5 ms·

What do you call it?

Karunamon 15y ago
Take your pick. There's: Using unlicensed software copyright infringement downloading a torrent pirating ..among others. None of them roll off the tongue as nicely as "steal" or "thief", but copyright infringement is just as illegal as stealing. The industry groups have been campaigning for years (with great success) to ensure they mean the same thing. They do not. Please don't fall into their trap.
- MatthewB 15y ago
  Hmm...interesting. I see the difference you are trying to illustrate but to me, obtaining something illegally that was intended to be purchased is stealing. We're talking about the same thing though:)
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    The crux of the matter is that "steal" implies you've deprived the owner of something. (Actually, the us supreme court ruled on this a long while ago and clearly delineated the two..) The only reason for the tap on the shoulder is the effort by the industry groups to get people to conflate the two things. I hate seeing people be tricked, especially by such an odious organization :)
    - sanderjd 15y ago
      Could you link to that decision or do you perhaps know the name of the case so I could search for it? The deprivation idea doesn't seem to be intuitive to most people I've talked with and it would be great to know the actual case law.
      - Karunamon 15y ago
        Sure, the case you're looking for is Dowling v. United States. I'd give you a Wiki link, but.. The general gist of the case is that a man made a business out of pressing and selling Elvis records without distribution rights. Because of this, he was indicted for (among other things) distribution of stolen property and conspiracy of the same. The supreme court struck down all of the stealing charges, with an opinion that (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "Copyright implies a more complex set of property interests than simple theft".
        harpastum 15y ago
        Karunamon does a pretty good job describing it, but now that Wikipedia is back up, here's a section of the court's opinion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) ): The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
      - Drbble 15y ago
        You are honestly arguing that deprivation is not an intuitive aspect of theft?
        Karunamon 15y ago
        Nono.. Quite the opposite, deprivation is key to what "theft" entails. If I haven't deprived you of an object, I haven't stolen anything. I might have copied it, used it without your permission, or infringed your copyright, or pirated, but I haven't stolen it.
        sanderjd 15y ago
        Although Karunamon already replied, I think you were responding to me. I'm not sure I understand the question - I'm not arguing that it is not an intuitive aspect of theft, I am stating that it has not been intuitive to people I have discussed this with. It is a fact, not an argument - are you trying to ask if I'm arguing that it should be an intuitive aspect of theft? If so then I really don't have an opinion - I think intuition is completely subjective and that there is no "should" about it.
        Drbble 15y ago
        I was responding to you, sorry. I was questioning the validity of your (albeit informal) research, that people don't find deprivation to be a key aspects of the meaning of theft.
    - jebblue 15y ago
      >> The crux of the matter is that "steal" implies you've deprived the owner of something. Yes, earnings. When you grow up you will need to work and earn money and pay bills and balance a checkbook and without "piracy" (meaning stealing) controls, your Internet usage will be even higher than mine as you grow older.
      - pbsd 15y ago
        Yes, let us ignore the conclusions of the individuals that thought long and hard about the issue, and just go with what "common sense" (aka "the gut") tells us. Allowing "theft" be defined as depriving someone of something turns pretty much every crime in existence into "theft". Maybe we should just have 1 commandment - thou shalt not steal?
      - Anderkent 15y ago
        I decided not buy a coffee this morning. I've deprived the owner of his potential earnings! Must be stealing.
  - dwb 15y ago
    If you steal an apple from someone, you are depriving the owner of that apple. If you, say, download a film, you are not depriving the copyright owner of anything at all – it is a copy of information. Whether or not you should have paid for the download is not relevant to the distinction. The action you took does not involve deprivation, therefore you didn't steal. Therein lies the difference.
    - res0nat0r 15y ago
      Thats defined as copyright infringement, and is still against the law.
      - tjogin 15y ago
        Yes, but it is not stealing.
        res0nat0r 15y ago
        Correct. Also it is interesting how I get downvoted for stating a fact.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    Stealing is taking something unlawfully. Copyright infringement is copying or duplicating something without the owners approval. The difference is that if I steal your car, you have to pay to replace it. If I duplicate your car unlawfully, you still have a car but now so do I. I understand why taking a CD from a HMV is stealing, because it deprives the store owner and content owner from making profit from their expense. I don't understand why people call it stealing when I don't deprive the content owner/publisher from making profit and causing them no expense.
  - vectorpush 15y ago
    If they were the same thing, then that would mean downloading a copy of Star Wars is equivalent to pocketing the Star Wars DVD in your entertainment center. When does the act of stealing occur? If I download a torrent and then delete it without watching/playing/listening, did I steal it? If so, then does that mean repeatedly copying the file to and from an external hard drive is repeated theft? Does it become stealing only if I make use of the material? If I buy the movie and show it to ten house guests for free, are they thieves? They didn't pay to watch and the author would have preferred it if they did. If they aren't thieves, why would they become thieves if I uploaded ten copies to each friend instead of showing it to them in my living room? Of course, I would be infringing on the author's legal copyright, but I don't see where any stealing can be definitively identified.
    - jebblue 15y ago
      >> When does the act of stealing occur? If I download a torrent and then delete it without watching/playing/listening, did I steal it? Yes, welcome to adulthood.
      - ColMustard 15y ago
        No. Adulthood has nothing to do with the fact that everyone is using a word that doesn't accurately describe the action taken. Just because it's not stealing doesn't mean it's not illegal. You can't call anything that's illegal "stealing". It's piracy, which is illegal, but a different act than stealing. People who started calling piracy stealing are the same people that cannot accurately understand what is actually happening, and people who benefit from calling it stealing instead of correctly portraiting it as it's own crime. The desensitized image of piracy that people have is somewhat close to the way some people have a desensitized image of credit card fraud. The image that you're hurting a faceless corporation, and not an actual person. Introducing the moral part in an action that doesn't accurately portray a victim is the hard part. When stealing it's easy because you can relate and imagine the victim of an action.
        JonWood 15y ago
  - WettowelReactor 15y ago
    Well seeing as we have different degrees of murder maybe we should have a sliding scale for stealing. While stealing physical content deprives the seller and the creator digital theft only impacts one party. Also since the majority of an items physical value comes from inflation from middle men the "value" of a digital item is probably considerably less as well.
  - nzjames 15y ago
    This is really interesting for me. I've infringed a bit of copyright in my time. Cassettes when I was young, VHS from TV (I cut the ads out - does that count?) my high school physics teacher gave us photocopied exercises with clear copyright notices in the footer, IRC, Napster, torrents. I remember before it was called stealing, because we were doing it without mass attention on a young internet. I've learnt to gloss over stealing and theft when reading about piracy because I've always seen it as hyperbole because I knew the net before was labeled that. I put it in the same basket as hacker vs. cracker, as much as I wanted everyone to know the difference - they don't care and its a boring argument. It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that people have been exposed to copyright infringement == stealing from so much media for so long that it is accepted by default. It didn't used to be this way.
  - tjogin 15y ago
    No it isn't. Stealing is taking something from the owner. Like if I steal your bike, you no longer have a bike. If I copy your bike (were it possible), you still have a bike. Copyright infringement isn't stealing just like it also isn't rape or murder. That doesn't make it right, but it definitely make it different from theft.
- kra 15y ago
  When I was a kid I got caught sneaking on the subway. I was charged with theft of services. It makes sense to me - what I literally did was evade paying my $1 before stepping on the platform, and I was attempting to ride a train that wasn't full, so my being there or not wouldn't affect the operation of the train or the other riders. But gaining access to something against the wishes of the provider jeopardizes the provider's ability (or incentive, or willingness, whatever) to provide the service. That's why it's called theft. This is all kind of off-topic to the OP, and doesn't address why people should or should not pay for their software, music, and movies, but I think theft or fraud is an accurate term to use.
Harkins 15y ago
"Copy". I can't speak for the previous poster, but to me "steal" implies denying the owner of a possession. A copyright isn't a possession, it's a grant of exclusive rights.
itsnotlupus 15y ago
"To bypass a government-granted monopoly" It rolls right off the tongue.
mkramlich 15y ago
"unauthorized copying" seems to me to be the most accurate and least loaded
megablast 15y ago
Are you new to this argument, or are you deliberately being ignorant? I have trouble believing that someone in the tech industry has not come across this before.

Take your pick. There's: Using unlicensed software copyright infringement downloading a torrent pirating ..among others. None of them roll off the tongue as nicely as "steal" or "thief", but copyright infringement is just as illegal as stealing. The industry groups have been campaigning for years (with great success) to ensure they mean the same thing. They do not. Please don't fall into their trap.

MatthewB 15y ago
Hmm...interesting. I see the difference you are trying to illustrate but to me, obtaining something illegally that was intended to be purchased is stealing. We're talking about the same thing though:)
- Karunamon 15y ago
  The crux of the matter is that "steal" implies you've deprived the owner of something. (Actually, the us supreme court ruled on this a long while ago and clearly delineated the two..) The only reason for the tap on the shoulder is the effort by the industry groups to get people to conflate the two things. I hate seeing people be tricked, especially by such an odious organization :)
  - sanderjd 15y ago
    Could you link to that decision or do you perhaps know the name of the case so I could search for it? The deprivation idea doesn't seem to be intuitive to most people I've talked with and it would be great to know the actual case law.
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      Sure, the case you're looking for is Dowling v. United States. I'd give you a Wiki link, but.. The general gist of the case is that a man made a business out of pressing and selling Elvis records without distribution rights. Because of this, he was indicted for (among other things) distribution of stolen property and conspiracy of the same. The supreme court struck down all of the stealing charges, with an opinion that (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "Copyright implies a more complex set of property interests than simple theft".
      - harpastum 15y ago
        Karunamon does a pretty good job describing it, but now that Wikipedia is back up, here's a section of the court's opinion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) ): The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
    - Drbble 15y ago
      You are honestly arguing that deprivation is not an intuitive aspect of theft?
      - Karunamon 15y ago
        Nono.. Quite the opposite, deprivation is key to what "theft" entails. If I haven't deprived you of an object, I haven't stolen anything. I might have copied it, used it without your permission, or infringed your copyright, or pirated, but I haven't stolen it.
      - sanderjd 15y ago
        Although Karunamon already replied, I think you were responding to me. I'm not sure I understand the question - I'm not arguing that it is not an intuitive aspect of theft, I am stating that it has not been intuitive to people I have discussed this with. It is a fact, not an argument - are you trying to ask if I'm arguing that it should be an intuitive aspect of theft? If so then I really don't have an opinion - I think intuition is completely subjective and that there is no "should" about it.
        Drbble 15y ago
        I was responding to you, sorry. I was questioning the validity of your (albeit informal) research, that people don't find deprivation to be a key aspects of the meaning of theft.
  - jebblue 15y ago
    >> The crux of the matter is that "steal" implies you've deprived the owner of something. Yes, earnings. When you grow up you will need to work and earn money and pay bills and balance a checkbook and without "piracy" (meaning stealing) controls, your Internet usage will be even higher than mine as you grow older.
    - pbsd 15y ago
      Yes, let us ignore the conclusions of the individuals that thought long and hard about the issue, and just go with what "common sense" (aka "the gut") tells us. Allowing "theft" be defined as depriving someone of something turns pretty much every crime in existence into "theft". Maybe we should just have 1 commandment - thou shalt not steal?
    - Anderkent 15y ago
      I decided not buy a coffee this morning. I've deprived the owner of his potential earnings! Must be stealing.
- dwb 15y ago
  If you steal an apple from someone, you are depriving the owner of that apple. If you, say, download a film, you are not depriving the copyright owner of anything at all – it is a copy of information. Whether or not you should have paid for the download is not relevant to the distinction. The action you took does not involve deprivation, therefore you didn't steal. Therein lies the difference.
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    Thats defined as copyright infringement, and is still against the law.
    - tjogin 15y ago
      Yes, but it is not stealing.
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        Correct. Also it is interesting how I get downvoted for stating a fact.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Stealing is taking something unlawfully. Copyright infringement is copying or duplicating something without the owners approval. The difference is that if I steal your car, you have to pay to replace it. If I duplicate your car unlawfully, you still have a car but now so do I. I understand why taking a CD from a HMV is stealing, because it deprives the store owner and content owner from making profit from their expense. I don't understand why people call it stealing when I don't deprive the content owner/publisher from making profit and causing them no expense.
- vectorpush 15y ago
  If they were the same thing, then that would mean downloading a copy of Star Wars is equivalent to pocketing the Star Wars DVD in your entertainment center. When does the act of stealing occur? If I download a torrent and then delete it without watching/playing/listening, did I steal it? If so, then does that mean repeatedly copying the file to and from an external hard drive is repeated theft? Does it become stealing only if I make use of the material? If I buy the movie and show it to ten house guests for free, are they thieves? They didn't pay to watch and the author would have preferred it if they did. If they aren't thieves, why would they become thieves if I uploaded ten copies to each friend instead of showing it to them in my living room? Of course, I would be infringing on the author's legal copyright, but I don't see where any stealing can be definitively identified.
  - jebblue 15y ago
    >> When does the act of stealing occur? If I download a torrent and then delete it without watching/playing/listening, did I steal it? Yes, welcome to adulthood.
    - ColMustard 15y ago
      No. Adulthood has nothing to do with the fact that everyone is using a word that doesn't accurately describe the action taken. Just because it's not stealing doesn't mean it's not illegal. You can't call anything that's illegal "stealing". It's piracy, which is illegal, but a different act than stealing. People who started calling piracy stealing are the same people that cannot accurately understand what is actually happening, and people who benefit from calling it stealing instead of correctly portraiting it as it's own crime. The desensitized image of piracy that people have is somewhat close to the way some people have a desensitized image of credit card fraud. The image that you're hurting a faceless corporation, and not an actual person. Introducing the moral part in an action that doesn't accurately portray a victim is the hard part. When stealing it's easy because you can relate and imagine the victim of an action.
      - JonWood 15y ago
- WettowelReactor 15y ago
  Well seeing as we have different degrees of murder maybe we should have a sliding scale for stealing. While stealing physical content deprives the seller and the creator digital theft only impacts one party. Also since the majority of an items physical value comes from inflation from middle men the "value" of a digital item is probably considerably less as well.
- nzjames 15y ago
  This is really interesting for me. I've infringed a bit of copyright in my time. Cassettes when I was young, VHS from TV (I cut the ads out - does that count?) my high school physics teacher gave us photocopied exercises with clear copyright notices in the footer, IRC, Napster, torrents. I remember before it was called stealing, because we were doing it without mass attention on a young internet. I've learnt to gloss over stealing and theft when reading about piracy because I've always seen it as hyperbole because I knew the net before was labeled that. I put it in the same basket as hacker vs. cracker, as much as I wanted everyone to know the difference - they don't care and its a boring argument. It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that people have been exposed to copyright infringement == stealing from so much media for so long that it is accepted by default. It didn't used to be this way.
- tjogin 15y ago
  No it isn't. Stealing is taking something from the owner. Like if I steal your bike, you no longer have a bike. If I copy your bike (were it possible), you still have a bike. Copyright infringement isn't stealing just like it also isn't rape or murder. That doesn't make it right, but it definitely make it different from theft.
kra 15y ago
When I was a kid I got caught sneaking on the subway. I was charged with theft of services. It makes sense to me - what I literally did was evade paying my $1 before stepping on the platform, and I was attempting to ride a train that wasn't full, so my being there or not wouldn't affect the operation of the train or the other riders. But gaining access to something against the wishes of the provider jeopardizes the provider's ability (or incentive, or willingness, whatever) to provide the service. That's why it's called theft. This is all kind of off-topic to the OP, and doesn't address why people should or should not pay for their software, music, and movies, but I think theft or fraud is an accurate term to use.

Harkins 15y ago

"Copy". I can't speak for the previous poster, but to me "steal" implies denying the owner of a possession. A copyright isn't a possession, it's a grant of exclusive rights.

itsnotlupus 15y ago

"To bypass a government-granted monopoly" It rolls right off the tongue.

mkramlich 15y ago

"unauthorized copying" seems to me to be the most accurate and least loaded

megablast 15y ago

Are you new to this argument, or are you deliberately being ignorant? I have trouble believing that someone in the tech industry has not come across this before.