5 ms·

I'll be the guy this time: copyright violation is a different thing from stealing. I'm surprised after so long this meme is still going strong.

deong 9y ago
It's still going because that's the way people talk. You can actually "steal" an idea, even though it's not physically possible to remove the original from the person's mind. You can steal a kiss. You can steal second. Words mean what people use them to mean, and it's a perfectly acceptable use of the word "steal" to mean something like "adopted use of an artifact for the purpose of deriving a benefit rightfully belonging to its creator". I'm personally surprised the "copyright infringement isn't theft" meme is still going strong.
- wcoenen 9y ago
  > Words mean what people use them to mean Semantics matter though when even courts start to become confused by the inexact use of terminology. Here is a copyright infringement case that had to be taken to the US supreme court to reverse a guilty verdict for "interstate transportation of stolen property": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States
- d0lph 9y ago
  The difference is that there is no loss. In the circumstances that you list there actually was something taken from someone, e.g time taken from something else, or I guess kissing someone you were not supposed to. You can argue that a person might have gone to see the movie if they hadn't downloaded it, but that's kind of a dumb argument.
  - lordlimecat 9y ago
    >The difference is that there is no loss. In this thread, we recognize the existence of supply / demand. It is exceptionally ignorant to claim that increasing the supply of a relatively scarce thing has no economic impact on the creator / owner.
    - d0lph 9y ago
      Actually, what is really exceptionally ignorant is to apply laws of supply and demand to digital assets. What I find really ignorant though, is you've decided that lowering demand is equivalent to theft. Does that mean competitors are "stealing" from one another.
      - deong 9y ago
        It's only ignorant to apply supply and demand to digital goods if you start from the premise that copyright shouldn't exist. 1. Copyright shouldn't exist. 2. If copyright didn't exist, anyone would be able to get any digital file easily without restriction. 3. If you can get any digital file without restriction, then supply is infinite and demand doesn't matter. 4. If supply is infinite, then supply and demand doesn't matter and you're ignorant for trying to apply it. That's basically the argument you're making, and you're rather trivially just assuming the consequent. On the second part, that's just a really faulty analogy. Competitors aren't "stealing" from one another for the simple reason that they haven't taken anything. Copyright infringement isn't "stealing" demand. It's stealing an item that has demand. It's the infringement that's the theft, not the consequences. The consequences are just the justification for having the law in the first place. To repeat, competitors aren't "stealing" when they lower demand for the stupidly obvious reason that they haven't stolen anything.
        d0lph 9y ago
        It's only ignorant to able to apply the laws of supply and demand to something where supply _is_ infinite. Copying a file is free, it's weird to make it equivalent to theft when there is no loss on behalf of the studio. Perhaps a better example would be one friend sharing a dvd with another friend. That's what I'm saying though, it is stupid, to call file sharing theft. Theft involves loss on behalf one party. If simply taking profit(file sharing media companies would say) is enough to count as theft, then regular competition does that. Another analogy: suppose you had a technology where you could clone real life items, you could copy food, cars, precious metals etc. you wouldn't call that theft. However in computing that technology readily exists. Another thing, you're conflating laws with morality, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Copyright has been extended again and again by the Disney company afraid to lose their mouse.
jim_dow_jones 9y ago
By violating the copyright of the content you are stealing the creators money. I'm surprised the meme that copyright violation is "different" than stealing is still a meme. Yes, copyright violation is not "stealing", but the majority of the time the end result is "stealing" money from the content creators.
- laurentoget 9y ago
  Who is stealing which money when I watch a video of a song on Youtube? Do you really think I would have bought all those songs if they were not available on Youtube?
  - jim_dow_jones 9y ago
    If you are a content creator on youtube and I reupload your video and place ads on it, I am stealing ad revenue from you.
    - d0lph 9y ago
      So if you don't place ads on it you're good, or is that also stealing?
      - jim_dow_jones 9y ago
        In most instances you are stealing views from the original creator and as a result of those lost views, revenue.
  - lordlimecat 9y ago
    Do you really think that supply / demand only applies to tangible goods? Do you really think that there would be no financial impact on Microsoft if they removed all of their license / activation technologies and relied on honor code?
    - laurentoget 9y ago

deong 9y ago

It's still going because that's the way people talk. You can actually "steal" an idea, even though it's not physically possible to remove the original from the person's mind. You can steal a kiss. You can steal second. Words mean what people use them to mean, and it's a perfectly acceptable use of the word "steal" to mean something like "adopted use of an artifact for the purpose of deriving a benefit rightfully belonging to its creator". I'm personally surprised the "copyright infringement isn't theft" meme is still going strong.

wcoenen 9y ago
> Words mean what people use them to mean Semantics matter though when even courts start to become confused by the inexact use of terminology. Here is a copyright infringement case that had to be taken to the US supreme court to reverse a guilty verdict for "interstate transportation of stolen property": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States
d0lph 9y ago
The difference is that there is no loss. In the circumstances that you list there actually was something taken from someone, e.g time taken from something else, or I guess kissing someone you were not supposed to. You can argue that a person might have gone to see the movie if they hadn't downloaded it, but that's kind of a dumb argument.
- lordlimecat 9y ago
  >The difference is that there is no loss. In this thread, we recognize the existence of supply / demand. It is exceptionally ignorant to claim that increasing the supply of a relatively scarce thing has no economic impact on the creator / owner.
  - d0lph 9y ago
    Actually, what is really exceptionally ignorant is to apply laws of supply and demand to digital assets. What I find really ignorant though, is you've decided that lowering demand is equivalent to theft. Does that mean competitors are "stealing" from one another.
    - deong 9y ago
      It's only ignorant to apply supply and demand to digital goods if you start from the premise that copyright shouldn't exist. 1. Copyright shouldn't exist. 2. If copyright didn't exist, anyone would be able to get any digital file easily without restriction. 3. If you can get any digital file without restriction, then supply is infinite and demand doesn't matter. 4. If supply is infinite, then supply and demand doesn't matter and you're ignorant for trying to apply it. That's basically the argument you're making, and you're rather trivially just assuming the consequent. On the second part, that's just a really faulty analogy. Competitors aren't "stealing" from one another for the simple reason that they haven't taken anything. Copyright infringement isn't "stealing" demand. It's stealing an item that has demand. It's the infringement that's the theft, not the consequences. The consequences are just the justification for having the law in the first place. To repeat, competitors aren't "stealing" when they lower demand for the stupidly obvious reason that they haven't stolen anything.
      - d0lph 9y ago
        It's only ignorant to able to apply the laws of supply and demand to something where supply _is_ infinite. Copying a file is free, it's weird to make it equivalent to theft when there is no loss on behalf of the studio. Perhaps a better example would be one friend sharing a dvd with another friend. That's what I'm saying though, it is stupid, to call file sharing theft. Theft involves loss on behalf one party. If simply taking profit(file sharing media companies would say) is enough to count as theft, then regular competition does that. Another analogy: suppose you had a technology where you could clone real life items, you could copy food, cars, precious metals etc. you wouldn't call that theft. However in computing that technology readily exists. Another thing, you're conflating laws with morality, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Copyright has been extended again and again by the Disney company afraid to lose their mouse.

jim_dow_jones 9y ago

By violating the copyright of the content you are stealing the creators money. I'm surprised the meme that copyright violation is "different" than stealing is still a meme. Yes, copyright violation is not "stealing", but the majority of the time the end result is "stealing" money from the content creators.

laurentoget 9y ago
Who is stealing which money when I watch a video of a song on Youtube? Do you really think I would have bought all those songs if they were not available on Youtube?
- jim_dow_jones 9y ago
  If you are a content creator on youtube and I reupload your video and place ads on it, I am stealing ad revenue from you.
  - d0lph 9y ago
    So if you don't place ads on it you're good, or is that also stealing?
    - jim_dow_jones 9y ago
      In most instances you are stealing views from the original creator and as a result of those lost views, revenue.
- lordlimecat 9y ago
  Do you really think that supply / demand only applies to tangible goods? Do you really think that there would be no financial impact on Microsoft if they removed all of their license / activation technologies and relied on honor code?
  - laurentoget 9y ago