4 ms·

Based on a lot of the responses here, I feel compelled to say: saying "Copying is not theft" is not the same thing as saying "People should violate copyright la

Based on a lot of the responses here, I feel compelled to say: saying "Copying is not theft" is not the same thing as saying "People should violate copyright law". I feel that "copying is not theft" is a truth that needs to be clarified because a lot of discussion around copyright and piracy tends to conflate copying and theft, which makes it natural to skew towards the point of view that the unauthorized sharing of content and ideas is an objectively immoral act, and paint the issue of piracy in terms of right and wrong, as opposed to legal vs. illegal. Whereas in my point of view, copyright law is an artificial construct that we as a society have chosen to enact, in order to support a certain model for financially compensating those who make creative works. Other societies may choose differently; copyright law is not a reflection of natural, fundamental morality regarding the sharing of ideas and creative works. In conclusion, when I personally say "copying is not theft", I'm simply saying, let's not conflate the issues, so we can have a more nuanced discussion. I'm not advocating piracy. And I would encourage others not to interpret "copying is not theft" that way.

jokethrowaway 3y ago
I have chosen nothing. I was born here and you all have some shitty laws I don't agree with. There is nothing moral in dictating the "democratic majority"'s point of views on everyone. And not only because the government is corrupt and that's what the top 0.01% wants, not the majority - but because imposing ANY kind of freedom restriction (which doesn't violate the Non Aggression Principle) is violence. I'd recommend not to violate copyright (or other illegal victimless endeavours, eg. drugs), purely to stay away from trouble: the government has an armed force and can extort you even more money - or put you in a cage.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I didn't choose to accept the NAP. It's a social construct just as much as copyright. It's certainly not a natural law, fundamental right, or immutable law of the universe.
PurpleRamen 3y ago
> that the unauthorized sharing of content and ideas is an objectively immoral act, and paint the issue of piracy in terms of right and wrong, as opposed to legal vs. illegal. Breaking the law is often considered immoral, depending on the person. > copyright law is an artificial construct Any human-made rule is artificial, any form of order in a society is artificial. Copyright laws are just on a very high level, compared to other rules. > copyright law is not a reflection of natural, fundamental morality regarding the sharing of ideas and creative works. There is nothing natural in creativity. It's all in your mind. There is also nothing natural about ownership, it's just rules that any higher society at some point considers as necessary. > In conclusion, when I personally say "copying is not theft", I'm simply saying, let's not conflate the issues, so we can have a more nuanced discussion. There is no nuanced discussion about this. Theft and stealing are legal terms. If you break the laws, they apply. If they not apply, you have not broken the law. The nuanced discussion is only about the laws themselves, whether they should exist and in which form and details. But this discussion is usually about whether people are willing to accept the foundation of society itself or not. In which case you could debate "nuanced" about any law.
- coremoff 3y ago
  > There is no nuanced discussion about this. Theft and stealing are legal terms I think you missed OP's point; those calling copyright infingement "theft" (or "stealing") are being disingeneous to try and gain support for their argument - they're conflating legal terms about ownership with the idea of copyright infringement and they are not the same as theft/stealing include the concept of depriving the owner the use of whatever it is that was stolen.
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    Copyright infringement is not an idea, it's a law. There is nothing disingenuous about this, it's the legal reality in most countries. But, to be fair, there is a nuanced discussion on the topic of whether something is copyright infringement or original work with some inspiration or quoting of another work. But I didn't get the impression this is what's talked about here?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jokethrowaway 3y ago

I have chosen nothing. I was born here and you all have some shitty laws I don't agree with. There is nothing moral in dictating the "democratic majority"'s point of views on everyone. And not only because the government is corrupt and that's what the top 0.01% wants, not the majority - but because imposing ANY kind of freedom restriction (which doesn't violate the Non Aggression Principle) is violence. I'd recommend not to violate copyright (or other illegal victimless endeavours, eg. drugs), purely to stay away from trouble: the government has an armed force and can extort you even more money - or put you in a cage.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
I didn't choose to accept the NAP. It's a social construct just as much as copyright. It's certainly not a natural law, fundamental right, or immutable law of the universe.

PurpleRamen 3y ago

> that the unauthorized sharing of content and ideas is an objectively immoral act, and paint the issue of piracy in terms of right and wrong, as opposed to legal vs. illegal. Breaking the law is often considered immoral, depending on the person. > copyright law is an artificial construct Any human-made rule is artificial, any form of order in a society is artificial. Copyright laws are just on a very high level, compared to other rules. > copyright law is not a reflection of natural, fundamental morality regarding the sharing of ideas and creative works. There is nothing natural in creativity. It's all in your mind. There is also nothing natural about ownership, it's just rules that any higher society at some point considers as necessary. > In conclusion, when I personally say "copying is not theft", I'm simply saying, let's not conflate the issues, so we can have a more nuanced discussion. There is no nuanced discussion about this. Theft and stealing are legal terms. If you break the laws, they apply. If they not apply, you have not broken the law. The nuanced discussion is only about the laws themselves, whether they should exist and in which form and details. But this discussion is usually about whether people are willing to accept the foundation of society itself or not. In which case you could debate "nuanced" about any law.

coremoff 3y ago
> There is no nuanced discussion about this. Theft and stealing are legal terms I think you missed OP's point; those calling copyright infingement "theft" (or "stealing") are being disingeneous to try and gain support for their argument - they're conflating legal terms about ownership with the idea of copyright infringement and they are not the same as theft/stealing include the concept of depriving the owner the use of whatever it is that was stolen.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  Copyright infringement is not an idea, it's a law. There is nothing disingenuous about this, it's the legal reality in most countries. But, to be fair, there is a nuanced discussion on the topic of whether something is copyright infringement or original work with some inspiration or quoting of another work. But I didn't get the impression this is what's talked about here?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]