5 ms·

It's worse than that. They're violating copyrights, i.e., stealing, and then saying "if you don't want us to steal from you, we have an opt out form you can fil

It's worse than that. They're violating copyrights, i.e., stealing, and then saying "if you don't want us to steal from you, we have an opt out form you can fill out." EDIT: People are downvoting this because I equated violating copyrights to stealing, which is odd because US law explicitly defines copyright infringement as stealing property. That's not debatable; it's a simple fact. (A fact that apparently bothers some people, but being bothered by reality is not a basis for disagreement.)

bosswipe 6y ago
Copyright infringement is not stealing.
- WaltPurvis 6y ago
  That's a slogan I hear a lot. Unfortunately, the law disagrees. Copyright infringement is defined as a stolen property offense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
  - dangerlibrary 6y ago
    Fortunately, it is not an immutable fact.
  - 6502nerdface 6y ago
    Well, the "law" is more than what's written in statute; you have to merge that with case law. My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that copyright infringement is not theft (specifically in reference to the section of US code that you link to, no less): > Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...
dangerlibrary 6y ago
Violating copyright and stealing are fundamentally different things. If I steal your tv, you no longer have a TV. If I pirate a book, all existing copies of the book still exist. If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to buy it. Ever. If my willingness to pay is "$0", then you can't even argue that the creator has lost revenue if I pirate it. I was never going to buy it - it's too expensive at any price. You can make the argument that capitalism should exclude me from ever being allowed to read it, because my willingness to pay is below the seller's willingness to sell. Fair enough. However, it's pretty tough to calculate actual economic damages here - I was never going to buy the book, at any price. And I haven't deprived anyone else of the ability to buy the book. You might say to me: "But you are clearly in the target market - you wanted the book enough to pirate and read it." I disagree - by definition, the target market must consist of people who want the product enough to pay for it.
- WaltPurvis 6y ago
  Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
  - dangerlibrary 6y ago
    Wow, I mean, what a counterintuitive coincidence. Trafficking in copyrighted works constitutes theft, but a private equity firm buying a company with debt, transferring the debt onto the company's balance sheet, allowing it to go into bankruptcy because of enormous debt load, and paying themselves huge bonuses along the way is not theft. If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. federal code as it exists in June of 2020 is the definitive source of ethical and moral definitions, I would think that maybe something _untoward_ might be going on.
    - ArnoVW 6y ago
      Seems coherent to me: you are not taking ownership of something without a contractual basis. It would I think constitute 'misuse of corporate assets' though.

bosswipe 6y ago

WaltPurvis 6y ago
That's a slogan I hear a lot. Unfortunately, the law disagrees. Copyright infringement is defined as a stolen property offense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
- dangerlibrary 6y ago
  Fortunately, it is not an immutable fact.
- 6502nerdface 6y ago
  Well, the "law" is more than what's written in statute; you have to merge that with case law. My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that copyright infringement is not theft (specifically in reference to the section of US code that you link to, no less): > Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...

dangerlibrary 6y ago

Violating copyright and stealing are fundamentally different things. If I steal your tv, you no longer have a TV. If I pirate a book, all existing copies of the book still exist. If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to buy it. Ever. If my willingness to pay is "$0", then you can't even argue that the creator has lost revenue if I pirate it. I was never going to buy it - it's too expensive at any price. You can make the argument that capitalism should exclude me from ever being allowed to read it, because my willingness to pay is below the seller's willingness to sell. Fair enough. However, it's pretty tough to calculate actual economic damages here - I was never going to buy the book, at any price. And I haven't deprived anyone else of the ability to buy the book. You might say to me: "But you are clearly in the target market - you wanted the book enough to pirate and read it." I disagree - by definition, the target market must consist of people who want the product enough to pay for it.

WaltPurvis 6y ago
Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
- dangerlibrary 6y ago
  Wow, I mean, what a counterintuitive coincidence. Trafficking in copyrighted works constitutes theft, but a private equity firm buying a company with debt, transferring the debt onto the company's balance sheet, allowing it to go into bankruptcy because of enormous debt load, and paying themselves huge bonuses along the way is not theft. If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. federal code as it exists in June of 2020 is the definitive source of ethical and moral definitions, I would think that maybe something _untoward_ might be going on.
  - ArnoVW 6y ago
    Seems coherent to me: you are not taking ownership of something without a contractual basis. It would I think constitute 'misuse of corporate assets' though.