23 ms·
It's not stealing. It's communication. You can't "steal" ideas, information or facts. To steal means to physically take someone's property without their consent
by stcg 3y ago
It's not stealing. It's communication. You can't "steal" ideas, information or facts. To steal means to physically take someone's property without their consent.
- swinglock 3y agoFalse. When someone without your permission copies your source code, plans or inventions, which are not physical things, is this not theft? What about the non physical bits and bytes in your Dropbox or bank account? That's just like, an exchange of information, man. Why must the "physical" qualifier be there?
- spellbaker 3y ago[flagged]
- dguest 3y agoCorrect! The parent post here isn't really productive, I also have some misgivings on this school of internet debate where a disagreement needs to start with any of: - False. - Incorrect. - Nope. Is it just me or is this needlessly smug? Again, the parent isn't productive, but a terse "You are wrong." in the grandparent isn't really a good way to start a productive conversation either.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- swinglock 3y agoI can agree with that, though when something is patently false, I don't think it's wrong to point this out clearly. A misinformed reader could miss the nuance and mistake facts for options, which in this case could land someone in jail. As for smugness and the format of posts, you sure don't live as you preach.
- j4yav 3y agoIt just makes me think the person saying it is Dwight Schrute or equivalent.
- bloqs 3y agoPlease try to be more substantitive and helpful in replies, it helps maintain the quality of the community.
- Nursie 3y agoOne does not merely copy the numbers in a bank account when committing theft. The key part is depriving the original owner of the use of the item. Whether you think piracy is right or wrong, there is a crucial difference between traditionally understood stealing or theft, in that the original owner no longer has the thing. With copyright infringement that’s not the case.
- photonerd 3y ago> The key part is depriving the original owner of the use of the item. I know that’s been a tribal shibboleth of piracy since the 2000s, and I’m sympathetic to the moral argument to this view… but it’s just factually untrue (both in terminology AND in law)
- Nursie 3y agoIt’s not though, in law, as they are different crimes. And that’s where copyright infringement even is a crime rather than a civil matter as it is in many places.
- swinglock 3y agoI didn't comment on piracy. As for piracy, of course it's wrong, though far less serious than what I responded to. > depriving the original owner of the use of the item When someone invests to make a film, do you think the use of the resulting film to the owner is to watch it or sell it? To break it down, did someone invest millions to make millions, or did someone pay millions to watch one movie? You know the answer and thus we know that stealing a copy without paying does does in fact deprive the original owner of the use of the item, which was always to sell copies of it, that's the reason and criteria for its existence. At small scale though the industry still makes do, so it's less serious than stealing for example, a company (e.g. their information). Every act of piracy also wasn't technically a stolen sale, because not everyone stealing would ever have bought it if stealing wasn't an option.
- Nursie 3y agoCopying something does not remove the thing from the original owner, hence these are different acts. Referring to such things as theft or stealing is lazy and incorrect, regardless of relative severity. The fact you use the term “stealing” in your justification of the act being “stealing” kinda points to your own circular reasoning there, rather than a good defence. We can agree it’s wrong without polluting the semantic space. Otherwise we may as well just call everything “murder” or “terrorism” and be done with it.
- photonerd 3y agoIncorrect. You’re using one of the intransitive definitions but general speaking it’s the transitive forms that apply to digital content, ideas, information, etc. 1. to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully 2. to take away by force or unjust means 3. to take surreptitiously or without permission You may not want stealing to mean that… but that’s irrelevant to reality.
- stcg 3y agoAlso in these transitive definitions, stealing is about taking. And in the case of piracy (communicating information to others without permission of the original source), nothing is taken. The person that came up with the idea still has it. The photographer still has the picture. The programmer still has the program. It's just about what another person may do with it, the one receiving the picture. May they also send it to someone else? We could have different ideas about that, but calling it "stealing" is inaccurate.
- photonerd 3y agoTaking can simply mean “to gain or acquire”. So, once again, incorrect. Sorry. I’m sympathetic to the moral argument you’re making—though when the raw goods are digital too I think it’s an impractical & ill conceived one—but both legally AND linguistically… it’s incorrect
- stcg 3y agoLet's say Alice took a photograph and sends a copy of it to Bob. Are you then saying that when Bob sends another copy to Charlie, Bob is taking something? What is Bob taking?
- photonerd 3y agoCharlie certainly was (he took a copy from Bob). Bob is the distributor in this context however. In most Berne convention states he broke copyright law (technically, but nothing would happen) Together Bob & Charlie gained or acquired a picture produced by Alice’s work effort that was unauthorized. That’s stealing. Is it a big deal? Probably not. Still stealing.
- sk11001 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property I don't even know what my personal stance on piracy is but the subject is clearly more complex than saying that theft applies only to physical objects.
- tkfu 3y agoYes, but people are allowed to express a strong opinion on a complex subject without also specifically mentioning all the caveats and possible counter-arguments to their position. By all means argue back and add the nuance you think is missing, but it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to just say "ah, but it's more complicated than that".
- Trombone12 3y agoUh, surely "I know it is more complicated but I will not mention that" is the lazy stance?
- ryandrake 3y agoPosting to HN is not like writing a finalized spec or publishing an academic paper. It’s ok to ignore complicated edge cases and speak in generalities. Nobody expects commenters to 100% cover every issue with every post.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sebastien_b 3y ago[dead]
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoYou’re like 12 similes deep at this point. Please just call things what they are.
- 3y ago
- kybernetikos 3y ago“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” ― Thomas Jefferson
- rusk 3y agoBut why giveth when you can chargeth
- gentleman11 3y agoJefferson wasn’t scrambling to pay his mortgage with those ideas. See also: Amazon and open source, why should Amazon be the only one able to make a profit? If the ideas have no value, then all that matters financially is manufacturing and infrastructure
- account42 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_occupations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_occupations Should we protect all of those too, at great cost to the rest of society?
- Angostura 3y agoAnd that’s why it is impossible to make a living from anything that isn’t embodied as a physical item, right?
- hug 3y agoOf course you can and should be entitled to make a living. You can do so IP free, even in creative fields. You can’t make a billion dollars, IP free, and that’s okay with me.
- seanp2k2 3y agoI mean, why do you think we really got away from the idea of tying currency to something physical? Money and property are just ideas that enough people agree about to matter. If you don’t agree, too bad and good luck convincing all the others that you’re right, especially with all the resources and power that the winners under this system have gained under it.
- scotty79 3y ago> I mean, why do you think we really got away from the idea of tying currency to something physical? Because US ran out of physical money to pay its debts but wanted to keep the business as usual and the world just let them?
- rzzzt 3y agoIn the case of cars (the go-to object for all analogies) the bad guy is charged with "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle". That's not stealing either.
- rezonant 3y agoWell actually that would be grand theft auto at least in the US. ...And unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as a second count.
- benj111 3y agoDepends on the jurisdiction. In the UK you can be charged with theft. For joyriding and dumping they created the crime of twoccing (taking without owners consent). A 'twoker' is also a derogatory term for a certain class of person
- kthejoker2 3y agoSurely you can steal a car without using it?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tim333 3y agoThis is obviously a bit about the definition of words but I've only really heard it called stealing in the US where I think the narrative is pushed by corporate interests. In the UK where I live the offence is generally called copyright infringement because under UK law that's what it is.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoYou're correct that it's called copyright infringement, but it's not strictly an offence - it's a tort. Copyright holders can in certain circumstances sue for damages, but you cannot be prosecuted by the crown. Making an illegitimate copy for profit or in order to harm the copyright holder, though, is a criminal offence (see section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988[1]). [1]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107
- bregma 3y agoInformation wants to be free.
- eatrocs 3y agoinformation wants to be wrong!!! - sam & max
- gentleman11 3y agoWhat about information about your medical records?
- scotty79 3y agoAll information. You might not want some information to be free but all the information wants to be free.
- Barrin92 3y agoOf course you can steal information, there's no reason why the notion of theft ought to be limited to physical goods, we're not living in the stone age. 90% of what we do and own exists in digital form. We can take possession of it, protect it, lock it away, attribute ownership to it as much as we can do to any physical property. If you disagree I'd appreciate if you could tell us your credit card information. People just try to rationalize their behavior and play silly word games because they're attempting to avoid the simple fact that piracy is robbing other people of their labour. Kant gave us a good principle, universalizability. If everyone pirated, creators would not get compensated, therefore they could not sustain themselves and it would be obvious that the value of their work is being stolen. Evidently, pirates are free-riders and their theft just isn't evident because enough people usually compensate for it.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> piracy is robbing other people of their labour. That's a coherent position, but it is also perfectly reasonable to argue that it's not because you have a copy and have not removed the original. Edit: Note that this doesn't inherently make piracy okay, since it may deprive the owner of revenue or other benefits; there's a difference between objecting to piracy and saying that it's exactly theft.
- newt_slowly 3y agoIf everyone pirated, the only people who would create content would be people doing it purely for the sake of art or their own enjoyment, far more people would be personally involved in creating art (in music for example, there would be far more people going to see local performances if there were less music produced as mass media due to loss of profitability), mass media would be reduced and more art would be local (and still physical), increasing the richness and diversity of the media landscape. In my opinion, that would be a far superior world to the one we live in.
- lobf 3y agoHow would you create Titanic locally? Who would invest the massive amount of money required to make a film, especially one like that, without expecting a return?
- tzs 3y ago> To steal means to physically take someone's property without their consent That's one meaning. As with many English words that one has several. Here are several examples of how "steal" is used in English for things that involve other than taking physical taking of property: • Someone says they do not like cats and have no interest in having one as a pet. A cute stray kitten shows up on their doorstep, they take pity and feed it. They fall in love with it and keep it. They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart. • An actor playing a minor role in a play gives a performance that outshines the performance of the stars. Many would say that the actor "stole" the show. • An employee of a rival company poses as a janitor to gain access to your lab and takes a photo of a whiteboard containing the formula for a chemical that is a trade secret in your manufacturing process. It would be common to say that the rival company "stole" your secret formula. • When crackers gain access to a company's list of customer email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers, it is commonly said that the data was "stolen". • Alice is Bob's fiancé. Mallory woos Alice without Bob's knowledge. Alice elopes with Mallory. Most would find it acceptable if Bob said that Mallory "stole" his fiancé. • A team that has been behind since the start of the game but wins on a last second improbable play is often said to have "stolen" the game.
- sdiupIGPWEfh 3y agoSubstituting one meaning of "steal" or "theft" for another meaning and saying they're the same thing sure sounds like equivocation.
- neycoda 3y ago"Stealing" has been used as a common word for "copying without permission" in the digital age. To try to play word games by trying to walk back the definition of stealing to mean only "taking someone's physical property" is completely pointless and futile unless you're just trying to feel OK with yourself copying without permission. If I produce and distribute content like music or videos, it's fair for me to want people that want to rent or own it to pay for it. I put a lot of time and effort into it, I have to manage and market it, maybe store it, and I want to make a living at it. If people are stealing it, ahem, copying without permission, it undercuts my living. I have a right to earning from my work, and you don't have a right to just download it or copy it or distribute it to others without me getting paid for it. It's literally preventing earnings for me that would otherwise happen if you didn't copy it without permission (ahem, stealing).
- Sakos 3y agoWhen the people who sell it to us are free to revoke access at any time, then there's no walking back being done by us. We're just recognizing that the accepted state of things was reneged on by one party and they can't insist on being in the right when we decide we're not obligated to follow their arbitrary rules anymore.
- partitioned 3y agoYeah but if you sell them something and they click “buy” or “purchase” and not “rent” and then you revoke the license years later you’re the thief, not the person downloading what they purchased on utorrent.
- jonhohle 3y agoI’m increasingly convinced that the right of first sale must extend to copyrighted work licenses to individuals to rebalance the benefit to society. Movies, video games, and music are all “sold” primarily in a way that prevents them from being shared, lent, or transferred to others. Books are probably the only medium left that is still primarily physical (71% in 2022).
- vehemenz 3y ago
- dahart 3y agoThat’s incorrect. One absolutely can steal ideas, it’s even used explicitly in the definition of multiple dictionaries: “to claim credit for another’s idea” [1]; “to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment” [2]. The word steal has many definitions that don’t involve taking physical property, e.g., stealing elections, stealing liberty, stealing base, stealing a kiss, making fraudulent deals, etc., etc.. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal [2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal https://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal
- trinsic2 3y agoIt may be used in that context in our society, but you can't deprive someone of an idea or a expression of any idea. The root of Stealing is to deprive: deny (a person or place) the possession or use of something.
- dahart 3y ago> The root of Stealing is to deprive Says who? Where did you get that definition? Your claim isn’t very well supported by either of the two dictionaries that I linked to, nor any searches on the etymology of steal that I can find. A valid definition is a valid definition. Common usage is common usage. It may be common to refer to something physical that is deprived, but it’s also extremely common and also completely correct to refer to things stolen that do not deprive. You can, in fact, steal ideas, according to the definition of the word steal. > It may be used in that context in our society Yes, and that makes it de-facto correct usage! Discussion of idea stealing has been commonplace in business, and academics, and literature, and among children, and …. You can find a never-ending supply of references to stolen ideas online and in print. It seems especially ironic for people on a startup forum to argue that ideas can’t be stolen when it happens and gets referred to regularly.
- trinsic2 3y agoFor me, the etymology of words have more importance because they have a strong connection to the truth of what it is we are trying to convey. Synonyms are a sort of half-truths, constructs we have to use to get by in the world, but IMHO don't correctly resemble the real meaning of what we are talking about. I did some searching online and I couldn't find an good root example of stealing, it seems related to stealth which I don't think correctly explains the subject we are discussing. I think what we are both talking about is theft. When I looked up the etymology of theft I found it related to fraud, "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive". and it goes on, "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" the word also seems related to defraud, which could be where you are going with this, "deprive of right, by deception or breech of trust or withholding," To clarify, I think you CAN deprive someone of an expression of an idea. I incorrectly lumped it into the idea part. Having an idea (and communicating it to the world) vs having an expression of an idea, for me are two different things. I don't believe there is any good that can come out of protecting ideas from loss or theft, so I don't put too much stock in the idea of IP law. The expression of an idea is another matter. but I err on the side of "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose". For me this is really about protecting the common good. There has to be a balance between the dissemination of creativity vs getting compensated for a work. Right now, copyright, if that is what we are talking about, is way out of balance. Copyrights are mostly owned and wielded harmfully by corporations. When corporations use copyright, to stop, or take away purchased products, or prevent individuals from sharing in the spirit of sharing, that's where I draw the line. When copyright is used in this way, it deprives the public of some common good. I don't think copyright was ever meant to do that. So respectfully, I disagree with you on this topic, the way contracts and copyrights are being used is harming our society.
- nox100 3y agowhat word would you use if you hired a lawyer or accountant to do some paperwork and when they finished you just copied the documents and then didn't pay them because "it's not stealing, it's just communication"?
- seanp2k2 3y agoMetallica made sure that argument doesn’t hold water in court back when they were suing all their fans for downloading their music on Napster. To this day I remind everyone who will listen why I refuse to listen to them ever again whenever their name comes up.
- Sai_ 3y agoYeah, I can’t believe Metallica recovered from that. In my mind, they’re up there with Volkswagen - their brand has a stigma attached to it.
- nebula8804 3y agoBut VW sold the second highest amount of cars in the entire world last year. Clearly a lot of people do not care.
- type0 3y agothey are greedy hateful bunch, I'm always wary of their fans flashing with Metallica t-shirts and expect them to be the same greedy hateful bunch as well