5 ms·

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?
    - ESTheComposer 3y ago
      > Do you use any ad blocker at all? No With your second question: Tracking - Tracking isn't stealing, that's a privacy question. Building a Profile - I mean not stealing but also vague so not sure what's the point of trying to argue this one? Like if you keep going with this line of thinking you end up with "you looked at me funny which made me feel weird so you're stealing by stealing my joy". (Absurd example but trying to show how abstract arguments don't end up working) Then we would probably loop back to fallacy of composition. Malware - Serving malware is a criminal act and you can block it, but you're also not usually going to CNN.com and expecting them to download a crypto miner on your hardware. You are, however, expecting advertisements, hence why you're using an adblocker. Bogging down your resources/other garbage - I mean idk, case by case basis. You keep trying to paint with broad strokes but that's not how these things usually work. In my original example, it works because it's a simple transaction the artist wanted. Pay me 1$ for my art and you can view it. They created it privately with the intent of selling, and by downloading it for free, you're breaking that intent and depriving them of potential revenue.
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?

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?
  - ESTheComposer 3y ago
    > Do you use any ad blocker at all? No With your second question: Tracking - Tracking isn't stealing, that's a privacy question. Building a Profile - I mean not stealing but also vague so not sure what's the point of trying to argue this one? Like if you keep going with this line of thinking you end up with "you looked at me funny which made me feel weird so you're stealing by stealing my joy". (Absurd example but trying to show how abstract arguments don't end up working) Then we would probably loop back to fallacy of composition. Malware - Serving malware is a criminal act and you can block it, but you're also not usually going to CNN.com and expecting them to download a crypto miner on your hardware. You are, however, expecting advertisements, hence why you're using an adblocker. Bogging down your resources/other garbage - I mean idk, case by case basis. You keep trying to paint with broad strokes but that's not how these things usually work. In my original example, it works because it's a simple transaction the artist wanted. Pay me 1$ for my art and you can view it. They created it privately with the intent of selling, and by downloading it for free, you're breaking that intent and depriving them of potential revenue.

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?