6 ms·

Discussing torrents: > people were more easily able to access the things they needed without being forced to ask or pay for permission to have them. Haha. We’r

Discussing torrents: > people were more easily able to access the things they needed without being forced to ask or pay for permission to have them. Haha. We’re not talking about folks stealing bread to feed their family. We’re talking about people stealing entertainment. There’s a lot wrong with big media corporations: DMCA takedown notice misuse, copyright for life of the artist + 75 years, exploitative contracts, and so on. But let’s be honest, watching movies and show you didn’t pay for is theft. Rationalize it however you want, but it still theft.

hossbeast 6y ago
The piece could be made a lot more effective by acknowledging this.
humanrebar 6y ago
It's rude and dishonorable to take something someone doesn't want to give you. Even so, it's not the same category of misdeed as stealing bread. If you eat a loaf of bread, someone else cannot. But if you perform or listen to a song, it's still there for others. Sometimes, especially in the case of technically copyrighted but practically abandoned works, sharing the work is actually more likely to keep it available for others to discover or even access at all.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
  > If you eat a loaf of bread, someone else cannot. But if you perform or listen to a song, it's still there for others. OK, that's good for you and the "others", but what about the person who spent time and energy to write the song and perform? Just because it's "still there for others", it's ok to steal it? You are only thinking from the consumer's point of view and neglecting why people produce things of value in the first place. If they don't get rewarded, they will simply stop producing value.
  - robocat 6y ago
    > If they don't get rewarded, they will simply stop producing value. Not in the case of music. The vast majority is given away for free (some in the hope of future financial success, but plenty just for the hell of it). If the vast majority were not addicted to popular tracks, the marginal price of music would drop to zero pretty quickly.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    Music predates currency systems by quite a bit. I'm sure the art would change quite a bit if charging to listen to a song was no longer practical. Though I'm unconvinced that music would disappear. I can think of many kinds of musicians that do not get compensated per se: small time streamers, buskers, student musicians, garage bands, amateur music clubs, and religious music leaders off the top of my head. To reiterate, I think it's fair for someone to ask for compensation for providing entertainment. Also I think considerate people will respect the wishes of creators in consuming content. But bottom line, I don't think people have natural rights to a particular business model or to control the expression of others (which is fundamental to copyright). Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues.
    - cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
      > Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues. This is the main issue at hand that I've been talking about, while you're treating it as a "whole other set of issues". When Alice spends her time and energy to produce X AND sell it, and Bob finds a way to get it for free against Alice's will, that is called stealing, no matter how you spin it. This is THE problematic part and what I am talking about. Everything else is a non issue and irrelevant when discussing this issue, like you mentioned.
      - humanrebar 6y ago
        There's a difference between discussing what the law is and what the law ought to be. And if you want to get technical, you're describing copyright infringement, not theft per se. Anything else I'd probably type in response would mostly be reiterating my earlier points distinguishing between intellectual "property" and physical property, which haven't really been addressed. That is, "stealing" is the wrong word for it and people instinctively know it and make fun of it via "you wouldn't download a car" jokes.
jrnichols 6y ago
theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement) -- Like it or not, no, it is not theft. Yell at the clouds until your throat is sore and you're blue in the face, and it still won't be theft. watching a movie you did not pay for has never been theft, and never will be. This may anger you to the point of rage, but it's still not going to be theft no matter how much you declare it so.
- mtVessel 6y ago
  Similarly, you may repeat this mantra as many times you like, and yet, "theft of services" will still be a crime in most jurisdictions.
  - jrnichols 6y ago
    except that you aren't stealing a service. try harder.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  I’m not angry. I just disagree. I think what you are doing is morally wrong, but it’s not a big deal. I’m sure you have some rationalization. As long as you can feel proud of what you do, that’s all that matters.
dnautics 6y ago
> watching movies and show you didn’t pay for is theft When I have a bike and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of the use of that bicycle. That's what makes it theft. There is no deprival, therefore no theft in "watching something you didn't pay for". If you argue "you are depriving the right of the artist to make money" that makes the assumption that the right of an artist to coerce money out of the counterparty existed. And yes, I make art, highly valuable art, with my creative brain, and I give it away without expecting any compensation for it. Yet I still find a way to eat. Huh.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
  > When I have a bike and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of the use of that bicycle. That's what makes it theft. Let me give you back your analogy with a dose of reality: When I make a living by selling bikes, and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of my time and energy and money spent to maintain my business. That's what makes it theft.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    > When I make a living by selling bikes, and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of my time and energy and money spent to maintain my business. That's what makes it theft. So your position is that if a company sells something, anything that deprives them of potential income is theft? If I set up a separate bike store down the street and charge less than you, have I stolen from you? How about if I give them away for free?
    - cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
      If you set up a separate bike store, steal my bikes--which I spent my own money to create--from my store, and and give it away for free, then yes, you are a thief. If you set up a separate bike store AND make a bike with your own time and energy and money, and give it away for free, good luck on your business. p.s. I am a heavy user of Bittorrent myself and appreciate the technology (I'm sure most people on HN have done illegal downloads), but I at least acknowledge what I am doing is technically stealing. The only reason I'm not going to jail is because it's technically and economically not easy to enforce it. Just because I'm not going to jail doesn't mean it's not stealing. Stealing is stealing. All I'm saying is people who do illegal downloads should at least understand what they are doing is technically a theft and don't feel so entitled for stealing from other people. I sincerely hope there are better ways to incentivize creators who spend their time and energy producing their intellectual property to the world.
mackrevinack 6y ago
I downloaded guardians of the galaxy recently because someone was praising the cgi and I just wanted a quick look at it, but there is no way I would go to the cinema to watch it and no way I would ever buy it on dvd even if it was being sold really cheap. basically they would not make any money from me either way, so what exactly is being stolen from them?
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Yeah. That’s not really what we’re talking about. You can tell the difference, right?
HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
Copyright is theft of my natural ability to copy things. And now that I have a machine that can do it for me for almost zero marginal cost, I really don't want laws designed for a world of physical publishing to be applied on the digital world.

hossbeast 6y ago

The piece could be made a lot more effective by acknowledging this.

humanrebar 6y ago

It's rude and dishonorable to take something someone doesn't want to give you. Even so, it's not the same category of misdeed as stealing bread. If you eat a loaf of bread, someone else cannot. But if you perform or listen to a song, it's still there for others. Sometimes, especially in the case of technically copyrighted but practically abandoned works, sharing the work is actually more likely to keep it available for others to discover or even access at all.

cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
> If you eat a loaf of bread, someone else cannot. But if you perform or listen to a song, it's still there for others. OK, that's good for you and the "others", but what about the person who spent time and energy to write the song and perform? Just because it's "still there for others", it's ok to steal it? You are only thinking from the consumer's point of view and neglecting why people produce things of value in the first place. If they don't get rewarded, they will simply stop producing value.
- robocat 6y ago
  > If they don't get rewarded, they will simply stop producing value. Not in the case of music. The vast majority is given away for free (some in the hope of future financial success, but plenty just for the hell of it). If the vast majority were not addicted to popular tracks, the marginal price of music would drop to zero pretty quickly.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  Music predates currency systems by quite a bit. I'm sure the art would change quite a bit if charging to listen to a song was no longer practical. Though I'm unconvinced that music would disappear. I can think of many kinds of musicians that do not get compensated per se: small time streamers, buskers, student musicians, garage bands, amateur music clubs, and religious music leaders off the top of my head. To reiterate, I think it's fair for someone to ask for compensation for providing entertainment. Also I think considerate people will respect the wishes of creators in consuming content. But bottom line, I don't think people have natural rights to a particular business model or to control the expression of others (which is fundamental to copyright). Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues.
  - cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
    > Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues. This is the main issue at hand that I've been talking about, while you're treating it as a "whole other set of issues". When Alice spends her time and energy to produce X AND sell it, and Bob finds a way to get it for free against Alice's will, that is called stealing, no matter how you spin it. This is THE problematic part and what I am talking about. Everything else is a non issue and irrelevant when discussing this issue, like you mentioned.
    - humanrebar 6y ago
      There's a difference between discussing what the law is and what the law ought to be. And if you want to get technical, you're describing copyright infringement, not theft per se. Anything else I'd probably type in response would mostly be reiterating my earlier points distinguishing between intellectual "property" and physical property, which haven't really been addressed. That is, "stealing" is the wrong word for it and people instinctively know it and make fun of it via "you wouldn't download a car" jokes.

jrnichols 6y ago

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement) -- Like it or not, no, it is not theft. Yell at the clouds until your throat is sore and you're blue in the face, and it still won't be theft. watching a movie you did not pay for has never been theft, and never will be. This may anger you to the point of rage, but it's still not going to be theft no matter how much you declare it so.

mtVessel 6y ago
Similarly, you may repeat this mantra as many times you like, and yet, "theft of services" will still be a crime in most jurisdictions.
- jrnichols 6y ago
  except that you aren't stealing a service. try harder.
Hnrobert42 6y ago
I’m not angry. I just disagree. I think what you are doing is morally wrong, but it’s not a big deal. I’m sure you have some rationalization. As long as you can feel proud of what you do, that’s all that matters.

dnautics 6y ago

> watching movies and show you didn’t pay for is theft When I have a bike and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of the use of that bicycle. That's what makes it theft. There is no deprival, therefore no theft in "watching something you didn't pay for". If you argue "you are depriving the right of the artist to make money" that makes the assumption that the right of an artist to coerce money out of the counterparty existed. And yes, I make art, highly valuable art, with my creative brain, and I give it away without expecting any compensation for it. Yet I still find a way to eat. Huh.

cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
> When I have a bike and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of the use of that bicycle. That's what makes it theft. Let me give you back your analogy with a dose of reality: When I make a living by selling bikes, and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of my time and energy and money spent to maintain my business. That's what makes it theft.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > When I make a living by selling bikes, and you steal it from me, you are depriving me of my time and energy and money spent to maintain my business. That's what makes it theft. So your position is that if a company sells something, anything that deprives them of potential income is theft? If I set up a separate bike store down the street and charge less than you, have I stolen from you? How about if I give them away for free?
  - cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
    If you set up a separate bike store, steal my bikes--which I spent my own money to create--from my store, and and give it away for free, then yes, you are a thief. If you set up a separate bike store AND make a bike with your own time and energy and money, and give it away for free, good luck on your business. p.s. I am a heavy user of Bittorrent myself and appreciate the technology (I'm sure most people on HN have done illegal downloads), but I at least acknowledge what I am doing is technically stealing. The only reason I'm not going to jail is because it's technically and economically not easy to enforce it. Just because I'm not going to jail doesn't mean it's not stealing. Stealing is stealing. All I'm saying is people who do illegal downloads should at least understand what they are doing is technically a theft and don't feel so entitled for stealing from other people. I sincerely hope there are better ways to incentivize creators who spend their time and energy producing their intellectual property to the world.

mackrevinack 6y ago

I downloaded guardians of the galaxy recently because someone was praising the cgi and I just wanted a quick look at it, but there is no way I would go to the cinema to watch it and no way I would ever buy it on dvd even if it was being sold really cheap. basically they would not make any money from me either way, so what exactly is being stolen from them?

Hnrobert42 6y ago
Yeah. That’s not really what we’re talking about. You can tell the difference, right?

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago

Copyright is theft of my natural ability to copy things. And now that I have a machine that can do it for me for almost zero marginal cost, I really don't want laws designed for a world of physical publishing to be applied on the digital world.