12 ms·

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 i

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

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.