5 ms·

Thoughts cannot be stolen, nor can words on a page, nor can bits and bytes. For something to be stolen, the single instance of that object must be transferred f

Thoughts cannot be stolen, nor can words on a page, nor can bits and bytes. For something to be stolen, the single instance of that object must be transferred from one entity to another. In this scenario, the existing book was copied from one entity to another. You may believe the Internet Archive was committing an act of theft, but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be.

jjcon 6y ago
> but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws, unlike your stance which is based on hot air. Seriously, where do you even come up with this stuff? Are you one of those sovereign citizen types?
- jachee 6y ago
  Just because something is a law, does not mean it is what's right.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    True in a general sense - but when countries and cultures all around the world recognize something as important... you might want to question yourself when you disagree.
    - jachee 6y ago
      Not when those countries' leaderships are under the sway of large groups of professional middle-men, who seem to only leech value and litigate, while playing favorites and holding hostage work produced by others with no substantive contribution to the greater good of society.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - jjcon 6y ago
        That that conspiracy drivel to /r/im14andthisisdeep - copyright is a fundamental protection for innovation and has led to the past 100 years of innovation we have seen across the world. To suggest an alternative would require extraordinary evidence.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  You don't have to be a sovereign citizen to be opposed to copyright law. Many people are. It's a legal fiction created to incentivise creation and enjoyment of new ideas. That by preventing people from copying things, you end up with more things for them to enjoy than they would have gained from the copying. It has more in common with a government choosing roundabouts over traffic lights or asphalt over pavers than a government making stealing or murder illegal. Its existence as a law is grounded in pragmatism not what's right, so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right. However when I say grounded in pragmatism I mean based on theory and guess. That the ability to monetise a monopoly on an idea outweighs the creative costs of copyright existing is not something I've ever seen a copyright fan present. The worsened ability to copy and then improve works. The armies of people involved in upholding and defending the copyright rather than working on new things of their own. The people who can't afford many things under copyright so it doesn't matter if they have access to more variety, who would have been better off with less variety and lower costs. Instead the copyright fan goes "monopoly means monetisation which means incentive to create more things ergo more things created. Obvious, case closed".
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right. I didn’t - I pointed out that this legal fiction is so widely adopted because of its recognized importance to society. When youtube allowed creators to monetize content did it lead to more creation? Absolutely yes, so many channels on youtube only exist because creators were able to make a small living off of it. The same is true of copyright, it allows creators to make a living and more is created because of it. Without it only hobbyists would create (like pre-monetized youtube) and the rich.
    - icebraining 6y ago
      > When youtube allowed creators to monetize content did it lead to more creation? The previous poster didn't dispute this; they disputed the implicit assumption that this fact automatically meant copyright should exist.
- chmod775 6y ago
  > You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws Precisely none of those laws say copyright infringement is theft. Theft is something entirely different in a legal context and has nothing to do with copyright law. Additionally the US supreme court held that illegally distributed copies of copyrighted works are not stolen property, so you can't be charged for theft as well copyright infringement (Dowling v. United States). The only ones pushing this narrative are MPAA and co., who would you really like to make you believe that[1]. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surpr...
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Lol what? I said they were distributing pirated works - if your gonna make an argument at least read the comment chain. Distributing pirated works can have the same impacts as theft. To say the two are completely unrelated is nonsense.
    - chmod775 6y ago
      > I said they were distributing pirated works not that it was theft. You did say, and this is a direct quote: > Stealing from artists and authors is right? To which someone replied: "Thoughts cannot be stolen", followed by some justification for that claim, to which you again responded. This entire thread of discussion was about whether it is theft or not.
      - jjcon 6y ago
        Now you’re just pulling out quotes from nowhere. Again, piracy can have the same impacts as theft, and distributing peoples art and works without their consent erodes peoples ability to create. You are misstating the original post as if it were about the notion of theft, it wasn’t it was arguing that copyright can’t exist (when it clearly does). If we lived in a post-scarcity world then I would agree there would be no reason to enforce copyright, but that is a fantasy, we don’t and people have to earn a living. There is a reason all countries strive to enforce copyright and that is because it fundamentally protects creation and innovation.
- DanBC 6y ago
  They're right though. Theft in most jurisdictions requires dishonest appropriation of a thing, with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of it. Copying an object doesn't count as theft because the owner still has the original thing. This is why copyrights have their own laws and aren't included in theft laws. And let's add a further wrinkle: often, copyright violation isn't even a crime. There are things that turn it into a crime (doing it as part of business is the main one), but most people downloading a film from PirateBay are not committing a criminal offence.

jjcon 6y ago

> but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws, unlike your stance which is based on hot air. Seriously, where do you even come up with this stuff? Are you one of those sovereign citizen types?

jachee 6y ago
Just because something is a law, does not mean it is what's right.
- jjcon 6y ago
  True in a general sense - but when countries and cultures all around the world recognize something as important... you might want to question yourself when you disagree.
  - jachee 6y ago
    Not when those countries' leaderships are under the sway of large groups of professional middle-men, who seem to only leech value and litigate, while playing favorites and holding hostage work produced by others with no substantive contribution to the greater good of society.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jjcon 6y ago
      That that conspiracy drivel to /r/im14andthisisdeep - copyright is a fundamental protection for innovation and has led to the past 100 years of innovation we have seen across the world. To suggest an alternative would require extraordinary evidence.
austhrow743 6y ago
You don't have to be a sovereign citizen to be opposed to copyright law. Many people are. It's a legal fiction created to incentivise creation and enjoyment of new ideas. That by preventing people from copying things, you end up with more things for them to enjoy than they would have gained from the copying. It has more in common with a government choosing roundabouts over traffic lights or asphalt over pavers than a government making stealing or murder illegal. Its existence as a law is grounded in pragmatism not what's right, so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right. However when I say grounded in pragmatism I mean based on theory and guess. That the ability to monetise a monopoly on an idea outweighs the creative costs of copyright existing is not something I've ever seen a copyright fan present. The worsened ability to copy and then improve works. The armies of people involved in upholding and defending the copyright rather than working on new things of their own. The people who can't afford many things under copyright so it doesn't matter if they have access to more variety, who would have been better off with less variety and lower costs. Instead the copyright fan goes "monopoly means monetisation which means incentive to create more things ergo more things created. Obvious, case closed".
- jjcon 6y ago
  > so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right. I didn’t - I pointed out that this legal fiction is so widely adopted because of its recognized importance to society. When youtube allowed creators to monetize content did it lead to more creation? Absolutely yes, so many channels on youtube only exist because creators were able to make a small living off of it. The same is true of copyright, it allows creators to make a living and more is created because of it. Without it only hobbyists would create (like pre-monetized youtube) and the rich.
  - icebraining 6y ago
    > When youtube allowed creators to monetize content did it lead to more creation? The previous poster didn't dispute this; they disputed the implicit assumption that this fact automatically meant copyright should exist.
chmod775 6y ago
> You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws Precisely none of those laws say copyright infringement is theft. Theft is something entirely different in a legal context and has nothing to do with copyright law. Additionally the US supreme court held that illegally distributed copies of copyrighted works are not stolen property, so you can't be charged for theft as well copyright infringement (Dowling v. United States). The only ones pushing this narrative are MPAA and co., who would you really like to make you believe that[1]. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surpr...
- jjcon 6y ago
  Lol what? I said they were distributing pirated works - if your gonna make an argument at least read the comment chain. Distributing pirated works can have the same impacts as theft. To say the two are completely unrelated is nonsense.
  - chmod775 6y ago
    > I said they were distributing pirated works not that it was theft. You did say, and this is a direct quote: > Stealing from artists and authors is right? To which someone replied: "Thoughts cannot be stolen", followed by some justification for that claim, to which you again responded. This entire thread of discussion was about whether it is theft or not.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Now you’re just pulling out quotes from nowhere. Again, piracy can have the same impacts as theft, and distributing peoples art and works without their consent erodes peoples ability to create. You are misstating the original post as if it were about the notion of theft, it wasn’t it was arguing that copyright can’t exist (when it clearly does). If we lived in a post-scarcity world then I would agree there would be no reason to enforce copyright, but that is a fantasy, we don’t and people have to earn a living. There is a reason all countries strive to enforce copyright and that is because it fundamentally protects creation and innovation.
DanBC 6y ago
They're right though. Theft in most jurisdictions requires dishonest appropriation of a thing, with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of it. Copying an object doesn't count as theft because the owner still has the original thing. This is why copyrights have their own laws and aren't included in theft laws. And let's add a further wrinkle: often, copyright violation isn't even a crime. There are things that turn it into a crime (doing it as part of business is the main one), but most people downloading a film from PirateBay are not committing a criminal offence.