3 ms·

There are two issues here: 1. The law-technical issue. I suppose we agree that piracy is illegal. That there are different laws for the two things is not very

• _delirium 16y ago
  On the 2nd one, reduced income isn't very interesting to me, since I don't believe there's any ethical right to make income from things in the first place. Traditional views on theft I think are justified by a negative right to not have the security of one's person and possessions violated, e.g. to be free from assault, burglary, etc. So with traditional theft, I don't see the wrong being that the thief got something for free, but that the thief removed from me something that I rightfully ought to still have. That doesn't necessarily mean copyright isn't justified: one can argue for a positive right to control distribution and reproductions of one's intellectual productions. But I think it has to be argued for on completely different ethical grounds from the traditional ones used to justify theft being banned, because someone copying a book in their own home, on their own photocopier, isn't a violation of security of one's person/property in the same sense that assault or theft are. The main reasonable grounds I can think of are a good-of-society kind of argument: that the government creating a new positive right, the "copy right", is good for society, because it encourages the production of things that society wishes to encourage the production of, by providing a mechanism to reward creators with income.
  • jules 16y ago
    I agree, but I don't see as big of a difference between theft and piracy. As a software developer people pirating it sure does feel like theft. It evokes exactly the same kind of feeling as when somebody stole something physical from me. And the actual results for me are the same too: it costs me time and money. Moreover, the grounds for making theft illegal are good-of-society arguments too. Of course there are some differences too. Positive vs negative rights is just an artificial distinction. It doesn't make a difference to me as a software developer. About as interesting would be classifying things according to the letter they start with (T for theft and P for piracy). You can phrase copyright as a positive or a negative right, it's just a difference in the wording not an actual difference: "Copyright is the right to stop other people copying your work." "Copyright is that you're not allowed to copy the work of people who don't want that." Note how this is exactly the same as with property rights.
    • _delirium 16y ago
      The positive v. negative rights distinction to me is that it involves trying to control how people behave in their own homes, versus how people interact with you. Theft fundamentally is bad because it is an unwanted intrusion: you're on that person's land, or in their house, or rummaging around their shed. But I can copy something without ever intruding anywhere. If I buy a Honda, and then carefully build a replica in my shed, with my own tools and materials, this isn't a violation of Honda's property in the same way that breaking into their factory and taking one of their cars would be. It isn't even a violation in the same way that breaking into their factory at night and building my own car using their assembly line would be--- I'm building it 100% with my own materials, on my own assembly line. It is still a violation of their design copyright, but that seems much different to me.
      • jules 16y ago
        That's not what positive/negative right means, but OK. I doubt that many people would agree that theft is bad because someone is on your land. Theft is bad because someone is taking something away from you, and you'd otherwise be able to use the thing, and now you have to buy or make a new one. If I dropped my bag on the street and somebody takes it that's still theft, and the reason why it's bad is because I want to have that bag, not because I don't like it when somebody touches my bag. If you put a crack of my software online I effectively don't own that software anymore, because I can't use it anymore in the way I was (selling it). So perhaps it's more similar to destruction of property. You could say that I shouldn't have expected to be able to sell the software in the first place, but that's not true because copyright law gives me that right. Whether you think that copyright law should be removed/changed or not, while the law is still in place making a crack is effectively the same as destroying my property.
        • _delirium 16y ago
          I don't follow the last part of your post. Rights granted by the government are not automatically all property rights. This is infringing on copyright, an artificial monopoly granted by the government to encourage social progress. I agree that's illegal, but it's not removing any items from your possession; it's circumventing the government's attempt to give you a monopoly in duplication, which harms your business prospects, but does not damage any items in your possession. For example, you can still use any software you have. I mean, if reducing something's value by making it harder to sell is equivalent to destruction of property, then any competition is destruction of property. If I open a bakery next to yours, I'm damaging your bakery. But I think calling it theft or destruction of property would be absurd, even if I broke the law in opening my bakery. If my bakery failed to get the proper permits, or violated zoning laws, I'm competing with you illegally, and might be guilty of some sort of illegal business practices. But I'm not guilty of robbing your bakery in the same way I would be if I smashed in your front window and stole your oven. That's something rather different.