3 ms·

You can assert copying isn't stealing, but the part where "I have something I didn't have a minute ago, and would normally have to pay money to acquire it, but

You can assert copying isn't stealing, but the part where "I have something I didn't have a minute ago, and would normally have to pay money to acquire it, but didn't" is pretty clear-cut. The author is being deprived of the revenue in exchange for their service (creating the entertainment), same as if someone snuck into a show. And it's not like you don't know that. This juvenile nonsense where "copying isn't theft" is the laziest form of post-hoc rationalization imaginable. Not a single one of you would start from first principles with, "it's okay to deprive people of payment for their services as long as the final product of their services is an artifact that they, too, retain a copy of."

zucker42 6y ago
> the part where "I have something I didn't have a minute ago, and would normally have to pay money to acquire it, but didn't" is pretty clear-cut Say after a hurricane or other national disaster there's a company selling water bottles for $1. Then, a charity shows up and starts providing water bottles for free. I decide to get the free water bottle instead of paying for one. Clearly no theft is involved, but your description would include this action. Even if you think copyright infringement is wrong, it's clearly different from stealing physical objects. Calling it "theft" is an attempt to create a false equivalency between copyright infringement and shoplifting, burglary, robbery, etc. and ignores much of underlying ethics behind why we prohibit theft in the first place. It's no wonder why opponents of copyright strongly object to the label of "stealing"; it's using a dirty word to dismiss your opponents objections. "Theft" implies copyright infringement is wrong, so by arguing unlicensed copying is theft you are begging the question instead of making an argument defending the current copyright system on its own merits. It's similar to why proponents of abortion access object to the use of the term "murder" to describe abortion. Or why people who eat meat object to calling killing animals "murder".
CryptoBanker 6y ago
Unearned revenue is not a loss or theft...

zucker42 6y ago

> the part where "I have something I didn't have a minute ago, and would normally have to pay money to acquire it, but didn't" is pretty clear-cut Say after a hurricane or other national disaster there's a company selling water bottles for $1. Then, a charity shows up and starts providing water bottles for free. I decide to get the free water bottle instead of paying for one. Clearly no theft is involved, but your description would include this action. Even if you think copyright infringement is wrong, it's clearly different from stealing physical objects. Calling it "theft" is an attempt to create a false equivalency between copyright infringement and shoplifting, burglary, robbery, etc. and ignores much of underlying ethics behind why we prohibit theft in the first place. It's no wonder why opponents of copyright strongly object to the label of "stealing"; it's using a dirty word to dismiss your opponents objections. "Theft" implies copyright infringement is wrong, so by arguing unlicensed copying is theft you are begging the question instead of making an argument defending the current copyright system on its own merits. It's similar to why proponents of abortion access object to the use of the term "murder" to describe abortion. Or why people who eat meat object to calling killing animals "murder".

CryptoBanker 6y ago

Unearned revenue is not a loss or theft...