4 ms·

> Of course it's analogous to theft, because someone very literally ends up with less money in their pocket Err, nope. If I steal a bicycle from the shop aroun

> Of course it's analogous to theft, because someone very literally ends up with less money in their pocket Err, nope. If I steal a bicycle from the shop around the corner there is one less bicycle the owner can sell. If I copy a digital asset the loss is hypothetical. It only exists if the condition holds true that I would have purchased the item if I hadn't been able to just copy it. This condition is simply not true in the majority of cases of piracy of digital items. I worked in third world countries, I have a friend who is a single mother on a low wage job. These are just /some/ examples where a sale of many digital items, software, media, etc. would provably not happen. There is no 'theft' because there was no income withheld from the creator. [1] Proof: https://www.techdirt.com/2017/09/21/eu-buried-own-400000-study-showing-unauthorized-downloads-have-almost-no-effect-sales/ https://www.techdirt.com/2017/09/21/eu-buried-own-400000-stu... [1] Whether they should be allowed to do that is a different matter – one detached from theft/economy. It's a philosophical/ethical issue and I agree with parent that the view we hold on these things is recent and shaped by conditions that frequently no longer apply (physical item vs digital one resp. cost of making a copy).

otterley 5y ago
Property is about the boundaries of what one can control, not about physical stuff and land. What makes property property is not physical boundaries and the tangible nature of a thing, but the fact that you can control who gets to use what you possess and under what conditions, backed by the power of the state. In states with copyright laws, this applies equally to land and widgets as it does things you write. Property being about land and geographical boundaries is one of the most common misconceptions that gets shattered in the first few weeks of a first-year course on the subject in law school.
- thot_experiment 5y ago
  Yeah, I think you're kinda hitting the nail on the head here. The idea that people should be allowed to control ideas or concepts is wrong. We need to move past this as a species, so much of what is relevant to the day to day lives of people on this planet exists in a world where scarcity is artificial. That's not okay. Artificial scarcity is not something we should allow.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Copyright law does not protect abstract ideas or concepts. It protects specific artistic expressions of them. See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf; there's also a whole body of law around this. > Artificial scarcity is not something we should allow. Unfortunately, unless we're all going back to a society in which people can only produce things that are physically scarce, like food, we need artificial scarcity so that people can produce things that are valuable but not physically scarce so that they can buy those things that actually are scarce.
    - blurker 5y ago
      You're making a huge logical leap assuming that artificial scarcity is the only reason that we produce non-physical goods, and that's easily contradicted by the existence of FOSS. There are plenty of creators who create things for all sorts of reasons besides profit. And in many cases, there are people who want to create free things and can't because of things like patents and IP trolls preventing them from doing it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - otterley 5y ago
        > that artificial scarcity is the only reason that we produce non-physical goods (Emphasis mine.) Who said that? Certainly not me. Acts of charity happen all the time, and we are doubtless better off for them. But those are a choice. It doesn't mean it should be the only choice.
        blurker 5y ago
        Here: > Unfortunately, unless we're all going back to a society in which people can only produce things that are physically scarce, like food, we need artificial scarcity You said that unless we have artificial scarcity, we are all going back to a society where people only produce physically scarce things.
karaterobot 5y ago
> If I copy a digital asset the loss is hypothetical. It only exists if the condition holds true that I would have purchased the item if I hadn't been able to just copy it. This argument never held up. By taking it, you admit it has value to you. Whether or not you agree with the asking price is incidental: you have to acknowledge you are taking something with some value and not paying for it. I've pirated my fair share of software and media, and had my own software pirated. I'm not judging anybody for pirating software, but I am calling out specious self-justifications about doing so. You pirate it because it's cheaper and easier than paying for it.
- marssaxman 5y ago
  If I copy a digital object, I'm not taking anything at all: I'm making a brand new instance, identical to the original. I pay for the computer hardware and electrical power necessary to make the copy, and for the storage space it lives in.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    Sure, but that's semantics. You are acquiring a thing which has value to you, and has value to its owner, and which the owner has asked you to pay for. You can't pretend the thing you have acquired is without value if you wanted it. Piracy is really about "do I want to pay, and can you stop me from getting it without paying?" and this business about "I'm not really stealing because it's digital and the marginal cost of production is zero" is just self-justification.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      I'm mostly not in favor of software or media piracy (though if it has been sufficiently long (not sure how long) since it has been commercially available, or a handful of other cases that don't come to mind right now, I think probably fine), but I do think it makes sense to distinguish it from theft, and indeed, distinguish it on the basis that you are not depriving the person of a thing which they have. If Joe is selling cherries he grew on his cherry tree, and I start selling some cherries from my cherry tree for cheaper (or just giving away cherries), this does deprive Joe from some of the profit he would get from selling his cherries, because some people who would have bought some cherries from Joe instead of from me, but I am by no means stealing profits from Joe. I'm not taking his cherries. He still has his cherries. That's not to say that he isn't worse off. He is, of course, worse off. But (except if some other conditions hold) I haven't wronged him, and I certainly haven't stolen from him. (Ftr, I don't actually have a cherry tree, and do not grow any food.) Now, if Joe is selling copies of a file, and I am giving away copies of the same file, well, it seems like a similar situation. One difference is that in the case of the cherry tree, both Joe and I are putting in the work to create the product, namely, by raising and maintaining our respective cherry trees, and harvesting the cherries, while in the case of the computer file, it may be that Joe put in a lot of work into creating that file in the first place, and I did not, and so if I were to sell copies of the file, that would seem quite questionable. Now, if I were to distribute the file Joe made and is selling, the reason this would be bad is probably a combination of "This makes Joe worse off, and he should be rewarded for the benefit he provided others, and also society decided on that basis that I shouldn't do that, and unless there is an overriding moral obligation to do otherwise, I morally ought to follow the ethical rules that society has established." This is, I'll admit, somewhat similar to at least some of the reason it would be bad for me to steal some of Joe's cherries and give them away (though with less of the reason being "because of the ethics society decided" part than in the case with distributing the file.) Though, one difference in this case is, Joe could do other things with the cherries other than sell them, and by stealing them, I am depriving him also of that option. This doesn't happen in the case of distributing the file. Nor would it happen if I had a magical duplication beam which I used to make duplicates of his cherries. I think this difference is an important part of the concept of theft. The concept of theft, I expect, arose substantially before money, and I imagine also before significant trade. The concept of "Hey, that's mine! I need that!" is fairly basic, and is based on "If another person takes it from you, you don't have it anymore." . Now, of course, socially we could agree to use the word "theft" to also include software/media piracy, but I personally don't think we should. I think it is best to use different words for them, because I think it makes sense to keep the concepts separate (though related).

otterley 5y ago

Property is about the boundaries of what one can control, not about physical stuff and land. What makes property property is not physical boundaries and the tangible nature of a thing, but the fact that you can control who gets to use what you possess and under what conditions, backed by the power of the state. In states with copyright laws, this applies equally to land and widgets as it does things you write. Property being about land and geographical boundaries is one of the most common misconceptions that gets shattered in the first few weeks of a first-year course on the subject in law school.

thot_experiment 5y ago
Yeah, I think you're kinda hitting the nail on the head here. The idea that people should be allowed to control ideas or concepts is wrong. We need to move past this as a species, so much of what is relevant to the day to day lives of people on this planet exists in a world where scarcity is artificial. That's not okay. Artificial scarcity is not something we should allow.
- otterley 5y ago
  Copyright law does not protect abstract ideas or concepts. It protects specific artistic expressions of them. See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf; there's also a whole body of law around this. > Artificial scarcity is not something we should allow. Unfortunately, unless we're all going back to a society in which people can only produce things that are physically scarce, like food, we need artificial scarcity so that people can produce things that are valuable but not physically scarce so that they can buy those things that actually are scarce.
  - blurker 5y ago
    You're making a huge logical leap assuming that artificial scarcity is the only reason that we produce non-physical goods, and that's easily contradicted by the existence of FOSS. There are plenty of creators who create things for all sorts of reasons besides profit. And in many cases, there are people who want to create free things and can't because of things like patents and IP trolls preventing them from doing it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 5y ago
      > that artificial scarcity is the only reason that we produce non-physical goods (Emphasis mine.) Who said that? Certainly not me. Acts of charity happen all the time, and we are doubtless better off for them. But those are a choice. It doesn't mean it should be the only choice.
      - blurker 5y ago
        Here: > Unfortunately, unless we're all going back to a society in which people can only produce things that are physically scarce, like food, we need artificial scarcity You said that unless we have artificial scarcity, we are all going back to a society where people only produce physically scarce things.

karaterobot 5y ago

> If I copy a digital asset the loss is hypothetical. It only exists if the condition holds true that I would have purchased the item if I hadn't been able to just copy it. This argument never held up. By taking it, you admit it has value to you. Whether or not you agree with the asking price is incidental: you have to acknowledge you are taking something with some value and not paying for it. I've pirated my fair share of software and media, and had my own software pirated. I'm not judging anybody for pirating software, but I am calling out specious self-justifications about doing so. You pirate it because it's cheaper and easier than paying for it.

marssaxman 5y ago
If I copy a digital object, I'm not taking anything at all: I'm making a brand new instance, identical to the original. I pay for the computer hardware and electrical power necessary to make the copy, and for the storage space it lives in.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Sure, but that's semantics. You are acquiring a thing which has value to you, and has value to its owner, and which the owner has asked you to pay for. You can't pretend the thing you have acquired is without value if you wanted it. Piracy is really about "do I want to pay, and can you stop me from getting it without paying?" and this business about "I'm not really stealing because it's digital and the marginal cost of production is zero" is just self-justification.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    I'm mostly not in favor of software or media piracy (though if it has been sufficiently long (not sure how long) since it has been commercially available, or a handful of other cases that don't come to mind right now, I think probably fine), but I do think it makes sense to distinguish it from theft, and indeed, distinguish it on the basis that you are not depriving the person of a thing which they have. If Joe is selling cherries he grew on his cherry tree, and I start selling some cherries from my cherry tree for cheaper (or just giving away cherries), this does deprive Joe from some of the profit he would get from selling his cherries, because some people who would have bought some cherries from Joe instead of from me, but I am by no means stealing profits from Joe. I'm not taking his cherries. He still has his cherries. That's not to say that he isn't worse off. He is, of course, worse off. But (except if some other conditions hold) I haven't wronged him, and I certainly haven't stolen from him. (Ftr, I don't actually have a cherry tree, and do not grow any food.) Now, if Joe is selling copies of a file, and I am giving away copies of the same file, well, it seems like a similar situation. One difference is that in the case of the cherry tree, both Joe and I are putting in the work to create the product, namely, by raising and maintaining our respective cherry trees, and harvesting the cherries, while in the case of the computer file, it may be that Joe put in a lot of work into creating that file in the first place, and I did not, and so if I were to sell copies of the file, that would seem quite questionable. Now, if I were to distribute the file Joe made and is selling, the reason this would be bad is probably a combination of "This makes Joe worse off, and he should be rewarded for the benefit he provided others, and also society decided on that basis that I shouldn't do that, and unless there is an overriding moral obligation to do otherwise, I morally ought to follow the ethical rules that society has established." This is, I'll admit, somewhat similar to at least some of the reason it would be bad for me to steal some of Joe's cherries and give them away (though with less of the reason being "because of the ethics society decided" part than in the case with distributing the file.) Though, one difference in this case is, Joe could do other things with the cherries other than sell them, and by stealing them, I am depriving him also of that option. This doesn't happen in the case of distributing the file. Nor would it happen if I had a magical duplication beam which I used to make duplicates of his cherries. I think this difference is an important part of the concept of theft. The concept of theft, I expect, arose substantially before money, and I imagine also before significant trade. The concept of "Hey, that's mine! I need that!" is fairly basic, and is based on "If another person takes it from you, you don't have it anymore." . Now, of course, socially we could agree to use the word "theft" to also include software/media piracy, but I personally don't think we should. I think it is best to use different words for them, because I think it makes sense to keep the concepts separate (though related).