5 ms·

> As I said, we already had this conversation ages ago and your side lost. Repeating that does not make it true. > A lot of the rest use an informal (not lega

by keeda 1y ago

> As I said, we already had this conversation ages ago and your side lost. Repeating that does not make it true. > A lot of the rest use an informal (not legal, and highly subjective) definition of the word "theft" -- but you knew this. Yes, all the examples I gave are exactly of that. I think we are in violent agreement here. > It's exhausting to keep repeating this. I do agree it's exhausting, because neither you nor the decades of arguments (where I have repeatedly brought it up, but well, the Internet is a big place) have addressed this point. Let me lay it out in more detail: 1. All society and trade is based on exchange of value. This is true since the oldest days of barter. 2. When somebody provides something of value and gets something they value in return, that is a fair trade. The exact amounts of value are negotiable (including zero, cf. creative commons, but again this is based on the provider's consent.) This is the fundamental basis of trade. 3. So when someone takes something of value -- physical goods or abstract things like services or TV shows -- without giving its provider something of acceptable value in return, it is considered unfair and morally wrong. Which is why society has decided to make it legally wrong as well. So whether it's stealing a car or pirating a TV show, it is essentially taking something of value without giving any in exchange, for which the word "theft" is perfectly fine.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
> So when someone takes something of value > it is essentially taking something of value Intellectual property is not "taken". It is not a tangible good that can change hands. Copies are made instead. Copyright refers to the right to make copies. Having a copyright means having the right to make copies. To infringe someone's copyright is to make copies despite the right to make copies belonging to someone else. The words are self-explanatory. Real property logic and words do not apply to intellectual property. Insisting on their use is bad faith argumentation. It is an attempt to convince others by shock and manipulation. Virtually nobody is moved by such a nebulous crime as copyright infringement, so the words theft and piracy are substituted in its place for greater impact.
- keeda 1y ago
  Sigh, I knew the word "take" would invoke pedanticity... So when you "take interest" or "take advantage" or "take a look" or "take your time", what tangible good is being "taken"? When you "take pleasure in something", like say a TV show, you are deriving value from it. What tangible goods are involved here? When somebody provides you a service -- say washing your car -- you are still taking value from it even without a single tangible good being given. Or would you not pay the person because no "tangible good" has been given to you? English is a rich language and pedanticity does not help this debate. Instead, you may want to address the core argument: when someone provides value (again: goods AND services) to another party and does not receive acceptable value in return, it is considered immoral, which is why society has made it illegal. And yes, the word "theft" is prefectly suitable in this case. Otherwise you should explain why all of these involve some loss to party and are immoral / illegal without a single tangible good being "taken": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565
  - the_af 1y ago
    It's not "pedanticity", it's that the facts matter and you are wrong. We've seen this tactic before: proponents of draconian copyright laws intentionally conflated "copying" (as in the digital world) with "theft" (as in "you wouldn't steal a car" -- are you familiar with this campaign from 2004 that largely backfired?). So that's why words matter. You are misusing them in a way that has been weaponized in the past, which is why I and many others are vigilant and quick to correct you.
    - ninetyninenine 1y ago
      >We've seen This is what bugs me about you. Who is "we"? It's like you're calling "we" the rest of the free world. Be real, most people aren't on your side. "We" in reality is just a small group of fanatical FSF members vs. The rest of the entire world.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
the_af 1y ago
You are not "taking" anything. It's not theft. This conversation was settled, whether you like it or not. It's as frustrating as debating whether slavery is moral or D&D is satanic. We've had this conversation, it's settled. Piracy is not theft.
- keeda 1y ago
  Wait, I thought we decided we were using the word "theft" informally. Like all those examples I posted above and you agreed with. What is being "taken" in "wage theft" or "identity theft" or "joke theft"? > This conversation was settled, whether you like it or not. Ignoring salient points does not settle a conversation. I laid out the case point-by-point for why not returning fair value when taking something of value (remember: services are not a "thing" and yet provide great value!) is immoral and illegal and often considered "theft". (Again, if you want to nitpick over the word "theft" look at the long list of examples I posted above.) I notice you have not shown any flaw in that logic. Maybe this conversation frustratingly never ends because this point has never been refuted.
  - the_af 1y ago
    > Wait, I thought we decided we were using the word "theft" informally. Nope. We were discussing with someone else (before you chimed in) who argued it was exactly theft. When shown this was false, the person argued it was morally equivalent (this was also false). > Again, if you want to nitpick over the word "theft" look at the long list of examples I posted above I'm not nitpicking, you're factually wrong. Have you read important works about the distinction, such as Lessig's "Free Culture"? It's frustrating because this is akin to discussing, yet again, the moral panics of the olden days, long settled but (apparently) brand new generations without an understanding of the past want to resurface them.
    - keeda 1y ago
      All your arguments are assertions or appeals to authority with no logical reasoning supporting them. I invite you again to pinpoint the flaw in this very brief 2-point reasoning (with a number of supporting links above) that nobody over the decades has (maybe you could find something in Lessig's works, but good luck with that): - Society and commerce is based on exchange of value (again: goods and services) - When one party gets the value from the other party without returning an acceptable value, it is considered immoral and wrong, and informally called "theft" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565) Just two points. Very simple. Otherwise no point in continuing this thread.

by keeda 1y ago

matheusmoreira 1y ago

> So when someone takes something of value > it is essentially taking something of value Intellectual property is not "taken". It is not a tangible good that can change hands. Copies are made instead. Copyright refers to the right to make copies. Having a copyright means having the right to make copies. To infringe someone's copyright is to make copies despite the right to make copies belonging to someone else. The words are self-explanatory. Real property logic and words do not apply to intellectual property. Insisting on their use is bad faith argumentation. It is an attempt to convince others by shock and manipulation. Virtually nobody is moved by such a nebulous crime as copyright infringement, so the words theft and piracy are substituted in its place for greater impact.

keeda 1y ago
Sigh, I knew the word "take" would invoke pedanticity... So when you "take interest" or "take advantage" or "take a look" or "take your time", what tangible good is being "taken"? When you "take pleasure in something", like say a TV show, you are deriving value from it. What tangible goods are involved here? When somebody provides you a service -- say washing your car -- you are still taking value from it even without a single tangible good being given. Or would you not pay the person because no "tangible good" has been given to you? English is a rich language and pedanticity does not help this debate. Instead, you may want to address the core argument: when someone provides value (again: goods AND services) to another party and does not receive acceptable value in return, it is considered immoral, which is why society has made it illegal. And yes, the word "theft" is prefectly suitable in this case. Otherwise you should explain why all of these involve some loss to party and are immoral / illegal without a single tangible good being "taken": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565
- the_af 1y ago
  It's not "pedanticity", it's that the facts matter and you are wrong. We've seen this tactic before: proponents of draconian copyright laws intentionally conflated "copying" (as in the digital world) with "theft" (as in "you wouldn't steal a car" -- are you familiar with this campaign from 2004 that largely backfired?). So that's why words matter. You are misusing them in a way that has been weaponized in the past, which is why I and many others are vigilant and quick to correct you.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    >We've seen This is what bugs me about you. Who is "we"? It's like you're calling "we" the rest of the free world. Be real, most people aren't on your side. "We" in reality is just a small group of fanatical FSF members vs. The rest of the entire world.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

the_af 1y ago

You are not "taking" anything. It's not theft. This conversation was settled, whether you like it or not. It's as frustrating as debating whether slavery is moral or D&D is satanic. We've had this conversation, it's settled. Piracy is not theft.

keeda 1y ago
Wait, I thought we decided we were using the word "theft" informally. Like all those examples I posted above and you agreed with. What is being "taken" in "wage theft" or "identity theft" or "joke theft"? > This conversation was settled, whether you like it or not. Ignoring salient points does not settle a conversation. I laid out the case point-by-point for why not returning fair value when taking something of value (remember: services are not a "thing" and yet provide great value!) is immoral and illegal and often considered "theft". (Again, if you want to nitpick over the word "theft" look at the long list of examples I posted above.) I notice you have not shown any flaw in that logic. Maybe this conversation frustratingly never ends because this point has never been refuted.
- the_af 1y ago
  > Wait, I thought we decided we were using the word "theft" informally. Nope. We were discussing with someone else (before you chimed in) who argued it was exactly theft. When shown this was false, the person argued it was morally equivalent (this was also false). > Again, if you want to nitpick over the word "theft" look at the long list of examples I posted above I'm not nitpicking, you're factually wrong. Have you read important works about the distinction, such as Lessig's "Free Culture"? It's frustrating because this is akin to discussing, yet again, the moral panics of the olden days, long settled but (apparently) brand new generations without an understanding of the past want to resurface them.
  - keeda 1y ago
    All your arguments are assertions or appeals to authority with no logical reasoning supporting them. I invite you again to pinpoint the flaw in this very brief 2-point reasoning (with a number of supporting links above) that nobody over the decades has (maybe you could find something in Lessig's works, but good luck with that): - Society and commerce is based on exchange of value (again: goods and services) - When one party gets the value from the other party without returning an acceptable value, it is considered immoral and wrong, and informally called "theft" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565) Just two points. Very simple. Otherwise no point in continuing this thread.