5 ms·

So when you copy answers on a test, that is seen as valid by the teachers because the other person's answers are intact; correct?

snvzz 4y ago
Cheating on a test is not stealing either. It's cheating.
angio 4y ago
As you said, you "copy" the answer, you don't "steal" it.
- chmike 4y ago
  You steal the author's investment in time and effort to write the book and conceive it's content. How you steal (making a copy) doesn't affect the fact that you prevent the author to get his share or reward from it.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    I invested the time and effort to write this comment. I want you to pay me. I'll be expecting a cheque in my mail soon. If you don't pay me, you're stealing from me.
    - chmike 4y ago
      I'm obviously talking about ebooks downloaded from commercial platforms like KDP Amazon, and distributed for free on Z-library without permission from the author. Comparing this to your comment is whataboutism. Comments on hacker news are free to read. If you want to be payed for your writing, use a platform that support this. However, you do have an automatic copyright on everything you write and I would need your permission (eventually by paying you a fee) to republish it in a book or somewhere else. Fair use is an exception to that, but the amount of text we can reuse without permission is limited. These are rules.
pentachoron 4y ago
If you gave credit to the source of the answers... then most teachers would just not give you the marks for the bits you copied. The cheating here is faking attribution - claiming yourself as a source of something you didn't originate, not copying - a legally and morally distinct thing to copyright infringement. Indeed, part of the point of copyright infringement is that you do know (and reveal to your clients) who made the thing you're copying, which is why it has value.
constantcrying 4y ago
Completely false equivalence. Copying answers isn't bad because you are infringing on someones "right" to have control over their answers. It is bad because you are commiting academic fraud and seeking a qualification you have not earned. You are claiming anothers achievement as your own. Me reading a pirated book does not mean I claim to be the author.
- curtisblaine 4y ago
  I guess the elephant in the room is that you're not paying the authors for what they created; in this sense it's like "stealing". Someone spends time and resources making something and you use that something without compensating that someone. I agree it's not exactly like stealing (that's why we invented a different word for it), bt ut's still something that is unfair to the book author(s).
  - checkyoursudo 4y ago
    There is an artist's gallery in my town. The artist sells lots of pieces (or tries to; no idea how successful). If I go and look at each piece, really take it in and absorb it fully and internalize it, but buy nothing, have I done the thing that's not exactly like stealing? If I download a PDF and read it and then delete it as soon as I am done, have I done the thing that is not exactly like stealing? If I go to a library and read that same book in its entirety without checking it out ... doesn't seem much different than reading and then deleting a PDF. Stealing someone else's book definitely seems wrong, but reading it while you are visiting their house seems fine? I am not claiming to know the right (ethical, moral, whatever) action here. I just have a super huge problem calling it "piracy" or "stealing" or whatever. Figuring out a way to support creators is hugely important, but criminalizing the mere viewing or hearing of art/music/words/etc seems extremely wrong. Anyway, I've been thinking about all this since at least Napster and I still have no idea really.
    - acdha 4y ago
      My perspective: go with what the person who created it agreed to. They’ve set their life up around certain assumptions, and if I don’t like them I will forgo their work. For example, that person whose works are in the gallery has built their business on a balance of exposure - letting anyone who walks in look at things - and the fact that people who buy art are willing to pay a fair amount to own a physical object for display. Looking without buying is expressly part of their business model. Book publishing is different, with the author assuming they’ll get payments from readers - much smaller than that artists but many of them. Since I don’t have any ownership rights over their work, I don’t attempt to change the terms.
chmike 4y ago
That is pure whataboutism. What has this to do with stealing books ?

snvzz 4y ago

Cheating on a test is not stealing either. It's cheating.

angio 4y ago

As you said, you "copy" the answer, you don't "steal" it.

chmike 4y ago
You steal the author's investment in time and effort to write the book and conceive it's content. How you steal (making a copy) doesn't affect the fact that you prevent the author to get his share or reward from it.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  I invested the time and effort to write this comment. I want you to pay me. I'll be expecting a cheque in my mail soon. If you don't pay me, you're stealing from me.
  - chmike 4y ago
    I'm obviously talking about ebooks downloaded from commercial platforms like KDP Amazon, and distributed for free on Z-library without permission from the author. Comparing this to your comment is whataboutism. Comments on hacker news are free to read. If you want to be payed for your writing, use a platform that support this. However, you do have an automatic copyright on everything you write and I would need your permission (eventually by paying you a fee) to republish it in a book or somewhere else. Fair use is an exception to that, but the amount of text we can reuse without permission is limited. These are rules.

pentachoron 4y ago

If you gave credit to the source of the answers... then most teachers would just not give you the marks for the bits you copied. The cheating here is faking attribution - claiming yourself as a source of something you didn't originate, not copying - a legally and morally distinct thing to copyright infringement. Indeed, part of the point of copyright infringement is that you do know (and reveal to your clients) who made the thing you're copying, which is why it has value.

constantcrying 4y ago

Completely false equivalence. Copying answers isn't bad because you are infringing on someones "right" to have control over their answers. It is bad because you are commiting academic fraud and seeking a qualification you have not earned. You are claiming anothers achievement as your own. Me reading a pirated book does not mean I claim to be the author.

curtisblaine 4y ago
I guess the elephant in the room is that you're not paying the authors for what they created; in this sense it's like "stealing". Someone spends time and resources making something and you use that something without compensating that someone. I agree it's not exactly like stealing (that's why we invented a different word for it), bt ut's still something that is unfair to the book author(s).
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  There is an artist's gallery in my town. The artist sells lots of pieces (or tries to; no idea how successful). If I go and look at each piece, really take it in and absorb it fully and internalize it, but buy nothing, have I done the thing that's not exactly like stealing? If I download a PDF and read it and then delete it as soon as I am done, have I done the thing that is not exactly like stealing? If I go to a library and read that same book in its entirety without checking it out ... doesn't seem much different than reading and then deleting a PDF. Stealing someone else's book definitely seems wrong, but reading it while you are visiting their house seems fine? I am not claiming to know the right (ethical, moral, whatever) action here. I just have a super huge problem calling it "piracy" or "stealing" or whatever. Figuring out a way to support creators is hugely important, but criminalizing the mere viewing or hearing of art/music/words/etc seems extremely wrong. Anyway, I've been thinking about all this since at least Napster and I still have no idea really.
  - acdha 4y ago
    My perspective: go with what the person who created it agreed to. They’ve set their life up around certain assumptions, and if I don’t like them I will forgo their work. For example, that person whose works are in the gallery has built their business on a balance of exposure - letting anyone who walks in look at things - and the fact that people who buy art are willing to pay a fair amount to own a physical object for display. Looking without buying is expressly part of their business model. Book publishing is different, with the author assuming they’ll get payments from readers - much smaller than that artists but many of them. Since I don’t have any ownership rights over their work, I don’t attempt to change the terms.

chmike 4y ago

That is pure whataboutism. What has this to do with stealing books ?