5 ms·

I'll bite. >Stealing happens when I take resource from you in a way that denies you that resource Are you saying it isn't stealing to pirate my iPhone app? Ar

by bradly 16y ago

I'll bite. >Stealing happens when I take resource from you in a way that denies you that resource Are you saying it isn't stealing to pirate my iPhone app? Are you saying it isn't stealing to copy my website's design? Are you saying it isn't stealing if I take something out of your house for a day but return it before you need/notice the item? Most of the people on HN sell/create digital goods and to say that we have no rights over the things we create is very insulting.

mseebach 16y ago
> Are you saying it isn't stealing to pirate my iPhone app? Yes. > Are you saying it isn't stealing to copy my website's design? Yes. > Are you saying it isn't stealing if I take something out of your house for a day but return it before you need/notice the item? No. For stealing to have occurred, the owner of the item must be deprived of ownership of the item. Pirating software or design is (probably) wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.
- Jach 16y ago
  Agree, though the last one is more interesting semantically. It's not really stealing, it's borrowing without permission... Though the bigger deal there is home intrusion.
  - baddox 16y ago
    If I steal your car, and the cops find me, arrest me, and return the car to you, does that mean I didn't really steal it and just "borrowed" it, since you eventually got the car back? I think it's pretty clear semantically that stealing means depriving you of your property for any amount of time.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
cabalamat 16y ago
> Are you saying it isn't stealing to pirate my iPhone app? Yes. And the law agrees with me. Copyright infringement != theft. You could, of course, say they're the same because they're both illegal, but by that logic parking on a double yellow line is the same as genocide.
- forza 16y ago
  In the outlandish scenario where copyright infringement would be theft, it can't be theft every time you copy something. If I give you something I stole, you are not also stealing it.
  - baddox 16y ago
    To be fair, receiving stolen goods is illegal in the United States.
- kingkawn 16y ago
  So close to Godwin's Law...just a little...further...
  - martinkallstrom 16y ago
    Hitler
- baddox 16y ago
  I don't understand how people can equate copyright infringement and stealing. Even if you're a proponent of current copyright laws, a quick glance at those very laws will inform you that they're quite different, and in fact copyright infringement can easily be committed accidentally and often commands much larger penalties than actual theft. I think the argument is used so often because proponents of intellectual property protection realize that constructing an appeal to more axiomatic laws/rights breaks down very quickly. Traditional property rights are very easy to formally argue for by appealing to scarcity of resources. That obviously doesn't work for intellectual property.
randallsquared 16y ago
Most of the people on HN sell/create digital goods and to say that we have no rights over the things we create is very insulting. I ran a business selling software to small business for years. When I was selling software I'd written, I never tried to restrict the rights of my customers to resell copies of what I sold them. To say that they didn't really own what they'd bought would have been very insulting.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  In some sense that is because you are applying a concept of buying that applies to physical goods to intangible "goods" like software.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    Sure, and if you want to do software as a service, I have no quarrel with it. But if, when someone pays you, you then give them possession of a good, you shouldn't be able to maintain control over the good. If copying physical objects were as easy as copying software, the practice of renting a car wouldn't make a sustainable business, in exactly the same way. That doesn't mean we should restrict the production of automobiles by law; it just means another business model is required.
- gcb 16y ago
  No one makes the right analogy for that "crime": If you aren't particularly crazy about some band,and they release an overpriced album, you will not buy. You will borrow from your friend and listen a couple times. Why is that so hard?
jacquesm 16y ago
> Most of the people on HN sell/create digital goods and to say that we have no rights over the things we create is very insulting. We can say we have rights, and the law supports us in that and in general we will use that to advance our goals, whatever they are. But that does not mean that we can not have reservations about all this and that we think that there might be a better alternative (for instance, trade secrets). I'm all for opening the floodgates and abolishing copyright, even if that will hurt me personally.
- gcb 16y ago
  That's why we all like the cloud so much. :)
- baddox 16y ago
  I believe trade secrets can be protected by traditional trespassing and contract laws. To violate a trade secret you've got to either trespass on a company's property to obtain information, or be an employee who violates your employment contract and leaks secrets. Trademarks are a bit of a snag for my philosophically. I have a big problem with intellectual property, but I can understand the problem that would arise if anyone could market their products with another company's name or logo. One option I've come up with is that stores themselves could enforce trademarks.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    All it would take is for replicas to be simply marked as such. Then the intrinsic value of the goods and the quality are the place where the competition should take place. Plenty of so-called knock-offs are produced right alongside the 'genuine' article, the only difference is in who gets compensated. The whole reason this idiocy exists is because goods are often traded well above their intrinsic value.
  - jules 16y ago
    So how would you propose that software companies operate? Make all their applications server based and as a result much more closed than ever?
baddox 16y ago
> Most of the people on HN sell/create digital goods and to say that we have no rights over the things we create is very insulting. Most of those involved in the ACM and IEEE also sell/create digital goods for a living, and yet in their ethics literature they conclude or imply that treating intellectual property like actual property makes little sense logically or philosophically. Of course, they stay safe by admonitioning us to obey laws unless there's ethical compulsion otherwise.

by bradly 16y ago

mseebach 16y ago

> Are you saying it isn't stealing to pirate my iPhone app? Yes. > Are you saying it isn't stealing to copy my website's design? Yes. > Are you saying it isn't stealing if I take something out of your house for a day but return it before you need/notice the item? No. For stealing to have occurred, the owner of the item must be deprived of ownership of the item. Pirating software or design is (probably) wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.

Jach 16y ago
Agree, though the last one is more interesting semantically. It's not really stealing, it's borrowing without permission... Though the bigger deal there is home intrusion.
- baddox 16y ago
  If I steal your car, and the cops find me, arrest me, and return the car to you, does that mean I didn't really steal it and just "borrowed" it, since you eventually got the car back? I think it's pretty clear semantically that stealing means depriving you of your property for any amount of time.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

cabalamat 16y ago

> Are you saying it isn't stealing to pirate my iPhone app? Yes. And the law agrees with me. Copyright infringement != theft. You could, of course, say they're the same because they're both illegal, but by that logic parking on a double yellow line is the same as genocide.

forza 16y ago
In the outlandish scenario where copyright infringement would be theft, it can't be theft every time you copy something. If I give you something I stole, you are not also stealing it.
- baddox 16y ago
  To be fair, receiving stolen goods is illegal in the United States.
kingkawn 16y ago
So close to Godwin's Law...just a little...further...
- martinkallstrom 16y ago
  Hitler
baddox 16y ago
I don't understand how people can equate copyright infringement and stealing. Even if you're a proponent of current copyright laws, a quick glance at those very laws will inform you that they're quite different, and in fact copyright infringement can easily be committed accidentally and often commands much larger penalties than actual theft. I think the argument is used so often because proponents of intellectual property protection realize that constructing an appeal to more axiomatic laws/rights breaks down very quickly. Traditional property rights are very easy to formally argue for by appealing to scarcity of resources. That obviously doesn't work for intellectual property.

randallsquared 16y ago

Most of the people on HN sell/create digital goods and to say that we have no rights over the things we create is very insulting. I ran a business selling software to small business for years. When I was selling software I'd written, I never tried to restrict the rights of my customers to resell copies of what I sold them. To say that they didn't really own what they'd bought would have been very insulting.

shadowfox 16y ago
In some sense that is because you are applying a concept of buying that applies to physical goods to intangible "goods" like software.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  Sure, and if you want to do software as a service, I have no quarrel with it. But if, when someone pays you, you then give them possession of a good, you shouldn't be able to maintain control over the good. If copying physical objects were as easy as copying software, the practice of renting a car wouldn't make a sustainable business, in exactly the same way. That doesn't mean we should restrict the production of automobiles by law; it just means another business model is required.
gcb 16y ago
No one makes the right analogy for that "crime": If you aren't particularly crazy about some band,and they release an overpriced album, you will not buy. You will borrow from your friend and listen a couple times. Why is that so hard?

jacquesm 16y ago

> Most of the people on HN sell/create digital goods and to say that we have no rights over the things we create is very insulting. We can say we have rights, and the law supports us in that and in general we will use that to advance our goals, whatever they are. But that does not mean that we can not have reservations about all this and that we think that there might be a better alternative (for instance, trade secrets). I'm all for opening the floodgates and abolishing copyright, even if that will hurt me personally.

gcb 16y ago
That's why we all like the cloud so much. :)
baddox 16y ago
I believe trade secrets can be protected by traditional trespassing and contract laws. To violate a trade secret you've got to either trespass on a company's property to obtain information, or be an employee who violates your employment contract and leaks secrets. Trademarks are a bit of a snag for my philosophically. I have a big problem with intellectual property, but I can understand the problem that would arise if anyone could market their products with another company's name or logo. One option I've come up with is that stores themselves could enforce trademarks.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  All it would take is for replicas to be simply marked as such. Then the intrinsic value of the goods and the quality are the place where the competition should take place. Plenty of so-called knock-offs are produced right alongside the 'genuine' article, the only difference is in who gets compensated. The whole reason this idiocy exists is because goods are often traded well above their intrinsic value.
- jules 16y ago
  So how would you propose that software companies operate? Make all their applications server based and as a result much more closed than ever?

baddox 16y ago

> Most of the people on HN sell/create digital goods and to say that we have no rights over the things we create is very insulting. Most of those involved in the ACM and IEEE also sell/create digital goods for a living, and yet in their ethics literature they conclude or imply that treating intellectual property like actual property makes little sense logically or philosophically. Of course, they stay safe by admonitioning us to obey laws unless there's ethical compulsion otherwise.