10 ms·

"Well. Their main audience was pirates. A group of people that dislike being bothered by intrusive ads, dislike the threats to their privacy that ads pose, and

"Well. Their main audience was pirates. A group of people that dislike being bothered by intrusive ads, dislike the threats to their privacy that ads pose, and prefers to not pay for access to files because information should be free, or at least prefers to pay as little as possible for access." *thieves

HeckFeck 4y ago
Theft is a difficult charge to lay when it is a replication; a result of memcpy'ing something from one location to another. It might be something else, but it isn't the same as nicking your car keys or tunic.
- somat 4y ago
  Exactly, the crime is infringement, it is not theft, and it certainly is not piracy. On the subject of the term piracy, if you are going to pick a heinous crime to represent your infringement, you might as well call it software rape, it is closer to what you are actually doing.
  - StrictDabbler 4y ago
    The term "piracy" has been in use to describe copyright infringement since at least 1736. Three centuries should be enough that we aren't "picking a crime to represent your infringement" anymore. It's just a valid word for the thing.
- supriyo-biswas 4y ago
  By this logic killing someone is simply a movement of physical matter from one place to another (knives, bullets), followed by some more movement of physical matter from one place to another (loss of blood/organs etc.) Things hold more value than simply being a sum of its parts.
  - skeaker 4y ago
    How do you figure? I think it's fairly obvious where the distinction is from stealing (the original owner no longer has their property) and copying (the original owner still has their property). The murder analogy you laid out doesn't seem to track with that at all.
    - supriyo-biswas 4y ago
      Making a copy of the work (or data) without compensating the author of that work denies them the remuneration that they should ideally get for putting in the effort to build that work. Now, you could always make the argument that creation of value only happens when a physical artifact is built, but that would also be a general argument against white collar jobs and make it okay for corporations to not pay a knowledge worker such as a software developer or a technical writer, simply because they provided a copy of their work.
      - nicenewtemp84 4y ago
        If I'm not willing to pay a creator for their content, it must not have any value to me. Or atleast not what they were asking. So if I copy it, I'm not depriving them of payment for the value they provided really, since I believe the monetary value of it is near $0. If you have a painting and are asking $1000, and I take it, you lost the $1000 you probably would have made eventually. If I take a look at it, I didn't steal $1000 from you. If I photograph it, I still didn't steal $1000 from you. If I print it out at home and put it on the wall, I still didn't steal $1000 from you.
        supriyo-biswas 4y ago
        > If I take a look at it, I didn't steal $1000 from you. > If I photograph it, I still didn't steal $1000 from you. This is where the inductive logic breaks down, because you are unlikely to make a perfect substitute (in other words, copy) of the product by simply looking at it, but by photographing it, now you can, which means you have denied compensation to the author of the work by being able to produce a perfect substitute. > If I'm not willing to pay a creator for their content, it must not have any value to me. If it doesn't have any value to you, why are you making a copy of it in the first place? :)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mughinn 4y ago
Intellectual property isn't property (at least, it shouldn't be)
kneebonian 4y ago
Intellectual property isn't.
shanebellone 4y ago
[flagged]
- throw10920 4y ago
  Many parts of the internet are filled with people who feel entitled to steal the work done by other people without compensating them for it. HN is no exception.
  - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
    I've seen that argument for 20 years and I always respond with "give New York back to the native Americans".
    - throw10920 4y ago
      The Native Americans sold New York in a consensual deal - not that one theft begets another, even if they hadn't. I mean, not that I personally have a problem with New York returning to Native ownership, but it's both (1) wrong to claim that it wasn't purchased in a consensual deal and (2) completely and totally irrelevant to the problem of digital piracy and entitlement to the work of others. This kind of logic makes me believe that pirates can't be reasoned with - that theft is a core part of their moral framework - but only when it benefits them, of course. If they perceive that their employer isn't paying them what they're due, it suddenly becomes a huge problem.
- masfuerte 4y ago
  Copyright is a legal invention and the law is clear that unauthorised copying is not theft. Feelings don't come into it.
- HeckFeck 4y ago
  Nothing to do with feelings, but logic. How is it theft if the original still exists? If I copy your words above verbatim and send it to a friend, is that theft? Your comment will still exist unless dang deems otherwise. It might be costly or undesirable to the producers, but that's just a problem with digital media. Enforcement is always going to be difficult unless we invite 'rightsholders' to control our devices.
th3row 4y ago
[flagged]

HeckFeck 4y ago

Theft is a difficult charge to lay when it is a replication; a result of memcpy'ing something from one location to another. It might be something else, but it isn't the same as nicking your car keys or tunic.

somat 4y ago
Exactly, the crime is infringement, it is not theft, and it certainly is not piracy. On the subject of the term piracy, if you are going to pick a heinous crime to represent your infringement, you might as well call it software rape, it is closer to what you are actually doing.
- StrictDabbler 4y ago
  The term "piracy" has been in use to describe copyright infringement since at least 1736. Three centuries should be enough that we aren't "picking a crime to represent your infringement" anymore. It's just a valid word for the thing.
supriyo-biswas 4y ago
By this logic killing someone is simply a movement of physical matter from one place to another (knives, bullets), followed by some more movement of physical matter from one place to another (loss of blood/organs etc.) Things hold more value than simply being a sum of its parts.
- skeaker 4y ago
  How do you figure? I think it's fairly obvious where the distinction is from stealing (the original owner no longer has their property) and copying (the original owner still has their property). The murder analogy you laid out doesn't seem to track with that at all.
  - supriyo-biswas 4y ago
    Making a copy of the work (or data) without compensating the author of that work denies them the remuneration that they should ideally get for putting in the effort to build that work. Now, you could always make the argument that creation of value only happens when a physical artifact is built, but that would also be a general argument against white collar jobs and make it okay for corporations to not pay a knowledge worker such as a software developer or a technical writer, simply because they provided a copy of their work.
    - nicenewtemp84 4y ago
      If I'm not willing to pay a creator for their content, it must not have any value to me. Or atleast not what they were asking. So if I copy it, I'm not depriving them of payment for the value they provided really, since I believe the monetary value of it is near $0. If you have a painting and are asking $1000, and I take it, you lost the $1000 you probably would have made eventually. If I take a look at it, I didn't steal $1000 from you. If I photograph it, I still didn't steal $1000 from you. If I print it out at home and put it on the wall, I still didn't steal $1000 from you.
      - supriyo-biswas 4y ago
        > If I take a look at it, I didn't steal $1000 from you. > If I photograph it, I still didn't steal $1000 from you. This is where the inductive logic breaks down, because you are unlikely to make a perfect substitute (in other words, copy) of the product by simply looking at it, but by photographing it, now you can, which means you have denied compensation to the author of the work by being able to produce a perfect substitute. > If I'm not willing to pay a creator for their content, it must not have any value to me. If it doesn't have any value to you, why are you making a copy of it in the first place? :)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mughinn 4y ago

Intellectual property isn't property (at least, it shouldn't be)

kneebonian 4y ago

Intellectual property isn't.

shanebellone 4y ago

[flagged]

throw10920 4y ago
Many parts of the internet are filled with people who feel entitled to steal the work done by other people without compensating them for it. HN is no exception.
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  I've seen that argument for 20 years and I always respond with "give New York back to the native Americans".
  - throw10920 4y ago
    The Native Americans sold New York in a consensual deal - not that one theft begets another, even if they hadn't. I mean, not that I personally have a problem with New York returning to Native ownership, but it's both (1) wrong to claim that it wasn't purchased in a consensual deal and (2) completely and totally irrelevant to the problem of digital piracy and entitlement to the work of others. This kind of logic makes me believe that pirates can't be reasoned with - that theft is a core part of their moral framework - but only when it benefits them, of course. If they perceive that their employer isn't paying them what they're due, it suddenly becomes a huge problem.
masfuerte 4y ago
Copyright is a legal invention and the law is clear that unauthorised copying is not theft. Feelings don't come into it.
HeckFeck 4y ago
Nothing to do with feelings, but logic. How is it theft if the original still exists? If I copy your words above verbatim and send it to a friend, is that theft? Your comment will still exist unless dang deems otherwise. It might be costly or undesirable to the producers, but that's just a problem with digital media. Enforcement is always going to be difficult unless we invite 'rightsholders' to control our devices.

th3row 4y ago

[flagged]