4 ms·

The only problem with this argument is that it's made only with regard to you, the consumer, vs. the content creator/distributor. If theft is defined only as t

by fendrak 16y ago

The only problem with this argument is that it's made only with regard to you, the consumer, vs. the content creator/distributor. If theft is defined only as the removal of a physical good from one individual to another without consent, then indeed, it's not theft in that sense. However, if theft is defined as depriving an individual of what they are due for providing some product/service, then this is theft. One way or another, somebody took the time to learn to play some instrument, write a song, record that song, then get it distributed in some manner. All of that costs both time and money, just like designing and building a car or a laptop or any other physical good. If depriving someone of compensation for something they worked to create and distribute isn't theft, I don't know what is.

niels_olson 16y ago
You know, if it were theft, I think the cases would be tried as cases of theft. I love a semantic argument as much as the next guy, but I find I'm most successful in those arguments when I avidly defer to time-proven definitions. And when those definitions have been so thoroughly debated that they have been intrenched in law almost universally consistent across multiple nations and languages, I really defer to those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparis... I hope you take the opportunity at some point in your life to revisit your opinion on this issue.
wildjim 16y ago
It's still not theft -- i.e. taking something from. It's explicitly a lack of compensation, which is still not "taking something from" -- though there are laws which require compensation for services provided, they vary hugely across the world, and can get people in trouble when they apply their local knowledge in other jurisdictions. Several countries don't apply copyright/patent/IP or even contract law(s) in anything remotely like a USA style (for want of a better sterotype). "Depriving" is a somewhat loaded term that implies a "take" behaviour to you, but it's just not strictly true.

by fendrak 16y ago

niels_olson 16y ago

You know, if it were theft, I think the cases would be tried as cases of theft. I love a semantic argument as much as the next guy, but I find I'm most successful in those arguments when I avidly defer to time-proven definitions. And when those definitions have been so thoroughly debated that they have been intrenched in law almost universally consistent across multiple nations and languages, I really defer to those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparis... I hope you take the opportunity at some point in your life to revisit your opinion on this issue.

wildjim 16y ago

It's still not theft -- i.e. taking something from. It's explicitly a lack of compensation, which is still not "taking something from" -- though there are laws which require compensation for services provided, they vary hugely across the world, and can get people in trouble when they apply their local knowledge in other jurisdictions. Several countries don't apply copyright/patent/IP or even contract law(s) in anything remotely like a USA style (for want of a better sterotype). "Depriving" is a somewhat loaded term that implies a "take" behaviour to you, but it's just not strictly true.