5 ms·

> Given their history of borrowing technology from other countries without attribution, Impressive choice of words!

by praneshp 8y ago

dgudkov 8y ago
Strictly speaking, borrowing assumes returning at some point.
- rosser 8y ago
  Is it "returning" a thing to sell it back to the people from whom you "borrowed" it?
  - astrodust 8y ago
    It's like how there's Starbucks coffee shops in Paris and Taco Bell in Mexico.
- coupdejarnac 8y ago
  Strictly speaking, euphemisms substitute a mild, indirect, or vague term for a harsher term.
Barrin92 8y ago
It's always been an arms race and nations and companies have always strategically opened themselves up to acquire knowledge. When Germany was trying to catch up to the industrialised UK, they send business people to the UK to copy the layout of factory floors to reimplement them at home. For the longest time, Japan only allowed trade under restrictive conditions to maximise exposure to foreign technologies while minimising the impact of foreigners in Japan. It's a story as old as history and I honestly don't get why people are upset about it. It's even beneficial for the ecosystem overall because it helps transmitting knowledge and technology from advanced to disadvantaged regions, which in turn accelerates production and development.
- joyeuse6701 8y ago
  If you honestly don't know why I will explain it to you. It is because it is theft. If I were to steal some or all of your possessions and give it to the disadvantaged, then I suppose you shouldn't honestly get all that upset about it, but I doubt that would happen.
  - fabianhjr 8y ago
    > In economic terms, intellectual property is non-rival, whereas tangible property is rival. As a result, the “piracy” of intellectual property is simply not the same sort of zero-sum game that car theft — or theft of any tangible property — is. And that means that when Hollywood or the U.S. government says that music or movie downloaders are “pirates” or “thieves,” they are indulging in a bit of loose rhetoric. There are, in general, good moral reasons not to take what doesn’t belong to you. But as this video by filmmaker Nina Paley so beautifully illustrates, copying is not theft. Source: http://freakonomics.com/2012/04/02/copying-is-not-theft/ http://freakonomics.com/2012/04/02/copying-is-not-theft/
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      This is a popular argument but I think it is wrong because it uses the wrong analogy. I'll illustrate. If I buy a candy bar at the store for $0.99 and then you steal it, now you have it and I don't. I'm out $0.99 of value and you stole $0.99 of value. But what if you steal the candy bar directly from the store? You got $0.99 of value, but the store didn't pay $0.99 for that candy bar; they may have only paid $0.40. What you actually stole from them was two things: $0.40 of inventory and $0.59 of foregone revenue. Even if you drop $0.40 on the counter as you walk out the door, it would still be considered a theft because the store gets to decide what their retail prices are, not you. You're still stealing $0.59 of foregone revenue. IP products essentially have an "inventory" cost near zero. Yet, if you take a song or a trade secret without paying for it, you're still taking their foregone revenue. Just like dropping $0.40 on the counter for a $0.99 candy bar, you're dropping $0.00 on the counter for a $0.99 song or $1 million trade secret. Reimbursing someone's inventory cost (even if it's $0.00) does not mean there is no theft occurring. While the IP itself is non-rival, the revenue from each sale is rival; that is, if you acquire my IP via a pirated copy then I still have my IP, but I don't have the revenue from selling you my IP.
drwu 8y ago
To be fair, Chinese technologies were also borrowed by other countries in the last 2000+ years of human history.

> Given their history of borrowing technology from other countries without attribution, Impressive choice of words!

dgudkov 8y ago

Strictly speaking, borrowing assumes returning at some point.

rosser 8y ago
Is it "returning" a thing to sell it back to the people from whom you "borrowed" it?
- astrodust 8y ago
  It's like how there's Starbucks coffee shops in Paris and Taco Bell in Mexico.
coupdejarnac 8y ago
Strictly speaking, euphemisms substitute a mild, indirect, or vague term for a harsher term.

Barrin92 8y ago

It's always been an arms race and nations and companies have always strategically opened themselves up to acquire knowledge. When Germany was trying to catch up to the industrialised UK, they send business people to the UK to copy the layout of factory floors to reimplement them at home. For the longest time, Japan only allowed trade under restrictive conditions to maximise exposure to foreign technologies while minimising the impact of foreigners in Japan. It's a story as old as history and I honestly don't get why people are upset about it. It's even beneficial for the ecosystem overall because it helps transmitting knowledge and technology from advanced to disadvantaged regions, which in turn accelerates production and development.

joyeuse6701 8y ago
If you honestly don't know why I will explain it to you. It is because it is theft. If I were to steal some or all of your possessions and give it to the disadvantaged, then I suppose you shouldn't honestly get all that upset about it, but I doubt that would happen.
- fabianhjr 8y ago
  > In economic terms, intellectual property is non-rival, whereas tangible property is rival. As a result, the “piracy” of intellectual property is simply not the same sort of zero-sum game that car theft — or theft of any tangible property — is. And that means that when Hollywood or the U.S. government says that music or movie downloaders are “pirates” or “thieves,” they are indulging in a bit of loose rhetoric. There are, in general, good moral reasons not to take what doesn’t belong to you. But as this video by filmmaker Nina Paley so beautifully illustrates, copying is not theft. Source: http://freakonomics.com/2012/04/02/copying-is-not-theft/ http://freakonomics.com/2012/04/02/copying-is-not-theft/
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    This is a popular argument but I think it is wrong because it uses the wrong analogy. I'll illustrate. If I buy a candy bar at the store for $0.99 and then you steal it, now you have it and I don't. I'm out $0.99 of value and you stole $0.99 of value. But what if you steal the candy bar directly from the store? You got $0.99 of value, but the store didn't pay $0.99 for that candy bar; they may have only paid $0.40. What you actually stole from them was two things: $0.40 of inventory and $0.59 of foregone revenue. Even if you drop $0.40 on the counter as you walk out the door, it would still be considered a theft because the store gets to decide what their retail prices are, not you. You're still stealing $0.59 of foregone revenue. IP products essentially have an "inventory" cost near zero. Yet, if you take a song or a trade secret without paying for it, you're still taking their foregone revenue. Just like dropping $0.40 on the counter for a $0.99 candy bar, you're dropping $0.00 on the counter for a $0.99 song or $1 million trade secret. Reimbursing someone's inventory cost (even if it's $0.00) does not mean there is no theft occurring. While the IP itself is non-rival, the revenue from each sale is rival; that is, if you acquire my IP via a pirated copy then I still have my IP, but I don't have the revenue from selling you my IP.

drwu 8y ago

To be fair, Chinese technologies were also borrowed by other countries in the last 2000+ years of human history.