4 ms·

> If unauthorized copying is akin to preventing a potential sale then using a gym for an authorized/non paid amount of time to try the gym without paying is not

> If unauthorized copying is akin to preventing a potential sale then using a gym for an authorized/non paid amount of time to try the gym without paying is not stealing. Well using a gym for free isn’t stealing either. Although the analogy is flawed because a gym has a limited capacity so you could take up the space of legitimate customers, which you don’t do when torrenting copyrighted stuff. > Creator of the thing sets the terms. People have the ability to not buy it if they do not like the terms. But they do not have the right to alter the terms via stealing. No, creators can’t just redefine words. It’s not stealing, because you’re not taking something away from someone.

firesteelrain 2y ago
Using a gym for free is a theft of services. All states have a law like this. For example, Florida Statutes § 812.014. Pirating is theft.
- echoangle 2y ago
  I wouldn't really call theft of services "stealing", but I'm not a native speaker. Maybe that's something people say. > Pirating is theft. Do you mean copyright violations or ship piracy? I don't see how this follows, because torrenting a movie doesn't take a service from the movie right holder. They wouldn't even notice if they wouldn't actively monitor torrent users. Theft of service is a crime because it causes unpaid work for the service provider, right? That's why I said the gym analogy doesn't apply here.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    Theft of services isn't just about causing unpaid work; it involves intentionally depriving a provider of the rightful compensation for their services. Both cases are equal in principle. Theft of IP falls under a different law in the US than theft of something like gym services.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      > Theft of IP falls under a different law in the US than theft of something like gym services. Yeah, you know why? It’s not theft, it’s called copyright infringement.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        Agree, but it causes economic harm, it’s a misuse of legal rights, and breach of the IP holders agreement. Creators have a right to protect their control and revenue streams.
        LocalH 2y ago
        That's disputable by a strict reading of the original copyright law, before it was perverted by those who would vacuum up "IP" solely for the control and for potential profit. Copyright is ultimately intended "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Limited times. "75 years past the author's death" is not in any practical way limited, when none of the people who were alive during or in the years postceding the author may access what should be, at that point, their rightfully publicly owned work. Current copyright terms hinder the progress of human knowledge and creativity. It incentivizes people who get lucky and create the next huge hit, to rest on their laurels for the rest of their life, getting paid repeatedly for the same work, with no incentive to create anything new. At the same time, those who would make a transformative use of a work (that isn't otherwise a fair use) are rebuked. 14+14 is all we need. Anything else is rent-seeking. Don't even get me started on those in the world who would support perpetual copyright (not that you espoused that opinion, but many do). Fortunately, that one would require a constitutional amendment in the US to be legal. The dirtiest tactic used in the copyright push was the Berne Convention. It allows countries to throw their hands up and say "sorry, we can't do anything, we have to harmonize the copyright terms", thus making a treaty that effectively supercedes various national constitutions.
        bee_rider 2y ago
  - jjtheblunt 2y ago
    I think the idea (which is why i asked the original question) is "theft" of opportunity for income.

firesteelrain 2y ago

Using a gym for free is a theft of services. All states have a law like this. For example, Florida Statutes § 812.014. Pirating is theft.

echoangle 2y ago
I wouldn't really call theft of services "stealing", but I'm not a native speaker. Maybe that's something people say. > Pirating is theft. Do you mean copyright violations or ship piracy? I don't see how this follows, because torrenting a movie doesn't take a service from the movie right holder. They wouldn't even notice if they wouldn't actively monitor torrent users. Theft of service is a crime because it causes unpaid work for the service provider, right? That's why I said the gym analogy doesn't apply here.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Theft of services isn't just about causing unpaid work; it involves intentionally depriving a provider of the rightful compensation for their services. Both cases are equal in principle. Theft of IP falls under a different law in the US than theft of something like gym services.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    > Theft of IP falls under a different law in the US than theft of something like gym services. Yeah, you know why? It’s not theft, it’s called copyright infringement.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      Agree, but it causes economic harm, it’s a misuse of legal rights, and breach of the IP holders agreement. Creators have a right to protect their control and revenue streams.
      - LocalH 2y ago
        That's disputable by a strict reading of the original copyright law, before it was perverted by those who would vacuum up "IP" solely for the control and for potential profit. Copyright is ultimately intended "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Limited times. "75 years past the author's death" is not in any practical way limited, when none of the people who were alive during or in the years postceding the author may access what should be, at that point, their rightfully publicly owned work. Current copyright terms hinder the progress of human knowledge and creativity. It incentivizes people who get lucky and create the next huge hit, to rest on their laurels for the rest of their life, getting paid repeatedly for the same work, with no incentive to create anything new. At the same time, those who would make a transformative use of a work (that isn't otherwise a fair use) are rebuked. 14+14 is all we need. Anything else is rent-seeking. Don't even get me started on those in the world who would support perpetual copyright (not that you espoused that opinion, but many do). Fortunately, that one would require a constitutional amendment in the US to be legal. The dirtiest tactic used in the copyright push was the Berne Convention. It allows countries to throw their hands up and say "sorry, we can't do anything, we have to harmonize the copyright terms", thus making a treaty that effectively supercedes various national constitutions.
        bee_rider 2y ago
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  I think the idea (which is why i asked the original question) is "theft" of opportunity for income.