3 ms·

Saying piracy is theft is theoretically incorrect. Stealing something means that it you takes something from someone who doesn't have it anymore. Digital copy j

by norswap 16y ago

Saying piracy is theft is theoretically incorrect. Stealing something means that it you takes something from someone who doesn't have it anymore. Digital copy just doesn't work that way. As for the question if it is good or bad, it's up to you. I'll just say that to me at least, having thought long about it, intellectual property is a very unnatural concept.

latch 16y ago
You answered my question better than you realize.
lelele 16y ago
Whilst I agree that no intellectual property whatsoever promotes progress, I think that intellectual property protects the interests of people whose main asset is their intellect. Think about someone who have spent years to develop some innovative product: doesn't he/she deserve to make a profit from it? Or is it better for some other people who are just smarter about business to make gobs of money over the effort of somebody else?
- norswap 16y ago
  I think that lots of times, someone who is capable of making something remarkable is someone worth having around. So often, things will work out that way. Actually, it already does : people invent things at companies, and the companies then own the intellectual property.
michael_dorfman 16y ago
Saying piracy is theft is theoretically incorrect. Stealing something means that it you takes something from someone who doesn't have it anymore. Digital copy just doesn't work that way. This is a common misconception. The legal notion of theft does not depend upon taking something from someone who doesn't have it any more. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services Turnstile jumping on a subway and gate-crashing a rock concert are two trivial counter-examples. I'll just say that to me at least, having thought long about it, intellectual property is a very unnatural concept. You think? I have a lot of friends and relatives who have written books, and it seems perfectly natural to me that they should have a moral (and legal) claim against someone who attempted to publish (and profit from) their work without prior agreement.
- norswap 16y ago
  I was talking what people usually refer when they say "theft". Not a legal notion which is by definition arbitrary. For me, you can't own something that is not material, ie that can be replicated at no cost. The question of those who actually make a living of IP is one of business model. They more than probably can keep a healthy profit without IP, as they are countless example of around the internet.

by norswap 16y ago

Saying piracy is theft is theoretically incorrect. Stealing something means that it you takes something from someone who doesn't have it anymore. Digital copy just doesn't work that way. As for the question if it is good or bad, it's up to you. I'll just say that to me at least, having thought long about it, intellectual property is a very unnatural concept.

latch 16y ago

You answered my question better than you realize.

lelele 16y ago

Whilst I agree that no intellectual property whatsoever promotes progress, I think that intellectual property protects the interests of people whose main asset is their intellect. Think about someone who have spent years to develop some innovative product: doesn't he/she deserve to make a profit from it? Or is it better for some other people who are just smarter about business to make gobs of money over the effort of somebody else?

norswap 16y ago
I think that lots of times, someone who is capable of making something remarkable is someone worth having around. So often, things will work out that way. Actually, it already does : people invent things at companies, and the companies then own the intellectual property.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Saying piracy is theft is theoretically incorrect. Stealing something means that it you takes something from someone who doesn't have it anymore. Digital copy just doesn't work that way. This is a common misconception. The legal notion of theft does not depend upon taking something from someone who doesn't have it any more. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services Turnstile jumping on a subway and gate-crashing a rock concert are two trivial counter-examples. I'll just say that to me at least, having thought long about it, intellectual property is a very unnatural concept. You think? I have a lot of friends and relatives who have written books, and it seems perfectly natural to me that they should have a moral (and legal) claim against someone who attempted to publish (and profit from) their work without prior agreement.

norswap 16y ago
I was talking what people usually refer when they say "theft". Not a legal notion which is by definition arbitrary. For me, you can't own something that is not material, ie that can be replicated at no cost. The question of those who actually make a living of IP is one of business model. They more than probably can keep a healthy profit without IP, as they are countless example of around the internet.