3 ms·

Here I don't mean to focus on the methods to get the finished product, but rather copying the product for use. The OP explains that since nothing is actually re

by jeromec 16y ago

Here I don't mean to focus on the methods to get the finished product, but rather copying the product for use. The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. If I want to open source some of the code I write, I'll do it. Aside from that no one should be able to copy and use the code I've written (and open it up to possible distribution) without any regard for my opinion on the matter. To me I'd consider that theft.

petercooper 16y ago
The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. It depends whether you're referring to your own personal definition of "theft" or a legal or common definition (of which there are many). If the former, no-one can quarrel with you, of course ;-) If the latter, in some jurisdictions, permanent deprivation of property is required for "theft", so copying files would not count. Where permanent deprivation is not required and non-tangible property counts, then sure, it'd be theft. Even forgetting the definition of theft, sure, no-one should be able to obtain and use your code without permission, but if they were to do so, it doesn't necessarily mean they have committed the legal offence of "theft." You are free to consider it such but legally it may not be such.
- jeromec 16y ago
  I didn't mean to get into the semantics of "theft". If you notice, I said "To me I'd consider that theft". What is significant, I believe, is the moral weight of categorizing it as theft, rather than specific technical definitions and jurisdictions. I believe the same context is meant by the Obama administration's choice of words. We are at a time in history for which there is no precedent for all the things we are able to do. It's for this reason I bring up these arguments with an audience which seems to largely favor making free use of any product deemed fair game by their own justification.
  - petercooper 16y ago
    OK, I appreciate your argument now :) It is cool for you to frame things within your own value system and I can't argue against your opinion, but it's a shame that the executive branch is being lax with the definitions of words that have special definitions in their realm.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      I think they're trying to be very clear about how they view digital piracy. It's like Bush trumpeting "terrorists" or "axis of evil". You can apply a terrorist label broadly or narrowly to a person, but there is little doubt about how seriously the govt. might take action based on such a word. I think it's a similar thing here with the word "theft". If existing laws don't hold up to what they feel is fair and just, they may seek to craft new ones that do.

by jeromec 16y ago

petercooper 16y ago

The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. It depends whether you're referring to your own personal definition of "theft" or a legal or common definition (of which there are many). If the former, no-one can quarrel with you, of course ;-) If the latter, in some jurisdictions, permanent deprivation of property is required for "theft", so copying files would not count. Where permanent deprivation is not required and non-tangible property counts, then sure, it'd be theft. Even forgetting the definition of theft, sure, no-one should be able to obtain and use your code without permission, but if they were to do so, it doesn't necessarily mean they have committed the legal offence of "theft." You are free to consider it such but legally it may not be such.

jeromec 16y ago
I didn't mean to get into the semantics of "theft". If you notice, I said "To me I'd consider that theft". What is significant, I believe, is the moral weight of categorizing it as theft, rather than specific technical definitions and jurisdictions. I believe the same context is meant by the Obama administration's choice of words. We are at a time in history for which there is no precedent for all the things we are able to do. It's for this reason I bring up these arguments with an audience which seems to largely favor making free use of any product deemed fair game by their own justification.
- petercooper 16y ago
  OK, I appreciate your argument now :) It is cool for you to frame things within your own value system and I can't argue against your opinion, but it's a shame that the executive branch is being lax with the definitions of words that have special definitions in their realm.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    I think they're trying to be very clear about how they view digital piracy. It's like Bush trumpeting "terrorists" or "axis of evil". You can apply a terrorist label broadly or narrowly to a person, but there is little doubt about how seriously the govt. might take action based on such a word. I think it's a similar thing here with the word "theft". If existing laws don't hold up to what they feel is fair and just, they may seek to craft new ones that do.