3 ms·

Copyright infringement is not stealing.

by x3n0ph3n3 1y ago

1oooqooq 1y ago
actually, the Only time it's a (ethical) crime is when a corporation does it at scale for profit.
pyman 1y ago
[flagged]
- zb3 1y ago
  Who got robbed? Just because I'd pay for AI it doesn't mean I'd buy these books.
  - pyman 1y ago
    You should ask the teachers who spent years writing those books.
    - azangru 1y ago
      You keep saying the word "teachers"; but that word does not appear in the text of the article. Why focus on the teachers in particular? Also, there are various incentives for teachers to publish books. Money is just one of them (I wonder how much revenue books bring to the teachers). Prestige and academic recognition is another. There are probably others still. How realistic is the depiction of a deprived teacher whose livelihood depended on the books he published once every several years?
      - pyman 1y ago
        I can only speak for myself, my family, and colleagues, but it's not just teachers. Plenty of other professionals are being affected too.
    - zb3 1y ago
      I did not ask them to write those books, and I wouldn't buy those.
      - pyman 1y ago
        Doesn't make sense what you said. If you're using AI, you might be benefiting from my books, whether you realise it or not.
- BlackFly 1y ago
  Making a copy differs from taking an existing object in all aspects: literally, technically, legally and ethically. Piracy is making a copy you have no legal right to. Stealing is taking a physical object that you have no legal right to. While the "no legal right to" seems the same superficially, in practice the laws differ quite a bit because the literal, technical and ethical aspects differ.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  They are not selling it on claude.ai. If you can prove that they are you will be rich.
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  Where can I download Harry Potter on claude.ai pls?
  - slater 1y ago
    Why would you want to download a shitty book?
seydor 1y ago
property infringement isn't either?
- eviks 1y ago
  If you infringe by destroying property, then yes, it's not stealing
impossiblefork 1y ago
It's very similar to theft of service. There's so many texts, and they're so sparse that if I could copyright a work and never publish it, the restriction would be irrelevant. The probability that you would accidentally come upon something close enough that copyright was relevant is almost infinitesimal. Because of this copyright is an incredibly weak restriction, and that it is as weak as it is shows clearly that any use of a copyrighted work is due to the convenience that it is available. That is, it's about making use of the work somebody else has done, not about that restricting you somehow. Therefore copyright is much more legitimate than ordinary property. Ordinary property, especially ownership of land, can actually limit other people. But since copyright is so sparse infringing on it is like going to world with near-infinite space and picking the precise place where somebody has planted a field and deciding to harvest from that particular field. Consequently I think copyright infringement might actually be worse than stealing.
- jpalawaga 1y ago
  you've created a very obvious category mistake in your final summary by confusing intellectual property--which can be copied at no penalty to an owner (except nebulous 'alternate universe' theories)--with actual property, and a farmer and his land, with a crop that cannot be enjoyed twice. you're saying copying a book is worse than robbing a farmer of his food and/or livelihood, which cannot be replaced to duplicated. Meanwhile, someone who copies a book does not deprive the author of selling the book again (or a tasty proceedings from harvest). I can't say I agree, for obvious reasons.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    With this special infinite-land-land though, what's special about the farmer's land is that he's expended energy to make it that way, just as the author has expended energy to find his text. Just as the farmer obtains his livelihood from the investment-of-energy-to-raise-crops-to-energy cycle the author has his livelihood by the investment-of-energy-to-finding-a-useful-work-to-energy cycle. So he is in fact robbed in a very similar way.
    - 1y ago

1oooqooq 1y ago

actually, the Only time it's a (ethical) crime is when a corporation does it at scale for profit.

pyman 1y ago

[flagged]

zb3 1y ago
Who got robbed? Just because I'd pay for AI it doesn't mean I'd buy these books.
- pyman 1y ago
  You should ask the teachers who spent years writing those books.
  - azangru 1y ago
    You keep saying the word "teachers"; but that word does not appear in the text of the article. Why focus on the teachers in particular? Also, there are various incentives for teachers to publish books. Money is just one of them (I wonder how much revenue books bring to the teachers). Prestige and academic recognition is another. There are probably others still. How realistic is the depiction of a deprived teacher whose livelihood depended on the books he published once every several years?
    - pyman 1y ago
      I can only speak for myself, my family, and colleagues, but it's not just teachers. Plenty of other professionals are being affected too.
  - zb3 1y ago
    I did not ask them to write those books, and I wouldn't buy those.
    - pyman 1y ago
      Doesn't make sense what you said. If you're using AI, you might be benefiting from my books, whether you realise it or not.
BlackFly 1y ago
Making a copy differs from taking an existing object in all aspects: literally, technically, legally and ethically. Piracy is making a copy you have no legal right to. Stealing is taking a physical object that you have no legal right to. While the "no legal right to" seems the same superficially, in practice the laws differ quite a bit because the literal, technical and ethical aspects differ.
TiredOfLife 1y ago
They are not selling it on claude.ai. If you can prove that they are you will be rich.
thedevilslawyer 1y ago
Where can I download Harry Potter on claude.ai pls?
- slater 1y ago
  Why would you want to download a shitty book?

seydor 1y ago

property infringement isn't either?

eviks 1y ago
If you infringe by destroying property, then yes, it's not stealing

impossiblefork 1y ago

It's very similar to theft of service. There's so many texts, and they're so sparse that if I could copyright a work and never publish it, the restriction would be irrelevant. The probability that you would accidentally come upon something close enough that copyright was relevant is almost infinitesimal. Because of this copyright is an incredibly weak restriction, and that it is as weak as it is shows clearly that any use of a copyrighted work is due to the convenience that it is available. That is, it's about making use of the work somebody else has done, not about that restricting you somehow. Therefore copyright is much more legitimate than ordinary property. Ordinary property, especially ownership of land, can actually limit other people. But since copyright is so sparse infringing on it is like going to world with near-infinite space and picking the precise place where somebody has planted a field and deciding to harvest from that particular field. Consequently I think copyright infringement might actually be worse than stealing.

jpalawaga 1y ago
you've created a very obvious category mistake in your final summary by confusing intellectual property--which can be copied at no penalty to an owner (except nebulous 'alternate universe' theories)--with actual property, and a farmer and his land, with a crop that cannot be enjoyed twice. you're saying copying a book is worse than robbing a farmer of his food and/or livelihood, which cannot be replaced to duplicated. Meanwhile, someone who copies a book does not deprive the author of selling the book again (or a tasty proceedings from harvest). I can't say I agree, for obvious reasons.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  With this special infinite-land-land though, what's special about the farmer's land is that he's expended energy to make it that way, just as the author has expended energy to find his text. Just as the farmer obtains his livelihood from the investment-of-energy-to-raise-crops-to-energy cycle the author has his livelihood by the investment-of-energy-to-finding-a-useful-work-to-energy cycle. So he is in fact robbed in a very similar way.
  - 1y ago