3 ms·

>(Where 'steal' is strictly shorthand for copyright infringement, but that's a pretty meaningless semantic difference outside of a courtroom.) // It's not at a

>(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.

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.