5 ms·

Which is a form of theft (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services). There's no point in rehashing the

Which is a form of theft (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services). There's no point in rehashing the semantic argument; it's still theft in the eyes of the law, and while renaming it may help assuage your conscience, it doesn't really add much to the argument.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago
Clearly there is a point to rehashing the argument as long as you're pointing to a wikipedia page on theft of services and claiming that bitorrenting a copy of a TV show is the same thing. Clearly they're not. Hacking a cable box to access channels without paying for them might be, but if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it.
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it. Huh? That's a completely specious claim. The owner of the rights to the TV show may not be offering the product in your market--yet. The may choose to do so at some point in the future. Whether they do or not, it has no bearing on the fact that you are consuming their product (and infringing on their rights) without paying. Your argument is essentially saying that it isn't theft of services if a 15-year-old sneaks into an R-rated movie, because the theater won't sell them a ticket.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Just a little note, something can be not theft and still be illegal. When I damage your computer it’s not theft but still illegal.
  - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
    No, it would be theft of services if they sneak into a theatre. On the other hand, if they stay at home and watch a bootleg DVD they bought from a criminal because they were refused admission due to their age, or because they want to watch films the cinema doesn't show, then it's no longer "theft of services", since they are no longer taking up a seat in the cinema. The "service" that is stolen is not the film itself but the delivery mechanism, much as you can steal a DVD from a shop.
ugh 15y ago
You are right, it‘s a semantic argument (I think you are not at all right in claiming that copyright infringement is theft of services, the linked Wikipedia article certainly doesn’t support that claim) but I do think it’s important to rehash it. The legislator has decided to not treat copyright infringement like theft. Copyright is not the same as property (so says the law), it would be wrong to act as though there is some sort of consensus in society that both are somehow equivalent. The law is not everything and the law might be wrong (there might be good reasons to treat both the same) but it is disingenuous to act as though there is not at least a controversy.
rimantas 15y ago
The law was written way before there was possible to make an exact copy of something while leaving the original intact and way before the cost of such act is so close to zero than even those who have no money to buy original still are able to make the copy. One can apply the same laws, but doing so is stretching them too much. Consider the possibility of you making exact copy of a car just by pressing a button on some device. Let's say the neighbor has a car you like and you have no money to buy such a car. You press the button and you get the copy of the car. Did you steal it from your neighbor? No, he still has his. Did you steal it from the manufacturer? Well, some may say that, because you got something that they produce without paying them, but: a) you'd never buy that car from them anyway (see condition #2), b) they still got all the money for the cars they produced, there is not a single missing. So, whom did you steal the car from? No consider more realistic scenario: I torrent the movie. You may call this a theft. Now slightly modified scenario: I buy the DVD on amazon.com, but while it's shipping I torrent the same movie and watch it. Is it still a theft? Or if I torrent the movie first, like it a lot, go to see it in cinema, then go to see the second time with my wife, and to top all that I also buy a DVD? How about now, is it still the theft? My point is: there is a real difference between an illegal copy and a theft, not just some semantics. If I torrent something "getting for free" is never the reason to do that. The reasons are either availability or convenience. If there was a way to buy movies in digital format (I cannot even buy music on iTunes in my country, only apps) I'd spend a lot more money on them. App Store and Mac App store are the good indicator of that.
- bad_user 15y ago
  b) they still got all the money for the cars they produced, there is not a single missing It doesn't work like that - in the event of a magical button that can replicate a car, all the cars they'll be able to produce and sell is exactly 1. In such an event the car maker won't be able to recuperate its sunk costs, and the writing would be clearly on the wall, so such a magical car will never be produced, unless there's legislation in place that prevents people from giving away free cars. In software or creative endeavorers, where the sunk cost is mostly measured in time spent on the task, there are always people willing to give away their work for free (having other incentives than money). Internet also makes it easier to find other people with the same interests and collaborate. But make no mistake about it - hobbyists will never be able to create something like an Audi, or an Avatar or an Adobe Photoshop for that matter (yes, I'm a happy GIMP user, it ain't and never will be on the same level as Photoshop). I buy the DVD on amazon.com, but while it's shipping I torrent the same movie and watch it. Is it still a theft? Yes and No, depending on the perspective - No because you already payed for the privilege of watching it, Yes because torrents are usually of poor quality, which may make you give bad reviews to people whom would otherwise watch it themselves. Imagine you're Da Vinci, and I'm displaying a copy of Gioconda in my museum, half the size, with the hue changed, with less details and cropped, saying to people that that's just like the original Gioconda ... after all the hard work you've put, I'd imagine you'd get upset too. On the other hand it isn't right for people to get charged multiple times for the same movie. So I guess piracy itself is as morally-wrong as these ripoffs. If I torrent something "getting for free" is never the reason to do that. IMHO, I'm also torrenting stuff because I want to check out what I'm buying ... people should really learn to make better demo versions and price their stuff according to the provided value. Personally I'm sick of bad movies that lured me to see them because of a fancy trailer that exhibited non-representative traits of the movie. Also for software, 30 days valuation periods are not enough for complex software like Office or Photoshop. Also, software like Photoshop Elements should be free of charge, or you should get some sort of refund when buying Photoshop. This is the real problem IMHO - ripoffs.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago

Clearly there is a point to rehashing the argument as long as you're pointing to a wikipedia page on theft of services and claiming that bitorrenting a copy of a TV show is the same thing. Clearly they're not. Hacking a cable box to access channels without paying for them might be, but if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it.

michael_dorfman 15y ago
if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it. Huh? That's a completely specious claim. The owner of the rights to the TV show may not be offering the product in your market--yet. The may choose to do so at some point in the future. Whether they do or not, it has no bearing on the fact that you are consuming their product (and infringing on their rights) without paying. Your argument is essentially saying that it isn't theft of services if a 15-year-old sneaks into an R-rated movie, because the theater won't sell them a ticket.
- ugh 15y ago
  Just a little note, something can be not theft and still be illegal. When I damage your computer it’s not theft but still illegal.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  No, it would be theft of services if they sneak into a theatre. On the other hand, if they stay at home and watch a bootleg DVD they bought from a criminal because they were refused admission due to their age, or because they want to watch films the cinema doesn't show, then it's no longer "theft of services", since they are no longer taking up a seat in the cinema. The "service" that is stolen is not the film itself but the delivery mechanism, much as you can steal a DVD from a shop.

ugh 15y ago

You are right, it‘s a semantic argument (I think you are not at all right in claiming that copyright infringement is theft of services, the linked Wikipedia article certainly doesn’t support that claim) but I do think it’s important to rehash it. The legislator has decided to not treat copyright infringement like theft. Copyright is not the same as property (so says the law), it would be wrong to act as though there is some sort of consensus in society that both are somehow equivalent. The law is not everything and the law might be wrong (there might be good reasons to treat both the same) but it is disingenuous to act as though there is not at least a controversy.

rimantas 15y ago

The law was written way before there was possible to make an exact copy of something while leaving the original intact and way before the cost of such act is so close to zero than even those who have no money to buy original still are able to make the copy. One can apply the same laws, but doing so is stretching them too much. Consider the possibility of you making exact copy of a car just by pressing a button on some device. Let's say the neighbor has a car you like and you have no money to buy such a car. You press the button and you get the copy of the car. Did you steal it from your neighbor? No, he still has his. Did you steal it from the manufacturer? Well, some may say that, because you got something that they produce without paying them, but: a) you'd never buy that car from them anyway (see condition #2), b) they still got all the money for the cars they produced, there is not a single missing. So, whom did you steal the car from? No consider more realistic scenario: I torrent the movie. You may call this a theft. Now slightly modified scenario: I buy the DVD on amazon.com, but while it's shipping I torrent the same movie and watch it. Is it still a theft? Or if I torrent the movie first, like it a lot, go to see it in cinema, then go to see the second time with my wife, and to top all that I also buy a DVD? How about now, is it still the theft? My point is: there is a real difference between an illegal copy and a theft, not just some semantics. If I torrent something "getting for free" is never the reason to do that. The reasons are either availability or convenience. If there was a way to buy movies in digital format (I cannot even buy music on iTunes in my country, only apps) I'd spend a lot more money on them. App Store and Mac App store are the good indicator of that.

bad_user 15y ago
b) they still got all the money for the cars they produced, there is not a single missing It doesn't work like that - in the event of a magical button that can replicate a car, all the cars they'll be able to produce and sell is exactly 1. In such an event the car maker won't be able to recuperate its sunk costs, and the writing would be clearly on the wall, so such a magical car will never be produced, unless there's legislation in place that prevents people from giving away free cars. In software or creative endeavorers, where the sunk cost is mostly measured in time spent on the task, there are always people willing to give away their work for free (having other incentives than money). Internet also makes it easier to find other people with the same interests and collaborate. But make no mistake about it - hobbyists will never be able to create something like an Audi, or an Avatar or an Adobe Photoshop for that matter (yes, I'm a happy GIMP user, it ain't and never will be on the same level as Photoshop). I buy the DVD on amazon.com, but while it's shipping I torrent the same movie and watch it. Is it still a theft? Yes and No, depending on the perspective - No because you already payed for the privilege of watching it, Yes because torrents are usually of poor quality, which may make you give bad reviews to people whom would otherwise watch it themselves. Imagine you're Da Vinci, and I'm displaying a copy of Gioconda in my museum, half the size, with the hue changed, with less details and cropped, saying to people that that's just like the original Gioconda ... after all the hard work you've put, I'd imagine you'd get upset too. On the other hand it isn't right for people to get charged multiple times for the same movie. So I guess piracy itself is as morally-wrong as these ripoffs. If I torrent something "getting for free" is never the reason to do that. IMHO, I'm also torrenting stuff because I want to check out what I'm buying ... people should really learn to make better demo versions and price their stuff according to the provided value. Personally I'm sick of bad movies that lured me to see them because of a fancy trailer that exhibited non-representative traits of the movie. Also for software, 30 days valuation periods are not enough for complex software like Office or Photoshop. Also, software like Photoshop Elements should be free of charge, or you should get some sort of refund when buying Photoshop. This is the real problem IMHO - ripoffs.