3 ms·

> So I downloaded it off Usenet instead. Let's reword that as: "I couldn't get this thing for the price I wanted so I stole a copy" Seriously? Imagine going

> So I downloaded it off Usenet instead. Let's reword that as: "I couldn't get this thing for the price I wanted so I stole a copy" Seriously? Imagine going into a box store and doing that. You would face a high probability of being arrested for theft.

muldvarp 6y ago
But he didn't steal anything. He copied it (illegally).
- meddlepal 6y ago
  Oh you got me! What a fine technically correct and utterly useless distinction you've made that only the techno-elite of HN accept as a valid defense. Even if he was authorized to make the copy he would have still needed to pay to use the copy. He's not authorized to make or use the copy.
  - muldvarp 6y ago
    > What a fine technically correct and utterly useless distinction It's not a useless distinction though. One can argue that stealing is bad because when I steal your car, you don't have access to your car anymore. If I were to copy your car I wouldn't harm you. That doesn't mean it's okay to illegally copy something, but comparing it to theft is unhelpful at best and misleading at worst.
cs02rm0 6y ago
Imagine going into a box store and taking a copy of a box. It's not theft.
ubercow13 6y ago
It's more like reading the magazines in the magazine aisle and then not buying anything
kdtsh 6y ago
Clearly words don’t have meaning to you if you’re happy to reword what they said like that. Digital piracy is not and never has been theft. No one has been deprived of their property. It’s illegal, yes, and you can argue about the ethics surrounding it all you like - but the fact remains, stealing a CD and downloading an album rip are materially different things. Speaking of CDs: the music industry (maybe RIAA was involved, I don’t know) seems to have figured out digital content delivery. I’ve got exactly one subscription for music: Spotify. I can get all the music I want to listen to with this, more than I could ever get when I used BitTorrent (public trackers were sometimes limited, and seeding on ADSL was hard). If they were to raise the price, I’d still use it. There are issues with how artists are remunerated for their work, but the problem of distribution is basically solved. Why can’t the film industry do this?
- meddlepal 6y ago
  > No one has been deprived of their property. You deprived someone of the revenue generated by their property. Still theft. If you squat in an apartment, is that theft?
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    >You deprived someone of the revenue generated by their property You have not; that revenue never existed. Squatting is sometimes legal (in the UK at least) and squatters can end up owning the property if they live there long enough.
  - 0-O-0 6y ago
    That's not a good analogy either. Apartment is a physical, limited resource, using it denies it to its owner and deteriorates its condition. Digital copy shares none of the properties with a physical resource. Revenue from a purchase that I'm not going to make is non-existent. It can't be lost or gained.

muldvarp 6y ago

But he didn't steal anything. He copied it (illegally).

meddlepal 6y ago
Oh you got me! What a fine technically correct and utterly useless distinction you've made that only the techno-elite of HN accept as a valid defense. Even if he was authorized to make the copy he would have still needed to pay to use the copy. He's not authorized to make or use the copy.
- muldvarp 6y ago
  > What a fine technically correct and utterly useless distinction It's not a useless distinction though. One can argue that stealing is bad because when I steal your car, you don't have access to your car anymore. If I were to copy your car I wouldn't harm you. That doesn't mean it's okay to illegally copy something, but comparing it to theft is unhelpful at best and misleading at worst.

cs02rm0 6y ago

Imagine going into a box store and taking a copy of a box. It's not theft.

ubercow13 6y ago

It's more like reading the magazines in the magazine aisle and then not buying anything

kdtsh 6y ago

Clearly words don’t have meaning to you if you’re happy to reword what they said like that. Digital piracy is not and never has been theft. No one has been deprived of their property. It’s illegal, yes, and you can argue about the ethics surrounding it all you like - but the fact remains, stealing a CD and downloading an album rip are materially different things. Speaking of CDs: the music industry (maybe RIAA was involved, I don’t know) seems to have figured out digital content delivery. I’ve got exactly one subscription for music: Spotify. I can get all the music I want to listen to with this, more than I could ever get when I used BitTorrent (public trackers were sometimes limited, and seeding on ADSL was hard). If they were to raise the price, I’d still use it. There are issues with how artists are remunerated for their work, but the problem of distribution is basically solved. Why can’t the film industry do this?

meddlepal 6y ago
> No one has been deprived of their property. You deprived someone of the revenue generated by their property. Still theft. If you squat in an apartment, is that theft?
- ubercow13 6y ago
  >You deprived someone of the revenue generated by their property You have not; that revenue never existed. Squatting is sometimes legal (in the UK at least) and squatters can end up owning the property if they live there long enough.
- 0-O-0 6y ago
  That's not a good analogy either. Apartment is a physical, limited resource, using it denies it to its owner and deteriorates its condition. Digital copy shares none of the properties with a physical resource. Revenue from a purchase that I'm not going to make is non-existent. It can't be lost or gained.