4 ms·

Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.

by zoklet-enjoyer 1y ago

badlibrarian 1y ago
"Tell it to the Judge..."
kjkjadksj 1y ago
You may not think it is but the law does.
- buildbot 1y ago
  The law says it’s copyright infringement, not theft.
axus 1y ago
Agreed, the judge should avoid slang or even commonly accepted synonyms in an official ruling. The charge is not for theft. Substitute infringement for theft.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hadlock 1y ago
It's copyright infringement, which is not theft, they're legally distinct in the eyes of the law. This is partly why the "you wouldn't download a car" copyright ads were so widely mocked.
- __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  Fun fact, they didn't have the rights to use the font they used for those commercials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926
  - gghffguhvc 1y ago
    Or the music. It was originally made as a one off for a film festival. Movie industry defended the lawsuit over the music.
fortran77 1y ago
It's fine that you think that way. But this is a discusion of the laws of the United States of America and ruling by American courts, not a discussion of your own legal theories.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  The GP isn’t talking about some edge case legal dilemma that requires a lawyer or judge to comment. It’s already widely documented that copyright infringement is legally distinct from theft.
superfrank 1y ago
They stole from the amount they would have legally paid to buy a copy from the copyright holder. Think about it like sneaking into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying. The theater was going to play the movie anyway and, assuming it wasn't a packed theatre, I didn't deprive anyone else of their ability to watch. It's still theft because I'm getting something that costs money for free and depriving the theater of the money that they're owed.

Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.

badlibrarian 1y ago

"Tell it to the Judge..."

kjkjadksj 1y ago

You may not think it is but the law does.

buildbot 1y ago
The law says it’s copyright infringement, not theft.

axus 1y ago

Agreed, the judge should avoid slang or even commonly accepted synonyms in an official ruling. The charge is not for theft. Substitute infringement for theft.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hadlock 1y ago

It's copyright infringement, which is not theft, they're legally distinct in the eyes of the law. This is partly why the "you wouldn't download a car" copyright ads were so widely mocked.

__MatrixMan__ 1y ago
Fun fact, they didn't have the rights to use the font they used for those commercials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926
- gghffguhvc 1y ago
  Or the music. It was originally made as a one off for a film festival. Movie industry defended the lawsuit over the music.

fortran77 1y ago

It's fine that you think that way. But this is a discusion of the laws of the United States of America and ruling by American courts, not a discussion of your own legal theories.

hnlmorg 1y ago
The GP isn’t talking about some edge case legal dilemma that requires a lawyer or judge to comment. It’s already widely documented that copyright infringement is legally distinct from theft.

superfrank 1y ago

They stole from the amount they would have legally paid to buy a copy from the copyright holder. Think about it like sneaking into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying. The theater was going to play the movie anyway and, assuming it wasn't a packed theatre, I didn't deprive anyone else of their ability to watch. It's still theft because I'm getting something that costs money for free and depriving the theater of the money that they're owed.