read their knowledge and opinions, compare those to what I understand about reality, express my understanding, and when there are inconsistencies, attempt resolving them with some combination of verification of facts and revealing of core principles. Often times, this leads to me realize I had an incorrect thought about something, so I update my understanding of the world accordingly.