4 ms·

> Piracy is not a theft in a sense that it's just illegal, not fundamentally immoral. I think it's actually cool historical constant that moves the world ahead.

> Piracy is not a theft in a sense that it's just illegal, not fundamentally immoral. I think it's actually cool historical constant that moves the world ahead. In as much as the Chinese firms (which in many cases are quasi-state-owned) that do the theft are breaking treaty and contractual commitments, then the piracy is both illegal, and immoral. Not honoring binding commitments is wrong. I have personal experience with this, with, as it happens, Huawei, who licensed code from the European company I worked for, used it far more widely than the license permitted, and then, when we attempted to negotiate a broader license, simply dropped their license entirely, continuing to use the code until they had reverse engineered it and could generate new instantiations on independently of us. (That much I know to be true; I actually suspect, but don't have conclusive evidence, that employees of our Chinese subsidiary who went to work for Huawei stole source code on their way out the door, making most of the reverse engineering a simple hiring decision for Huawei. I also have reasonable evidence that another Chinese firm did the same with a major American technology company I later worked for, although again, it's difficult to prove).

vlovich123 5y ago
By your criterion, what Samuel Slater did was also immoral. Yet I'd argue it was actually for the common good. There's an argument to be made that most IP law itself is immoral as it grants monopoly rights whereas in most other context we recognize monopolies as naturally immoral. In fact, it goes against a very natural inclination to share interesting knowledge and stories. IP law is an attempt to recognize that there's some value in granting limited term immoral monopolistic rights because it net produces a better result longer term. That doesn't mean that IP law itself doesn't open up an immoral land grab and is itself open to abuse. Similarly, we obviously recognize that the commitments themselves may be immoral & thus can be broken (e.g. marriage to an unfaithful spouse) or licenses with immoral clauses should be free to be broken (e.g. you can't sell yourself into bondage). That's not to say that your experience isn't one where the other player was immoral. I'm just trying to broaden the horizon of the discussion beyond your personal story to how we should think about IP more broadly. It's nowhere near as clear cut as you make it and that illusion stems from how the Western legal and education systems work (which is a whole other topic - passing off another's work in education is "plagiarism" whereas if you do it literature it's "ghost writing").
- azinman2 5y ago
  The amount of mental gymnastics going on to validate IP theft in the GP’s comment is unreal. Assuming the comment is true (and it matches with enough documented cases to warrant that assumption), they had an agreement, Huawei clearly violated it and then usurped it illicitly and immorally. This is not a good thing. It’s even worse that there are no consequences for bad actions because China is playing an extremely asymmetric game. As a result, if the GP’s company went under, you’re still suggesting this is somehow good for the world? It’s good for Huawei, and not many others. Unless you’re Chinese and benefit, know they’re playing for keeps with your losses. This isn’t what trade looks like, it’s not what the WTO agreement was for, and is very zero sum.
  - croes 5y ago
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180313/10404539417/us-navy-accused-massive-amounts-piracy-german-software-company.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180313/10404539417/us-na... It's only piracy if others do it, isn't it.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      No, it's wrong for anyone. And in this case, the German company has recourse to actually sue the US military, and with plenty of history backing this up, can actually win! Good luck trying to sue the Chinese military for contract breach of installing software on more computers than specified... Further, note that this is an instance of piracy versus IP theft that then directly competes with the original source, as a coordinated playbook with government support to advance local industries. It's pretty much apples & oranges.
  - woopwoop 5y ago
    Do you feel the same way about pirating music or television shows?
  - lanternfish 5y ago
    I think the commenter would agree with most of what you're saying - I just don't think they care. The argument would be that raising the quality of life of the Chinese citizen through accelerated economic development as brought on by IP theft outweighs the costs of the theft due to the fact that those costs are relatively minor. They'd claim that the precedents being set don't matter, because they were set by all those other counties throughout history already. The claim would be that while China may be breaking the rule de jure, the de facto playbook has already been written by convention.

vlovich123 5y ago

By your criterion, what Samuel Slater did was also immoral. Yet I'd argue it was actually for the common good. There's an argument to be made that most IP law itself is immoral as it grants monopoly rights whereas in most other context we recognize monopolies as naturally immoral. In fact, it goes against a very natural inclination to share interesting knowledge and stories. IP law is an attempt to recognize that there's some value in granting limited term immoral monopolistic rights because it net produces a better result longer term. That doesn't mean that IP law itself doesn't open up an immoral land grab and is itself open to abuse. Similarly, we obviously recognize that the commitments themselves may be immoral & thus can be broken (e.g. marriage to an unfaithful spouse) or licenses with immoral clauses should be free to be broken (e.g. you can't sell yourself into bondage). That's not to say that your experience isn't one where the other player was immoral. I'm just trying to broaden the horizon of the discussion beyond your personal story to how we should think about IP more broadly. It's nowhere near as clear cut as you make it and that illusion stems from how the Western legal and education systems work (which is a whole other topic - passing off another's work in education is "plagiarism" whereas if you do it literature it's "ghost writing").

azinman2 5y ago
The amount of mental gymnastics going on to validate IP theft in the GP’s comment is unreal. Assuming the comment is true (and it matches with enough documented cases to warrant that assumption), they had an agreement, Huawei clearly violated it and then usurped it illicitly and immorally. This is not a good thing. It’s even worse that there are no consequences for bad actions because China is playing an extremely asymmetric game. As a result, if the GP’s company went under, you’re still suggesting this is somehow good for the world? It’s good for Huawei, and not many others. Unless you’re Chinese and benefit, know they’re playing for keeps with your losses. This isn’t what trade looks like, it’s not what the WTO agreement was for, and is very zero sum.
- croes 5y ago
  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180313/10404539417/us-navy-accused-massive-amounts-piracy-german-software-company.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180313/10404539417/us-na... It's only piracy if others do it, isn't it.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    No, it's wrong for anyone. And in this case, the German company has recourse to actually sue the US military, and with plenty of history backing this up, can actually win! Good luck trying to sue the Chinese military for contract breach of installing software on more computers than specified... Further, note that this is an instance of piracy versus IP theft that then directly competes with the original source, as a coordinated playbook with government support to advance local industries. It's pretty much apples & oranges.
- woopwoop 5y ago
  Do you feel the same way about pirating music or television shows?
- lanternfish 5y ago
  I think the commenter would agree with most of what you're saying - I just don't think they care. The argument would be that raising the quality of life of the Chinese citizen through accelerated economic development as brought on by IP theft outweighs the costs of the theft due to the fact that those costs are relatively minor. They'd claim that the precedents being set don't matter, because they were set by all those other counties throughout history already. The claim would be that while China may be breaking the rule de jure, the de facto playbook has already been written by convention.