4 ms·

It doesn't matter how many times you can sell the same item. If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they wan

It doesn't matter how many times you can sell the same item. If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it. In terms of "when" it's stolen re downloading vs watching, I would say when you download it personally as you now have access to the content without paying.

RiverCrochet 3y ago
> If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it. Not quite. It's not stealing unless they are deprived of the original item (this is not to be confused with the money they think it is worth if they sell it or "sell" it). What is happening is copying, not stealing.
- ESTheComposer 3y ago
  You are depriving them of revenue, it is stealing.
  - RiverCrochet 3y ago
    I have $1000. Currently, I am not giving it to you, and am therefore actively depriving you of this money. Is this stealing?
    - ESTheComposer 3y ago
      You're using a false analogy. You're trying to make a parallel between not paying for an item/produced good and simply not giving someone money in an attempt to downplay not paying for created material.
      - RiverCrochet 3y ago
        Both of these have a common element: A: "Not giving someone money for an item/produced good" B: "Not giving someone money" B can apply to a near infinite number of cases. A is one case that is "within" B. So... the root meaning is the same. If you call A stealing, you have to call B stealing, but that's ridiculous because, for example, each day, I literally don't give money to the entire world. According to your logic I would owe the whole world population the value of every item/produced good.
  - angoragoats 3y ago
    It’s not though: * It’s definitely not stealing in the legal sense of the term, which requires a party to be deprived of physical property that they own. * It’s also not in the colloquial sense of the term, because if you call this stealing you’d also have apply the stealing label to blocking ads/trackers on the web, taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber, or countless other activities that could be considered “depriving someone of revenue.” In the US, we do in fact have a legal term for the crime at play here — but the term is copyright infringement, not “stealing” or “IP theft” or whatever other stupid label the content cartels want to apply to it.
    - ESTheComposer 3y ago
      > because if you call this stealing you’d also have apply the stealing label to blocking ads/trackers on the web Yes that is quite literally also depriving them of revenue, and quite possibly their only source of revenue if they're a free website/app. >taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber Yeah no, it's in the name...FREE TRIAL. It's literally given out for free. >content cartels Yes how dare companies/people want to get paid for their creative works, must be a cartel.
      - angoragoats 3y ago
        > Yes that is quite literally also depriving them of revenue, and quite possibly their only source of revenue if they're a free website/app. I think I made an error here by assuming that every reader of Hacker News would be at least somewhat pro-adblocking. So since you appear not to be, let me ask you: * Do you use any ad blocker at all? If yes, can you define precisely when ad blocking is stealing and when it is not? * If I visit a random website with ads, and I don't have an adblocker, the ads on that site may be used to track me across other sites, build a profile of me to sell to data brokers, serve me malware, bog down my system resources with audio, video, crypto-miners, and other garbage, or a myriad of other undesirable things. Would you consider any of these things to be the website (or the ad network) stealing from me? At what point, if any, does the website's right to extract revenue from me end and my right to privacy/security begin?
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    You're back at the start again though - if I wasn't going to buy it, then the vendor hasn't lost anything if I steal it. All that happens is I gain a free experience I would otherwise not have had.
    - ESTheComposer 3y ago
      Except because you now actually went out, downloaded/took it, and experienced it, it implies there was a non 0 interest in the work, therefore there is lost possible revenue since you might have eventually went and bought the work.
      - RiverCrochet 3y ago
        It's also possible I might not have bought the work. There's no sale until money changes hands. If you run a store, and a customer shows interest in a product and physically touches it is he/she stealing if she chooses not to buy it? Let's say it's perfume, and the customer samples some of the perfume, then decides not to buy it. The customer has experienced it; if the customer doesn't buy the perfume, is that stealing?
adamomada 3y ago
You are stealing... what, exactly? (It’s not stealing any thing at all)

RiverCrochet 3y ago

> If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it. Not quite. It's not stealing unless they are deprived of the original item (this is not to be confused with the money they think it is worth if they sell it or "sell" it). What is happening is copying, not stealing.

ESTheComposer 3y ago
You are depriving them of revenue, it is stealing.
- RiverCrochet 3y ago
  I have $1000. Currently, I am not giving it to you, and am therefore actively depriving you of this money. Is this stealing?
  - ESTheComposer 3y ago
    You're using a false analogy. You're trying to make a parallel between not paying for an item/produced good and simply not giving someone money in an attempt to downplay not paying for created material.
    - RiverCrochet 3y ago
      Both of these have a common element: A: "Not giving someone money for an item/produced good" B: "Not giving someone money" B can apply to a near infinite number of cases. A is one case that is "within" B. So... the root meaning is the same. If you call A stealing, you have to call B stealing, but that's ridiculous because, for example, each day, I literally don't give money to the entire world. According to your logic I would owe the whole world population the value of every item/produced good.
- angoragoats 3y ago
  It’s not though: * It’s definitely not stealing in the legal sense of the term, which requires a party to be deprived of physical property that they own. * It’s also not in the colloquial sense of the term, because if you call this stealing you’d also have apply the stealing label to blocking ads/trackers on the web, taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber, or countless other activities that could be considered “depriving someone of revenue.” In the US, we do in fact have a legal term for the crime at play here — but the term is copyright infringement, not “stealing” or “IP theft” or whatever other stupid label the content cartels want to apply to it.
  - ESTheComposer 3y ago
    > because if you call this stealing you’d also have apply the stealing label to blocking ads/trackers on the web Yes that is quite literally also depriving them of revenue, and quite possibly their only source of revenue if they're a free website/app. >taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber Yeah no, it's in the name...FREE TRIAL. It's literally given out for free. >content cartels Yes how dare companies/people want to get paid for their creative works, must be a cartel.
    - angoragoats 3y ago
      > Yes that is quite literally also depriving them of revenue, and quite possibly their only source of revenue if they're a free website/app. I think I made an error here by assuming that every reader of Hacker News would be at least somewhat pro-adblocking. So since you appear not to be, let me ask you: * Do you use any ad blocker at all? If yes, can you define precisely when ad blocking is stealing and when it is not? * If I visit a random website with ads, and I don't have an adblocker, the ads on that site may be used to track me across other sites, build a profile of me to sell to data brokers, serve me malware, bog down my system resources with audio, video, crypto-miners, and other garbage, or a myriad of other undesirable things. Would you consider any of these things to be the website (or the ad network) stealing from me? At what point, if any, does the website's right to extract revenue from me end and my right to privacy/security begin?
- danparsonson 3y ago
  You're back at the start again though - if I wasn't going to buy it, then the vendor hasn't lost anything if I steal it. All that happens is I gain a free experience I would otherwise not have had.
  - ESTheComposer 3y ago
    Except because you now actually went out, downloaded/took it, and experienced it, it implies there was a non 0 interest in the work, therefore there is lost possible revenue since you might have eventually went and bought the work.
    - RiverCrochet 3y ago
      It's also possible I might not have bought the work. There's no sale until money changes hands. If you run a store, and a customer shows interest in a product and physically touches it is he/she stealing if she chooses not to buy it? Let's say it's perfume, and the customer samples some of the perfume, then decides not to buy it. The customer has experienced it; if the customer doesn't buy the perfume, is that stealing?

adamomada 3y ago

You are stealing... what, exactly? (It’s not stealing any thing at all)