6 ms·

At some point can this develop beyond a semantic discussion of the term "theft"? I agree it's sloppy to think that theft and intellectual property violation ar

At some point can this develop beyond a semantic discussion of the term "theft"? I agree it's sloppy to think that theft and intellectual property violation are interchangeable but the point has been made on here about a million times so it doesn't really add much to the debate.

cturner 16y ago
I share the frustation, but I'll explain why I think it's important not to let an issue like that slide. A lot of the time the copyright debate is fought between people these world views. 1) Copyright opponents define propert as being like a car - something which one person has by denying it to another person. 2) Copyright advocates think of property as a "bundle of rights" enforced by the state. i.e. property is whatever a judge says it to be. People who insist on calling it theft are steering the debate towards the second definition - that theft is whatever a judge or politician says it is. It's crucial to knock back attempts to do that. That worldview believes the whim of the state is the root of philosophy, and fundamentally correct in its judgement of right and wrong. Property predates the state. It exists even in states that try to outlaw it. It's a strong algorithm that is useful for the efficient allocation of resources. Intellectual propert is neither a strong algorithm, nor a mechanism that leads to an efficient allocation of resources. It is not property. Intellectual property violations are not theft.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  No-one is saying that you're not right, we're just saying that this has been said so many times that it doesn't need saying again. Anyone who insists that copyright infringement and theft are the same thing isn't someone who has anything useful to add in this debate. Given that why not focus the debate on useful, genuinely contentious areas and solutions, not rehashing an argument that has been had and won over and over again? (And yes, I know there are people who don't buy into this but by and large they're not reading Hacker News so you're doing nothing to progress the argument on that front repeating it here).
  - sophacles 16y ago
    Human interaction is not code. Human discussion is not code. People are not code. Repetition is how people learn and understand things. Seeing a point once makes a person think "oh good point". Seeing many times forces them to think of it in different contexts and different ways. This allows them to understand it better. Congratulations to you for being around long enough, and seeing this point enough times, that you find it commonplace. I guarantee however that there are plenty of people here who still need to see it. There are lots of people on this site who are very intelligent in many ways who make comments like "you need to protect your patent or you lose it" or "copyright doesn't count unless registered". As long as they exist, this point can be made without it just being echo chamber fodder.
    - mattgreenrocks 16y ago
      And what determines what is important vs. what is not? Certainly something like spam is pure noise, but what justifies the repetition? I'm trying very hard not to see it as consensual groupthink, but coming up short. I see this in every community: a set of near-sacrosanct 'truths' emerges that inevitably must be defended, and part of that process involves repeating them, often under the guise of 'educating' others. IMO, the argument is simply being reframed to avoid dealing with the larger and more difficult problem. I'm not interested in avoiding the real issue here -- compensation for creators in the age of easily-copied goods. If we fix that, the semantics argument won't be an issue. After all, if we have a just system that fairly compensates individuals for creating while providing good incentives for consumers not to infringe, we don't need to nitpick about theft v. infringe.This, to me, serves as a good indication of what is actually important in this issue.
      - sophacles 16y ago
        Perhaps the argument is being reframed back and forth, not to avoid an issue, but as proxy to this issue: creators are over-valuing their work and/or copiers undervaluing. The semantics chosen are done so because they reflect the point of view of the speaker. Put a different way: there are 2 ideas of fair out there, each set of semantics represents one idea of fair accurately.
- numeromancer 16y ago
  Also, those who want people to want everyone to adopt (2) are those who have the eyes and ears of both a large amount of the populace--how many videos have you rented or bought that have an unskippable intro telling you in big flashing grungy type that "you wouldn't steal a car...so you shouldn't make illegal downloads"--and of the politicians who make laws and sign treaties. The US courts, by and large, have been fairly sensible on this so far, thank God. So I'll say it again: Digital copying is not theft.
petercooper 16y ago
If it's a debate about legal issues, it's crucial to not be ambiguous about definitions. We've seen what damage and abuses can occur when people get sloppy with legal terminology - the redefinition of "enemy combatants" in 2008, for example. "Theft" is a criminal offense. Copyright infringement isn't necessarily (though there are conditions that make it so in the US). Some things warrant rehashing and reaffirming. Note that a new, but substantially similar, discussion about female engineers or gender discrimination pops up here every week or two. That discussion plays out the same way every time not because it adds anything new but because it's important (to someone, clearly).
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  "There are conditions that make it so in the US"? And every other western country (and pretty much every other developed nation full stop. Copyright infringement isn't theft but it is criminal. Whether that should be the case or not is a matter for debate, whether it is or not isn't.
  - petercooper 16y ago
    Copyright infringement isn't theft but it is criminal. In which jurisdiction? Copyright infringement is against the law but it's not a "crime" (and therefore not criminal). This is true of most civil offenses. Some conditions apply in order to turn copyright infringement into a misdemeanor or a felony in a federal sense - wilfulness and varying levels of financial gain. If you are merely conflating the words "illegal" and "criminal", they do not mean the same thing. (At least, I've only studied law within the context of England and Wales but believe the US system takes a similar approach on these fundamental issues given its ancestry.)
    - tedunangst 16y ago
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html
    - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
ajscherer 16y ago
If people are still referring to unauthorized copying as theft the point hasn't been made enough, regardless of how many times you've been forced to read it. In my estimation "unauthorized copying is not the same as stealing" needs to be said once for every time unauthorized copying is referred to as stealing, plus one or two additional times for good measure.

cturner 16y ago

I share the frustation, but I'll explain why I think it's important not to let an issue like that slide. A lot of the time the copyright debate is fought between people these world views. 1) Copyright opponents define propert as being like a car - something which one person has by denying it to another person. 2) Copyright advocates think of property as a "bundle of rights" enforced by the state. i.e. property is whatever a judge says it to be. People who insist on calling it theft are steering the debate towards the second definition - that theft is whatever a judge or politician says it is. It's crucial to knock back attempts to do that. That worldview believes the whim of the state is the root of philosophy, and fundamentally correct in its judgement of right and wrong. Property predates the state. It exists even in states that try to outlaw it. It's a strong algorithm that is useful for the efficient allocation of resources. Intellectual propert is neither a strong algorithm, nor a mechanism that leads to an efficient allocation of resources. It is not property. Intellectual property violations are not theft.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
No-one is saying that you're not right, we're just saying that this has been said so many times that it doesn't need saying again. Anyone who insists that copyright infringement and theft are the same thing isn't someone who has anything useful to add in this debate. Given that why not focus the debate on useful, genuinely contentious areas and solutions, not rehashing an argument that has been had and won over and over again? (And yes, I know there are people who don't buy into this but by and large they're not reading Hacker News so you're doing nothing to progress the argument on that front repeating it here).
- sophacles 16y ago
  Human interaction is not code. Human discussion is not code. People are not code. Repetition is how people learn and understand things. Seeing a point once makes a person think "oh good point". Seeing many times forces them to think of it in different contexts and different ways. This allows them to understand it better. Congratulations to you for being around long enough, and seeing this point enough times, that you find it commonplace. I guarantee however that there are plenty of people here who still need to see it. There are lots of people on this site who are very intelligent in many ways who make comments like "you need to protect your patent or you lose it" or "copyright doesn't count unless registered". As long as they exist, this point can be made without it just being echo chamber fodder.
  - mattgreenrocks 16y ago
    And what determines what is important vs. what is not? Certainly something like spam is pure noise, but what justifies the repetition? I'm trying very hard not to see it as consensual groupthink, but coming up short. I see this in every community: a set of near-sacrosanct 'truths' emerges that inevitably must be defended, and part of that process involves repeating them, often under the guise of 'educating' others. IMO, the argument is simply being reframed to avoid dealing with the larger and more difficult problem. I'm not interested in avoiding the real issue here -- compensation for creators in the age of easily-copied goods. If we fix that, the semantics argument won't be an issue. After all, if we have a just system that fairly compensates individuals for creating while providing good incentives for consumers not to infringe, we don't need to nitpick about theft v. infringe.This, to me, serves as a good indication of what is actually important in this issue.
    - sophacles 16y ago
      Perhaps the argument is being reframed back and forth, not to avoid an issue, but as proxy to this issue: creators are over-valuing their work and/or copiers undervaluing. The semantics chosen are done so because they reflect the point of view of the speaker. Put a different way: there are 2 ideas of fair out there, each set of semantics represents one idea of fair accurately.
numeromancer 16y ago
Also, those who want people to want everyone to adopt (2) are those who have the eyes and ears of both a large amount of the populace--how many videos have you rented or bought that have an unskippable intro telling you in big flashing grungy type that "you wouldn't steal a car...so you shouldn't make illegal downloads"--and of the politicians who make laws and sign treaties. The US courts, by and large, have been fairly sensible on this so far, thank God. So I'll say it again: Digital copying is not theft.

petercooper 16y ago

If it's a debate about legal issues, it's crucial to not be ambiguous about definitions. We've seen what damage and abuses can occur when people get sloppy with legal terminology - the redefinition of "enemy combatants" in 2008, for example. "Theft" is a criminal offense. Copyright infringement isn't necessarily (though there are conditions that make it so in the US). Some things warrant rehashing and reaffirming. Note that a new, but substantially similar, discussion about female engineers or gender discrimination pops up here every week or two. That discussion plays out the same way every time not because it adds anything new but because it's important (to someone, clearly).

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
"There are conditions that make it so in the US"? And every other western country (and pretty much every other developed nation full stop. Copyright infringement isn't theft but it is criminal. Whether that should be the case or not is a matter for debate, whether it is or not isn't.
- petercooper 16y ago
  Copyright infringement isn't theft but it is criminal. In which jurisdiction? Copyright infringement is against the law but it's not a "crime" (and therefore not criminal). This is true of most civil offenses. Some conditions apply in order to turn copyright infringement into a misdemeanor or a felony in a federal sense - wilfulness and varying levels of financial gain. If you are merely conflating the words "illegal" and "criminal", they do not mean the same thing. (At least, I've only studied law within the context of England and Wales but believe the US system takes a similar approach on these fundamental issues given its ancestry.)
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html
  - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago

ajscherer 16y ago

If people are still referring to unauthorized copying as theft the point hasn't been made enough, regardless of how many times you've been forced to read it. In my estimation "unauthorized copying is not the same as stealing" needs to be said once for every time unauthorized copying is referred to as stealing, plus one or two additional times for good measure.