15 ms·

Copyright infringement is not equatable to theft.

daenz 14y ago
Exactly. That's the strawman that has been put in the public's mind: that piracy is theft. Theft is the removal of ownership.
- elliottcarlson 14y ago
  Though - piracy accounts for (potential) loss of sales - so while not losing ownership, they are losing revenue.
  - daenz 14y ago
    Except losing revenue, potential and real, is not a crime.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      But copyright infringement, in certain contexts, is a crime. The "it's not theft" argument is pedantry. There are lots of ways to obtain things for free that aren't technically theft: extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc. Illegal copying is one of those ways.
      - drostie 14y ago
        Well, let's be totally clear: "obtaining things for free" is not particularly what's at issue here. What's at issue is something more like "obtaining something which is not yours to obtain." That invokes a tremendous question of what is "yours to obtain" which is not easily settled, and because we have competing intuitions on this point, Hacker News discussions can go wild between camps which take both extremes of the issue. I would guess that it's at least a strong minority view -- if not a majority view -- that record labels have abdicated their moral authority to assert transgressions of this kind. It is not unlike patent trolls, where we feel that if someone fails to capitalize on a potential market and in fact attempts (politically, legally, etc.) to hinder the growth there, that they forfeit their right to be wronged. So I think it's a shame that both sides never seem to get around to Step One, which is to say, "here's what I think the spirit of the law is, here's what I think the purpose of law as a whole is; now, do these conditions efficiently uphold those ideals?" If those questions are answered then it may not be "pedantry" -- perhaps they think that the purpose of the law is to stop theft, and theft-like deprivations of property. There may or may not be a nuanced argument here; and we won't know until people manifest their assumptions rather than burying them under knee-jerk slogans.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        No, that it is theft is pedantry. If it's more complicated than that and requires all kinds of caveats in order to equate the two, then use your words and stop taking shortcuts.
      - daenz 14y ago
        > The "it's not theft" argument is pedantry. There are lots of ways to obtain things for free that aren't technically theft: extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc. Illegal copying is one of those ways. Disagree. Even in the extortion, blackmail, and fraud cases, you're removing ownership when you obtain the thing. Copying never removes ownership, so it is not in the same class. It is not theft, and it it not pedantry to claim it is not. It's incorrect to state it is something that it is not to make it sound worse than it is.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Of the various illegal ways that I can hurt a companies profits, which would you consider theft? Libel/Slander? Trespassing? Vandalism? Disobeying zoning laws?
  - usea 14y ago
    They are (potentially) losing revenue.
    - elliottcarlson 14y ago
      Indeed - and really the "potential" keyword is really dependent on if that person would have purchased it outright if they had not been able to pirate it in the first place.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I will be sure to quote you the next time there's an article about someone stealing a startup idea or website design.
  - daenz 14y ago
    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I hope you do quote me on that...I don't believe you can steal an idea or a design either. In fact, I don't believe that anything that is not both physical and finite can be assigned ownership.
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      You must not make your money writing and selling software.
      - rwallace 14y ago
        "Software is a service industry under the persistent delusion that it is a manufacturing industry."
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - daenz 14y ago
        I do write software, professionally and for fun :) I also give some of it away "for free"! Check out my github: https://github.com/amoffat https://github.com/amoffat
        res0nat0r 14y ago
        Looks like you work for Panopta. Why are you guys charging up to $250/month for your product[1]? It should be free shouldn't it? I've decided $250 is too expensive and demand use of that tier for $3/month. I'm in the right aren't I? http://www.panopta.com/pricing/ http://www.panopta.com/pricing/
rayiner 14y ago
Copyright infringement is equivalent to theft in the context of the statement I was making: getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means. It is, of course, not equivalent to theft in other contexts (e.g. from the perspective of the person whose copyright is infringed).
- daenz 14y ago
  > getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means. You have to remove "by illegal means" from your statement, because you're claiming how copyright infringment is theft, and being illegal doesn't make it theft. It's illegal because it's claimed to be theft. So your statement becomes "getting something you would normally have to pay for for free." Is this theft? If you could get something for free that you would normally have to pay for, wouldn't most people do it? What is the compelling reason not to?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > You have to remove "by illegal means" from your statement, because you're claiming how copyright infringment is theft, and being illegal doesn't make it theft. It's illegal because it's claimed to be theft. You can't drop the "by illegal means" part from my statement, on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft, because my statement isn't predicated on it being theft, it's predicated on it being illegal behavior. Which it is, on a basis wholly distinct from theft. "Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc. The point is that it's not a very defensible position to say "give me more product at lower prices or I will subvert the law to obtain it for free."
    - daenz 14y ago
      > You can't drop the "by illegal means" part from my statement, on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft, because my statement isn't predicated on it being theft, it's predicated on it being illegal behavior. Which it is, on a basis wholly distinct from theft. But your statement was being used to show how copyright infringement was equivalent to theft. I think I understand what you're saying now though, is it that copyright infringement and theft are equivalent because they both are illegal and they both acquire something? If so, I would still have to disagree by saying that theft has the important distinction of removing original ownership. > "Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc. It also encompasses a wider range of non-theft legal means: finding deals, being resourceful, doing favors, etc.

daenz 14y ago

Exactly. That's the strawman that has been put in the public's mind: that piracy is theft. Theft is the removal of ownership.

elliottcarlson 14y ago
Though - piracy accounts for (potential) loss of sales - so while not losing ownership, they are losing revenue.
- daenz 14y ago
  Except losing revenue, potential and real, is not a crime.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    But copyright infringement, in certain contexts, is a crime. The "it's not theft" argument is pedantry. There are lots of ways to obtain things for free that aren't technically theft: extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc. Illegal copying is one of those ways.
    - drostie 14y ago
      Well, let's be totally clear: "obtaining things for free" is not particularly what's at issue here. What's at issue is something more like "obtaining something which is not yours to obtain." That invokes a tremendous question of what is "yours to obtain" which is not easily settled, and because we have competing intuitions on this point, Hacker News discussions can go wild between camps which take both extremes of the issue. I would guess that it's at least a strong minority view -- if not a majority view -- that record labels have abdicated their moral authority to assert transgressions of this kind. It is not unlike patent trolls, where we feel that if someone fails to capitalize on a potential market and in fact attempts (politically, legally, etc.) to hinder the growth there, that they forfeit their right to be wronged. So I think it's a shame that both sides never seem to get around to Step One, which is to say, "here's what I think the spirit of the law is, here's what I think the purpose of law as a whole is; now, do these conditions efficiently uphold those ideals?" If those questions are answered then it may not be "pedantry" -- perhaps they think that the purpose of the law is to stop theft, and theft-like deprivations of property. There may or may not be a nuanced argument here; and we won't know until people manifest their assumptions rather than burying them under knee-jerk slogans.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      No, that it is theft is pedantry. If it's more complicated than that and requires all kinds of caveats in order to equate the two, then use your words and stop taking shortcuts.
    - daenz 14y ago
      > The "it's not theft" argument is pedantry. There are lots of ways to obtain things for free that aren't technically theft: extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc. Illegal copying is one of those ways. Disagree. Even in the extortion, blackmail, and fraud cases, you're removing ownership when you obtain the thing. Copying never removes ownership, so it is not in the same class. It is not theft, and it it not pedantry to claim it is not. It's incorrect to state it is something that it is not to make it sound worse than it is.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Of the various illegal ways that I can hurt a companies profits, which would you consider theft? Libel/Slander? Trespassing? Vandalism? Disobeying zoning laws?
- usea 14y ago
  They are (potentially) losing revenue.
  - elliottcarlson 14y ago
    Indeed - and really the "potential" keyword is really dependent on if that person would have purchased it outright if they had not been able to pirate it in the first place.
tedunangst 14y ago
I will be sure to quote you the next time there's an article about someone stealing a startup idea or website design.
- daenz 14y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I hope you do quote me on that...I don't believe you can steal an idea or a design either. In fact, I don't believe that anything that is not both physical and finite can be assigned ownership.
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    You must not make your money writing and selling software.
    - rwallace 14y ago
      "Software is a service industry under the persistent delusion that it is a manufacturing industry."
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - daenz 14y ago
      I do write software, professionally and for fun :) I also give some of it away "for free"! Check out my github: https://github.com/amoffat https://github.com/amoffat
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        Looks like you work for Panopta. Why are you guys charging up to $250/month for your product[1]? It should be free shouldn't it? I've decided $250 is too expensive and demand use of that tier for $3/month. I'm in the right aren't I? http://www.panopta.com/pricing/ http://www.panopta.com/pricing/

rayiner 14y ago

Copyright infringement is equivalent to theft in the context of the statement I was making: getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means. It is, of course, not equivalent to theft in other contexts (e.g. from the perspective of the person whose copyright is infringed).

daenz 14y ago
> getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means. You have to remove "by illegal means" from your statement, because you're claiming how copyright infringment is theft, and being illegal doesn't make it theft. It's illegal because it's claimed to be theft. So your statement becomes "getting something you would normally have to pay for for free." Is this theft? If you could get something for free that you would normally have to pay for, wouldn't most people do it? What is the compelling reason not to?
- rayiner 14y ago
  > You have to remove "by illegal means" from your statement, because you're claiming how copyright infringment is theft, and being illegal doesn't make it theft. It's illegal because it's claimed to be theft. You can't drop the "by illegal means" part from my statement, on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft, because my statement isn't predicated on it being theft, it's predicated on it being illegal behavior. Which it is, on a basis wholly distinct from theft. "Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc. The point is that it's not a very defensible position to say "give me more product at lower prices or I will subvert the law to obtain it for free."
  - daenz 14y ago
    > You can't drop the "by illegal means" part from my statement, on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft, because my statement isn't predicated on it being theft, it's predicated on it being illegal behavior. Which it is, on a basis wholly distinct from theft. But your statement was being used to show how copyright infringement was equivalent to theft. I think I understand what you're saying now though, is it that copyright infringement and theft are equivalent because they both are illegal and they both acquire something? If so, I would still have to disagree by saying that theft has the important distinction of removing original ownership. > "Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc. It also encompasses a wider range of non-theft legal means: finding deals, being resourceful, doing favors, etc.