3 ms·

It is though because you 'rent' from a digital store but you 'steal' from the content owner. Someone owns the content. Just not you. An analogy would be if I r

It is though because you 'rent' from a digital store but you 'steal' from the content owner. Someone owns the content. Just not you. An analogy would be if I rent a car and someone takes it they haven't stolen from me but they have stolen from the rental company. (Where 'steal' is strictly shorthand for copyright infringement, but that's a pretty meaningless semantic difference outside of a courtroom.)

Eisenstein 3y ago
Is it a 'meaningless semantic difference'? If I told you I would give you X if you did Y for me, but after you did Y I refused to give you X, did I steal from you? What if I told a prospective client of yours a lie about your abilities and they didn't hire you; did I steal from you?
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
>(Where 'steal' is strictly shorthand for copyright infringement, but that's a pretty meaningless semantic difference outside of a courtroom.) // It's not at all meaningless. If I take a photo of your house, I copy it, then I do not deny you full enjoyment of that house. If on the other hand I steal your house, I think you would feel a little more than a semantic difference. Now, I might copy your house and build another from the same materials, which again is unlikely to feel to you like theft. There are lots of other possible scenarios of course. Suppose you're the architect of the first house, you got paid, but not you're pissed off because you think you should get paid again despite having done no more work... but then it turns out people see both houses and they want a house in that style, so they come to and give you another few months of work. Do you complain about it being "theft" now?
- onion2k 3y ago
  It's not at all meaningless. It is meaningless, because pointing out the difference doesn't move the conversation forwards in any useful way. Everyone who's discussed piracy in the last 40 years knows what 'stealing' means in a copyright context, and everyone discussing the morality of copyright theft, such as this thread, rather than the legality of copyright theft, means stealing in the sense of 'taking something without paying for it' and not 'depriving the owner of something'. While the armchair lawyers can't move on from the semantic moral (not legal, that's important) difference we won't get anywhere. If you're a supreme court judge it matters. If you're an internet poster it doesn't.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    Of course it matters, people copy memes which act is copyright infringement in the UK. If doing so was theft, then many of those people wouldn't do it because it's unethical to deny someone use of a meme that they created. Plenty of people skip adverts who wouldn't go into a shop and take a BluRay, because they recognise a Categorical difference between copyright infringement and theft. Media companies want to use brainwashing (adverts, news stories, statements from authority figures) to cause people to consider theft and copying as equivalent so that they can exploit creator's labour without themselves adding value. I'm curious what you mean by this: >armchair lawyers can't move on from the semantic moral (not legal, that's important) difference It seems like you're suggesting there's no legal difference between the tort of copyright infringement and the crime of theft. Which, given your cogency elsewhere seems unlikely. So, what?
    - onion2k 3y ago
      I'm saying there is a legal difference but there's no important moral difference. While the acts of stealing and copyright infringement are different for the victim, they're not different for the person doing committing the theft. That person gets something for nothing. I'm saying that's actually the important bit in the moral argument. The answer to the question of "Is it wrong to take something without paying for it?" shouldn't really be "That depends!"
      - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
        OK, thanks for clearing that up. Like I implied, it's different because the mens rea is different. I'll happily take a photo of the Eiffel Tower, but I wouldn't go up and steal the lights off it and display them elsewhere. Stealing is primarily about denying someone else access to/use of something. Copyright infringement does not do that, in general. In your opinion it's it always wrong to 'take without paying'? Land? Air? Food? ... Culture? Where do you draw your lines.
0ckpuppet 3y ago
I think your analogy is flawed. With piracy, you rent a car and someone makes a copy of it, and you never lose the car you rented.
- chii 3y ago
  If we're talking analogy, it'd be the loss of revenue from the 2nd car that would've been rented had the copy not been made.
franga2000 3y ago
How is "theft vs copyright infringement" just a "meaningless difference"?? Stealing takes something away from person A to benefit person B. Copyright infringement just...benefits person B - nothing is taken from person A. The better car analogy is if you steal a car from me, I no longer have a car, but if you take a detailed 3D scan or photo of my car, I still have it. Of course car analogies are terrible. A library book is better: if I borrow a book and don't give it back, nobody can borrow it again and the library needs to buy a new one (theft), but if I borrow it, make a photocopy and then return it, other people can also borrow it. The only way you can make it sound like stealing is using the "lost sale" logic, but if the sale isn't guaranteed, it's still "less" than theft, and many studies have shown that the sale to a pirate isn't even close to guaranteed.
- defrost 3y ago
  I've talked to a lot of pirates over the decades and there are very few "lost sales" - something like 80% of the file sharing population are either "never going to buy it anyway" or "I have a paid copy which I have backed up and enjoy sharing". The peak pirating years for Australia (when per capita the country dominated the file share numbers) were when digital copies of games, music, films were being marked up at 25% to 50% over the (after currency conversion) sale prices in the US and EU. After some years of unabated piracy the Australian prices dropped to match the rest of the world and piracy rates receded to just ticking over, sustained by the technical types that enjoyed the process as much if not more than the content. Copyright infringement is a pushback counter pressure against eye gouging over zealous pricing.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
The basic meaning of theft is that the thief actually deprives the owner of their property. If I steal your car then you obviously no longer have it and can't use it anymore. Copyright infringement or counterfeiting, which is related in some jurisdictions when an unauthorised copy is made, isn't stealing in law because it does not pass that test. Hence your example completely misses the point.

Eisenstein 3y ago

Is it a 'meaningless semantic difference'? If I told you I would give you X if you did Y for me, but after you did Y I refused to give you X, did I steal from you? What if I told a prospective client of yours a lie about your abilities and they didn't hire you; did I steal from you?

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

>(Where 'steal' is strictly shorthand for copyright infringement, but that's a pretty meaningless semantic difference outside of a courtroom.) // It's not at all meaningless. If I take a photo of your house, I copy it, then I do not deny you full enjoyment of that house. If on the other hand I steal your house, I think you would feel a little more than a semantic difference. Now, I might copy your house and build another from the same materials, which again is unlikely to feel to you like theft. There are lots of other possible scenarios of course. Suppose you're the architect of the first house, you got paid, but not you're pissed off because you think you should get paid again despite having done no more work... but then it turns out people see both houses and they want a house in that style, so they come to and give you another few months of work. Do you complain about it being "theft" now?

onion2k 3y ago
It's not at all meaningless. It is meaningless, because pointing out the difference doesn't move the conversation forwards in any useful way. Everyone who's discussed piracy in the last 40 years knows what 'stealing' means in a copyright context, and everyone discussing the morality of copyright theft, such as this thread, rather than the legality of copyright theft, means stealing in the sense of 'taking something without paying for it' and not 'depriving the owner of something'. While the armchair lawyers can't move on from the semantic moral (not legal, that's important) difference we won't get anywhere. If you're a supreme court judge it matters. If you're an internet poster it doesn't.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  Of course it matters, people copy memes which act is copyright infringement in the UK. If doing so was theft, then many of those people wouldn't do it because it's unethical to deny someone use of a meme that they created. Plenty of people skip adverts who wouldn't go into a shop and take a BluRay, because they recognise a Categorical difference between copyright infringement and theft. Media companies want to use brainwashing (adverts, news stories, statements from authority figures) to cause people to consider theft and copying as equivalent so that they can exploit creator's labour without themselves adding value. I'm curious what you mean by this: >armchair lawyers can't move on from the semantic moral (not legal, that's important) difference It seems like you're suggesting there's no legal difference between the tort of copyright infringement and the crime of theft. Which, given your cogency elsewhere seems unlikely. So, what?
  - onion2k 3y ago
    I'm saying there is a legal difference but there's no important moral difference. While the acts of stealing and copyright infringement are different for the victim, they're not different for the person doing committing the theft. That person gets something for nothing. I'm saying that's actually the important bit in the moral argument. The answer to the question of "Is it wrong to take something without paying for it?" shouldn't really be "That depends!"
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      OK, thanks for clearing that up. Like I implied, it's different because the mens rea is different. I'll happily take a photo of the Eiffel Tower, but I wouldn't go up and steal the lights off it and display them elsewhere. Stealing is primarily about denying someone else access to/use of something. Copyright infringement does not do that, in general. In your opinion it's it always wrong to 'take without paying'? Land? Air? Food? ... Culture? Where do you draw your lines.

0ckpuppet 3y ago

I think your analogy is flawed. With piracy, you rent a car and someone makes a copy of it, and you never lose the car you rented.

chii 3y ago
If we're talking analogy, it'd be the loss of revenue from the 2nd car that would've been rented had the copy not been made.

franga2000 3y ago

How is "theft vs copyright infringement" just a "meaningless difference"?? Stealing takes something away from person A to benefit person B. Copyright infringement just...benefits person B - nothing is taken from person A. The better car analogy is if you steal a car from me, I no longer have a car, but if you take a detailed 3D scan or photo of my car, I still have it. Of course car analogies are terrible. A library book is better: if I borrow a book and don't give it back, nobody can borrow it again and the library needs to buy a new one (theft), but if I borrow it, make a photocopy and then return it, other people can also borrow it. The only way you can make it sound like stealing is using the "lost sale" logic, but if the sale isn't guaranteed, it's still "less" than theft, and many studies have shown that the sale to a pirate isn't even close to guaranteed.

defrost 3y ago
I've talked to a lot of pirates over the decades and there are very few "lost sales" - something like 80% of the file sharing population are either "never going to buy it anyway" or "I have a paid copy which I have backed up and enjoy sharing". The peak pirating years for Australia (when per capita the country dominated the file share numbers) were when digital copies of games, music, films were being marked up at 25% to 50% over the (after currency conversion) sale prices in the US and EU. After some years of unabated piracy the Australian prices dropped to match the rest of the world and piracy rates receded to just ticking over, sustained by the technical types that enjoyed the process as much if not more than the content. Copyright infringement is a pushback counter pressure against eye gouging over zealous pricing.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

The basic meaning of theft is that the thief actually deprives the owner of their property. If I steal your car then you obviously no longer have it and can't use it anymore. Copyright infringement or counterfeiting, which is related in some jurisdictions when an unauthorised copy is made, isn't stealing in law because it does not pass that test. Hence your example completely misses the point.