5 ms·

An honest question (and thank you for not using the term stealing!=)), but you listed 4 reasons. Just curious about where it crosses the line for you. If some

An honest question (and thank you for not using the term stealing!=)), but you listed 4 reasons. Just curious about where it crosses the line for you. If someone does A, is it still a grey area? Is it because of B? C? D? Personally, I see it as A. B, C, and D merely exasperate the situation, but without A, B, C, and D aren't an issue. Of course, the follow up is if it's because of B, C, and D that it isn't in a grey area?

eropple 15y ago
You don't think hotlinking images and CSS is stealing bandwidth?
- vacri 15y ago
  I'm sure all those 300-byte images have the 37signals servers at melting point. I don't think this is the horse you want to ride.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    I'll take that pony ride. Someone who's happy to steal from someone else just because that person is richer than them and they're only stealing little things still, IMO, lacks morally. With proviso's which aren't I don't think pertinent to this current situation (eg immediate life-preservation). Your argument is basically the shoplifter's manifesto - the store is rich, I only took some of their stuff, it's barely a drop compared to their profits, etc..
    - vacri 15y ago
      No, my argument is that of all the things wrong with this situation, stealing 300-byte bandwidth is so far down the list it's unimportant. That's what I meant by this is not the horse - there are far better horses to ride in this race. It's nice of you to tell me what my argument is, but you have it utterly wrong.
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >nice of you to tell me what my argument is How you've reiterated it here appears to match my interpretation of what you said. So perhaps you can say what your argument actually is - FWIW my comment had several upvotes so it doesn't appear to be just me being a dullard. >stealing 300-byte bandwidth is so far down the list it's unimportant So you're saying this is nothing like the argument 'stealing a snickers from Walmart is such a small amount, it's not important'?
        dustyleary 15y ago
        No, he's saying that when a guy walks out of Walmart with a pallet full of flatscreen TVs, nobody cares about the snickers bar he also grabbed on the way out, and talking about the snickers bar is a waste of time.
        vacri 15y ago
        So you're saying this is nothing like the argument 'stealing a snickers from Walmart is such a small amount, it's not important'? Will you stop trying to paint me as only talking about one issue? That's where you get my argument utterly wrong. It's akin to saying "Mao Zedong's China was bad because the dog-catchers weren't licensed properly". Like it or not, the legal system regularly drops small, less important charges when bigger ones are present. The murderer who exceeding the speed limit trying to escape from police doesn't get a speeding ticket. That doesn't mean that speeding tickets themselves are unimportant or never get pursued.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        We're discussing this issue which you raised. It's fallacious to consider that one is only concerned with a single facet of a situation because that is all that is being addressed. Others have addressed the other points in the thread. So, going back to my initial comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3523870 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3523870) you're saying that it's wrong of me to characterize your argument this way because I've failed to mention that it's a corrupt tycoon that is shoplifting. Because they've also committed greater crimes we have to ignore the shoplifting? Or to recapitulate you'd nab a shoplifter but only if they'd not done something worse as well? Got to say I still don't follow the reasoning and still consider image hotlinking to be bad; and that, for a company, it indicates some sort of corruption.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Technically, no. They are linking to an image on another server. It's akin to me linking to someones article. In one case, the visitors browser automatically fetches the image. In the other, the visitors browser fetches it at the users request. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending the action. But no, it's not stealing. Defining it as such is just as wrong as defining copyright infringement as stealing.
veyron 15y ago
It's only vague inasfar as the words themselves are vague. "COPYING" is abused. RIAA and other organizations have really tried to grossly expand the definition and that has tainted the discussion. For the next paragraph, "COPYING" means literally using the same assets (or a digital replication). The line is drawn at "literally copying assets". Putting up your own assets that are inspired by another site isn't copying. Putting up another company's assets (or downloading and self-hosting other company assets) crosses the line.
- jaekwon 15y ago
  I don't think you can define "copying" clearly for this purpose. Is it still copying if a person is wedged in the replication loop? I think you're going to try to divide my hypothetical into two scenarios, and it's not going to be clear cut what the distinction is.
gizmo 15y ago
They're not in increasing badness. I don't think copying other people's work (a) is particularly wrong, unless you do so for profit (c). Otherwise it falls under the banner of "fair use". Taking credit for other people's work (b), even in a not-for-profit context is something I consider wrong. In combination with (c) only more-so. I think (d) is also a real issue, because it signals a certain sense of oblivious righteousness. It's an attitude that, regardless of the specifics of the situation, I consider really harmful. When people criticize one's actions -- whatever the reason may be -- you got to take a step back and reflect for a moment. Try to understand the other point of view. Failing to do so is, I think, a moral failure.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Thanks for the answer. I didn't mean to imply they had increasing badness, it just happened to work out that way. I find it interesting that copying others people's work is okay with you as long as you credit them and don't do so for profit. I'm guessing it's mainly a "You know it when you see it"-porn kind of thing. I agree with your point on D, especially as it relates to this. I think the community would be somewhat more forgiving if they'd just come right out and said "We fked up!" 37Signals did this a couple weeks ago with the cat.jpg incident.
  - gizmo 15y ago
    > I didn't mean to imply they had increasing badness, it just happened to work out that way. Ahh, ok. My bad. My moral intuition with regard to copyright probably isn't entirely consistent. For instance, if a poor kid wants to learn but the parents can't afford books, is it OK for him to pirate those books (either with a photocopier or digitally)? I think it is okay, and it's definitely in the best interest of society. After that it's just a slippery slope towards a very free interpretation of "fair use", regarding music, art and so on. As for D, society punishes people harshly mostly for being unstrategic. After all, they should just do a "We fked up!" post regardless of their beliefs, because it's obviously the strategic thing to do. They didn't do that right away, so they are effectively punished for their poor strategy, not for their moral judgement. Even a transparently disingenuous apology is (erroneously) judged (by the public) as an apology of sorts, even though it only means that the company in question did a cost-benefit analysis. Effectively we're browbeating companies into giving the sort of apology we want to see, regardless of what they believe they did was wrong. That's sort of messed up, when you think about it.

eropple 15y ago

You don't think hotlinking images and CSS is stealing bandwidth?

vacri 15y ago
I'm sure all those 300-byte images have the 37signals servers at melting point. I don't think this is the horse you want to ride.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  I'll take that pony ride. Someone who's happy to steal from someone else just because that person is richer than them and they're only stealing little things still, IMO, lacks morally. With proviso's which aren't I don't think pertinent to this current situation (eg immediate life-preservation). Your argument is basically the shoplifter's manifesto - the store is rich, I only took some of their stuff, it's barely a drop compared to their profits, etc..
  - vacri 15y ago
    No, my argument is that of all the things wrong with this situation, stealing 300-byte bandwidth is so far down the list it's unimportant. That's what I meant by this is not the horse - there are far better horses to ride in this race. It's nice of you to tell me what my argument is, but you have it utterly wrong.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      >nice of you to tell me what my argument is How you've reiterated it here appears to match my interpretation of what you said. So perhaps you can say what your argument actually is - FWIW my comment had several upvotes so it doesn't appear to be just me being a dullard. >stealing 300-byte bandwidth is so far down the list it's unimportant So you're saying this is nothing like the argument 'stealing a snickers from Walmart is such a small amount, it's not important'?
      - dustyleary 15y ago
        No, he's saying that when a guy walks out of Walmart with a pallet full of flatscreen TVs, nobody cares about the snickers bar he also grabbed on the way out, and talking about the snickers bar is a waste of time.
      - vacri 15y ago
        So you're saying this is nothing like the argument 'stealing a snickers from Walmart is such a small amount, it's not important'? Will you stop trying to paint me as only talking about one issue? That's where you get my argument utterly wrong. It's akin to saying "Mao Zedong's China was bad because the dog-catchers weren't licensed properly". Like it or not, the legal system regularly drops small, less important charges when bigger ones are present. The murderer who exceeding the speed limit trying to escape from police doesn't get a speeding ticket. That doesn't mean that speeding tickets themselves are unimportant or never get pursued.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        We're discussing this issue which you raised. It's fallacious to consider that one is only concerned with a single facet of a situation because that is all that is being addressed. Others have addressed the other points in the thread. So, going back to my initial comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3523870 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3523870) you're saying that it's wrong of me to characterize your argument this way because I've failed to mention that it's a corrupt tycoon that is shoplifting. Because they've also committed greater crimes we have to ignore the shoplifting? Or to recapitulate you'd nab a shoplifter but only if they'd not done something worse as well? Got to say I still don't follow the reasoning and still consider image hotlinking to be bad; and that, for a company, it indicates some sort of corruption.
jasonlotito 15y ago
Technically, no. They are linking to an image on another server. It's akin to me linking to someones article. In one case, the visitors browser automatically fetches the image. In the other, the visitors browser fetches it at the users request. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending the action. But no, it's not stealing. Defining it as such is just as wrong as defining copyright infringement as stealing.

veyron 15y ago

It's only vague inasfar as the words themselves are vague. "COPYING" is abused. RIAA and other organizations have really tried to grossly expand the definition and that has tainted the discussion. For the next paragraph, "COPYING" means literally using the same assets (or a digital replication). The line is drawn at "literally copying assets". Putting up your own assets that are inspired by another site isn't copying. Putting up another company's assets (or downloading and self-hosting other company assets) crosses the line.

jaekwon 15y ago
I don't think you can define "copying" clearly for this purpose. Is it still copying if a person is wedged in the replication loop? I think you're going to try to divide my hypothetical into two scenarios, and it's not going to be clear cut what the distinction is.

gizmo 15y ago

They're not in increasing badness. I don't think copying other people's work (a) is particularly wrong, unless you do so for profit (c). Otherwise it falls under the banner of "fair use". Taking credit for other people's work (b), even in a not-for-profit context is something I consider wrong. In combination with (c) only more-so. I think (d) is also a real issue, because it signals a certain sense of oblivious righteousness. It's an attitude that, regardless of the specifics of the situation, I consider really harmful. When people criticize one's actions -- whatever the reason may be -- you got to take a step back and reflect for a moment. Try to understand the other point of view. Failing to do so is, I think, a moral failure.

jasonlotito 15y ago
Thanks for the answer. I didn't mean to imply they had increasing badness, it just happened to work out that way. I find it interesting that copying others people's work is okay with you as long as you credit them and don't do so for profit. I'm guessing it's mainly a "You know it when you see it"-porn kind of thing. I agree with your point on D, especially as it relates to this. I think the community would be somewhat more forgiving if they'd just come right out and said "We fked up!" 37Signals did this a couple weeks ago with the cat.jpg incident.
- gizmo 15y ago
  > I didn't mean to imply they had increasing badness, it just happened to work out that way. Ahh, ok. My bad. My moral intuition with regard to copyright probably isn't entirely consistent. For instance, if a poor kid wants to learn but the parents can't afford books, is it OK for him to pirate those books (either with a photocopier or digitally)? I think it is okay, and it's definitely in the best interest of society. After that it's just a slippery slope towards a very free interpretation of "fair use", regarding music, art and so on. As for D, society punishes people harshly mostly for being unstrategic. After all, they should just do a "We fked up!" post regardless of their beliefs, because it's obviously the strategic thing to do. They didn't do that right away, so they are effectively punished for their poor strategy, not for their moral judgement. Even a transparently disingenuous apology is (erroneously) judged (by the public) as an apology of sorts, even though it only means that the company in question did a cost-benefit analysis. Effectively we're browbeating companies into giving the sort of apology we want to see, regardless of what they believe they did was wrong. That's sort of messed up, when you think about it.