5 ms·

Weird. The most common refrain here about copyright violations is that it isn't theft since nothing has been taken from you and you don't have any less than yo

Weird. The most common refrain here about copyright violations is that it isn't theft since nothing has been taken from you and you don't have any less than you did before. Does that only apply to content creators outside this community?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lazerwalker 14y ago
It's impossible to speak authoritatively for a large community with widely differing opinions, but it appears to me that for a lot of people, the distinction of whether or not a copyright violation is immoral or not is dependent on whether the instigator is actively profiting from the violation. If you download Game of Thrones to watch on your laptop, there is a long and circuitous argument we can have about exactly how much you're harming HBO, but it's pretty clear that the only thing you're gaining is the ability to consume the TV show you've pirated. If your business's web site is based on someone else's code without proper licensing, and that design is presumably a factor in customers choosing to patronize you, you now have a tangible financial gain that is owed (at least in part) to a copyright violation. It's a flawed analogy, but this is less like downloading an episode of Game of Thrones and more like selling bootleg DVDs of the show.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  PirateBay has advertising, and thus a tangible financial gain based on copyright violation. Are they to be condemned?
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    These arguments have been repeated endlessly for years. Instead of rehashing them yet again on this thread, why not read all the points one can possibly raise by searching the HN, Ars Technica, Reddit, Slashdot, Torrent Freak, Usenet, etc. archives?
MartinCron 14y ago
Copying and pasting a CSS file is much worse than torrenting television shows. Can't you see the obvious difference? Years ago, I met with a potential client who was really upset that a competitor had hacked them and "stolen" all of their image assets and that's why they hadn't launched their site yet. After pressing on, they told me that the files were stolen, and were therefore gone from their server. I decided to pass on that project. In retrospect, I probably should have offered my services to "steal" them back.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Bare with me on this one. I think in that situation your design can be effectively stolen - if you can no longer use it, because someone else in your field is using it and your own use would look like plagiarism. They have it and, crucially, you can no longer use it with commercial effect.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    You can "effectively" steal a design without the copyright infringing copy/paste. Example: the last-generation Kia Optima that looked just like the Mercedes E series. Legal, but trashy.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      I think your example only works if Mercedes created the design and Kia came out with it first. Kia probably wouldn't be bothered with Mercedes copying them. Also it has to be a copy, not a close similarity.
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        To follow the car analogy, an exact copy would include the 3-point star logo, which would take you into the realm of counterfeiting which is illegal in an entirely different way.
marknutter 14y ago
That analogy would only make sense if you torrented a film and then turned around and sold it to somebody else.
mikeash 14y ago
Here we go again! This community almost universally finds copyright infringement to be fine, but plagiarism to be not-fine. There is nothing inconsistent in this position and, while you don't have to agree with it, it's an entirely reasonable opinion to hold. In other words, if you redistribute stuff without permission, it's generally not that heinous, but if you take credit for it too, you'll get severe looks of disapproval.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 14y ago
  > This community almost universally finds copyright infringement to be fine, but plagiarism to be not-fine. What about software? I can't think of any example, for instance, where this community reacted to a story of a GPL violation by almost universally saying it is fine.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    The GPL enforces anti-plagiarism via copyright.
  - tikhonj 14y ago
    The fact that the GPL uses copyright law is just an implementation detail. In practice, it really turns copyright on itself. In general, when somebody infringes on a normal copyright, they are making some work more accessible. When somebody breaks the GPL, they are making some work less accessible, because all the GPL does is ensure that anyone can practically and legally modify and redistribute the software in question. If we imagine a copyright spectrum where the default copyright is x and public domain is 0, then the GPL is -x. So opposing copyright in general but supporting the GPL is actually an entirely consistent and rational position.
- richardw 14y ago
  1) There are many references to the word "copyright" on this page (so it's not all about plagiarism), and the comments certainly don't hint that it's seen as "universally" fine. The post on attrition.org complains about "profiting off the plagiarism and copyright violations." [1] 2) Even if it were, I'm sure film-industry workers have a very different consensus. Therefore, most people are just talking their book. Web graphics and css are terribly precious, but we'll militantly defend megaupload.com, who profited hugely from enabling copyright infringement, because we want nice things. It's only simple when it suits us to think it is. [1] http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/thehackernews/ http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/thehackernews/
Goladus 14y ago
If you read carefully, you'll find that there hasn't been a claim of copyright violation. The accusation is "ripping us off", and it is made in front of the audience that both sites appear to serve.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  The accusation is "stole". It's right there in the title. In what way do they have less than they did before?
  - Goladus 14y ago
    They have not made a formal claim of copyright violation, they have not involved lawyers, they have not sent a cease and desist (to my knowledge). They did use the word "stole" but they used it in a casual, non-legal sense and followed up with an explanation of exactly what they mean. It's completely different from a sustained propaganda campaign that explicitly tries to equate the crime of theft with copyright violation, which is what the MPAA and RIAA did. Censuring them for using the word "steal" in this case is just nitpicking. That's why no one's doing it. It has nothing to do with "only applying to creators outside the community"
tptacek 14y ago
Yes.
- Goladus 14y ago
  Don't be ridiculous. It applies where the word "steal" is deliberately abused and it was not in this case.
roguecoder 14y ago
It isn't theft in the US. Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) Besides, wasn't someone complaining about how no one ever actually practices code reuse a few articles back? ;-)
redthrowaway 14y ago
1) I copy what you have for my own private use. 2) I copy what you have, claim it as my own, and make money off it. These scenarios are not synonymous.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rickmb 14y ago
  And neither of them are theft. Calling it "stealing" is political propaganda as part of an agenda aimed at poisoning any constructive debate about the future of copyright in the information age. Language matters, especially in this context, where people go to jail for doing no harm whatsoever.
  - seabee 14y ago
    Especially since a a term already exists - plagiarism - which is sufficient and forceful enough.
unconed 14y ago
The main difference would be that that logic is generally applied to products which confer the consumer with no external benefits. On the other hand, using someone else's copyrighted material and passing it off as your own, using it as the public face of a venture, that's deriving massive benefits from its use.
losvedir 14y ago
If someone copied my sites' designs, I don't think I would be too bothered as long as I wasn't materially harmed. I can think of two possible ways I might be, though, that don't really apply to, say, torrenting movies: 1) Since the two sites would look the same, I could be mistaken for the copycat. 2) My users who go to both sites could be confused, possibly thinking they're related. Those are two differences I can think of, though I don't particularly support torrenting, either.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

lazerwalker 14y ago

It's impossible to speak authoritatively for a large community with widely differing opinions, but it appears to me that for a lot of people, the distinction of whether or not a copyright violation is immoral or not is dependent on whether the instigator is actively profiting from the violation. If you download Game of Thrones to watch on your laptop, there is a long and circuitous argument we can have about exactly how much you're harming HBO, but it's pretty clear that the only thing you're gaining is the ability to consume the TV show you've pirated. If your business's web site is based on someone else's code without proper licensing, and that design is presumably a factor in customers choosing to patronize you, you now have a tangible financial gain that is owed (at least in part) to a copyright violation. It's a flawed analogy, but this is less like downloading an episode of Game of Thrones and more like selling bootleg DVDs of the show.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
PirateBay has advertising, and thus a tangible financial gain based on copyright violation. Are they to be condemned?
- nitrogen 14y ago
  These arguments have been repeated endlessly for years. Instead of rehashing them yet again on this thread, why not read all the points one can possibly raise by searching the HN, Ars Technica, Reddit, Slashdot, Torrent Freak, Usenet, etc. archives?

MartinCron 14y ago

Copying and pasting a CSS file is much worse than torrenting television shows. Can't you see the obvious difference? Years ago, I met with a potential client who was really upset that a competitor had hacked them and "stolen" all of their image assets and that's why they hadn't launched their site yet. After pressing on, they told me that the files were stolen, and were therefore gone from their server. I decided to pass on that project. In retrospect, I probably should have offered my services to "steal" them back.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Bare with me on this one. I think in that situation your design can be effectively stolen - if you can no longer use it, because someone else in your field is using it and your own use would look like plagiarism. They have it and, crucially, you can no longer use it with commercial effect.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  You can "effectively" steal a design without the copyright infringing copy/paste. Example: the last-generation Kia Optima that looked just like the Mercedes E series. Legal, but trashy.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    I think your example only works if Mercedes created the design and Kia came out with it first. Kia probably wouldn't be bothered with Mercedes copying them. Also it has to be a copy, not a close similarity.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      To follow the car analogy, an exact copy would include the 3-point star logo, which would take you into the realm of counterfeiting which is illegal in an entirely different way.

marknutter 14y ago

That analogy would only make sense if you torrented a film and then turned around and sold it to somebody else.

mikeash 14y ago

Here we go again! This community almost universally finds copyright infringement to be fine, but plagiarism to be not-fine. There is nothing inconsistent in this position and, while you don't have to agree with it, it's an entirely reasonable opinion to hold. In other words, if you redistribute stuff without permission, it's generally not that heinous, but if you take credit for it too, you'll get severe looks of disapproval.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tzs 14y ago
> This community almost universally finds copyright infringement to be fine, but plagiarism to be not-fine. What about software? I can't think of any example, for instance, where this community reacted to a story of a GPL violation by almost universally saying it is fine.
- regularfry 14y ago
  The GPL enforces anti-plagiarism via copyright.
- tikhonj 14y ago
  The fact that the GPL uses copyright law is just an implementation detail. In practice, it really turns copyright on itself. In general, when somebody infringes on a normal copyright, they are making some work more accessible. When somebody breaks the GPL, they are making some work less accessible, because all the GPL does is ensure that anyone can practically and legally modify and redistribute the software in question. If we imagine a copyright spectrum where the default copyright is x and public domain is 0, then the GPL is -x. So opposing copyright in general but supporting the GPL is actually an entirely consistent and rational position.
richardw 14y ago
1) There are many references to the word "copyright" on this page (so it's not all about plagiarism), and the comments certainly don't hint that it's seen as "universally" fine. The post on attrition.org complains about "profiting off the plagiarism and copyright violations." [1] 2) Even if it were, I'm sure film-industry workers have a very different consensus. Therefore, most people are just talking their book. Web graphics and css are terribly precious, but we'll militantly defend megaupload.com, who profited hugely from enabling copyright infringement, because we want nice things. It's only simple when it suits us to think it is. [1] http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/thehackernews/ http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/thehackernews/

Goladus 14y ago

If you read carefully, you'll find that there hasn't been a claim of copyright violation. The accusation is "ripping us off", and it is made in front of the audience that both sites appear to serve.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
The accusation is "stole". It's right there in the title. In what way do they have less than they did before?
- Goladus 14y ago
  They have not made a formal claim of copyright violation, they have not involved lawyers, they have not sent a cease and desist (to my knowledge). They did use the word "stole" but they used it in a casual, non-legal sense and followed up with an explanation of exactly what they mean. It's completely different from a sustained propaganda campaign that explicitly tries to equate the crime of theft with copyright violation, which is what the MPAA and RIAA did. Censuring them for using the word "steal" in this case is just nitpicking. That's why no one's doing it. It has nothing to do with "only applying to creators outside the community"

tptacek 14y ago

Yes.

Goladus 14y ago
Don't be ridiculous. It applies where the word "steal" is deliberately abused and it was not in this case.

roguecoder 14y ago

It isn't theft in the US. Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) Besides, wasn't someone complaining about how no one ever actually practices code reuse a few articles back? ;-)

redthrowaway 14y ago

1) I copy what you have for my own private use. 2) I copy what you have, claim it as my own, and make money off it. These scenarios are not synonymous.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rickmb 14y ago
And neither of them are theft. Calling it "stealing" is political propaganda as part of an agenda aimed at poisoning any constructive debate about the future of copyright in the information age. Language matters, especially in this context, where people go to jail for doing no harm whatsoever.
- seabee 14y ago
  Especially since a a term already exists - plagiarism - which is sufficient and forceful enough.

unconed 14y ago

The main difference would be that that logic is generally applied to products which confer the consumer with no external benefits. On the other hand, using someone else's copyrighted material and passing it off as your own, using it as the public face of a venture, that's deriving massive benefits from its use.

losvedir 14y ago

If someone copied my sites' designs, I don't think I would be too bothered as long as I wasn't materially harmed. I can think of two possible ways I might be, though, that don't really apply to, say, torrenting movies: 1) Since the two sites would look the same, I could be mistaken for the copycat. 2) My users who go to both sites could be confused, possibly thinking they're related. Those are two differences I can think of, though I don't particularly support torrenting, either.