4 ms·

making a copy of something is not the same as stealing

criley2 7y ago
Yes it is. You can pedantically argue the American legal systems definition of stealing means that you have to charge thieves using different laws depending on what was stolen, but this is an unintellectual argument hiding behind legalese to abuse colloquial words. It still baffles me that people try to justify their objectively immoral theft of someone else's hard work and their right to profit on that work as they see fit with pedantry like this.
RmDen 7y ago
How about copying a $100 bill?
- xfer 7y ago
  By your logic wouldn't you say that the content providers are doing the same thing?
  - criley2 7y ago
    The only people who can copy a $100 bill have "the license" to do so. The only people who can copy a show to show it to you have "the license" to do so. When you disregard the license put in play to govern the content, you're stealing from the people who protect their property with licenses. Even in the open source world, respecting the terms of a license is important.
- croon 7y ago
  That's forgery, or fraud. So also not stealing.
- mikestew 7y ago
  There's nothing wrong with copying a $100 bill. It's when you try to exchange it for goods that have value that it becomes an issue.
  - Merrill 7y ago
    >Making photocopies of paper currency of the United States violates another section of the code, Title 18, Section 474 of the U.S. Code. Also forbidden under the statute: printed reproductions of checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps and securities of the United States and foreign governments. Those who violate this law can be fined up to $5,000 and/or be sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. https://legalbeagle.com/7612138-illegal-copy-currency.html https://legalbeagle.com/7612138-illegal-copy-currency.html
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
You're right - it's not stealing, but it's not right either. Do you think there should be no intellectual rights? Are you OK with everyone copying whatever side-project revenue stream you may have without paying you?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  That's not the point. The point is that copyright infringement is a very well-defined crime, and the activities we are talking about here are copyright infringement. It's not theft. It's not fraud. It's not vandalism. And yet, people in these discussion use those wrong terms to describe the activity. But the only reason they do that, is because they want to attach the greater stigma of those crimes, onto the less stigmatized crime of copyright infringement. And that's a dishonest argument.
criddell 7y ago
You're right, of course. But this isn't a court of law and so we use terms like piracy and theft when we are talking about copyright infringement and nobody is really confused.

Yes it is. You can pedantically argue the American legal systems definition of stealing means that you have to charge thieves using different laws depending on what was stolen, but this is an unintellectual argument hiding behind legalese to abuse colloquial words. It still baffles me that people try to justify their objectively immoral theft of someone else's hard work and their right to profit on that work as they see fit with pedantry like this.

RmDen 7y ago

How about copying a $100 bill?

xfer 7y ago
By your logic wouldn't you say that the content providers are doing the same thing?
- criley2 7y ago
  The only people who can copy a $100 bill have "the license" to do so. The only people who can copy a show to show it to you have "the license" to do so. When you disregard the license put in play to govern the content, you're stealing from the people who protect their property with licenses. Even in the open source world, respecting the terms of a license is important.
croon 7y ago
That's forgery, or fraud. So also not stealing.
mikestew 7y ago
There's nothing wrong with copying a $100 bill. It's when you try to exchange it for goods that have value that it becomes an issue.
- Merrill 7y ago
  >Making photocopies of paper currency of the United States violates another section of the code, Title 18, Section 474 of the U.S. Code. Also forbidden under the statute: printed reproductions of checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps and securities of the United States and foreign governments. Those who violate this law can be fined up to $5,000 and/or be sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. https://legalbeagle.com/7612138-illegal-copy-currency.html https://legalbeagle.com/7612138-illegal-copy-currency.html

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

You're right - it's not stealing, but it's not right either. Do you think there should be no intellectual rights? Are you OK with everyone copying whatever side-project revenue stream you may have without paying you?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
henrikschroder 7y ago
That's not the point. The point is that copyright infringement is a very well-defined crime, and the activities we are talking about here are copyright infringement. It's not theft. It's not fraud. It's not vandalism. And yet, people in these discussion use those wrong terms to describe the activity. But the only reason they do that, is because they want to attach the greater stigma of those crimes, onto the less stigmatized crime of copyright infringement. And that's a dishonest argument.

criddell 7y ago

You're right, of course. But this isn't a court of law and so we use terms like piracy and theft when we are talking about copyright infringement and nobody is really confused.