3 ms·

Pirating of course exists. You might rebrand it, but hardly as hero-, more like theft-. Theftbay would sound good to me.

cwillu 11mo ago
Found the villain.
- patanegra 10mo ago
  LOL. Does intellectual property exist, or not? If yes, then it can be stolen. If no, then it is fine to take any source code, any photo, any information, and do whatever I want with it, right?
lazyfanatic42 11mo ago
Copying isn't theft.
- prasadjoglekar 11mo ago
  Down the rabbit hole we go.
- JohnLocke4 11mo ago
  Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft - not matter how it is done. Copying a dead person's work isn't theft because a dead person can't create value, but stealing a dead person's car is still theft, because something of value is gone. Stealing a car you were never going to buy and making an exact replica of a car you were never going to buy is two entirely different things.
  - davedx 11mo ago
    > Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft No, it's not. You (or random large media corps) do not get to unilaterally redefine words of the English language like that. Pass whatever laws you want about it, enforce them however you feel is appropriate, but don't try to redefine language itself to push your agenda. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft
    - kube-system 11mo ago
      "IP theft" is not counter to that definition. Intellectual property is a 'something'. That definition, does not require depriving someone else of something. As another valid example, see "identity theft". Furthermore, English is not prescriptive; dictionaries are a lagging reference of observed use... so yes, the users of English absolutely do get to redefine language. That's how all modern English words originated. And finally, if your dictionary doesn't account for "IP theft", you have simply found an incorrect dictionary, because that usage is undeniably widespread -- whether or not you agree with the concept politically.
      - Telaneo 11mo ago
        > Intellectual property is a 'something'. Good thing I don't recognise the existence of that. We live in a society that does, and I despise that. At least the EU has the sense to not recognise software patents, so 'intellectual property' is not all-encompassing. Maybe one day they can loosen the grip further. > As another valid example, see "identity theft". 'Identity fraud' is a much better term for what this is. Someone using my name, phone number and my mother's maiden name to get money in my name is not stealing my name and phone number; it's just fraud. It's much closer to lying than stealing.
        kube-system 11mo ago
        English is how people use English words. You can not like it, but that is simply your opinion.
        Telaneo 11mo ago
        Never said it was anything but.
      - tmerc 11mo ago
        "IP theft" is a contradiction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft Between these two pages, you should be able to understand why "ip theft" is a bogus term. It's specifically called out in the intellectual property article. "Unlike other forms of property, intellectual property can be used by infinitely many people without depriving the original owner of the use of their property." Whereas theft has this definition: "Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property." My not-a-lawyer understanding is that we use a common law system in the USA. This means that the definitions for things are based on history, previous cases, and the statutes that have been codified into law. This is a good thing because redefining words can make previously legal actions become illegal. Allowing that to happen at the pace slang develops in the modern era means we will hold people to different standards based on how "hip" they are.
  - tmerc 11mo ago
    Ways to prevent someone from extracting value out of their work that are clearly not theft: - murder - kidnapping - ddosing their site so they can't sell things - carpet bombing their reviews with 1 star - filing an injunction blocking the sale of their product on bogus ip claims (aka copyright trolling) - gaslighting them to the point where they think the idea is worthless - being the owner of IP that prevents them from selling their IP Probably others but I think that's enough to show your definition is wrong.
    - JohnLocke4 11mo ago
      All theft is preventing people from getting value out of their work, but not all preventing people from getting value out of their work is theft. I'm not trying to make a definition, just trying to convey my opinion. I suggest we discuss our opinions rather than trying to codify English
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  If copying isn’t theft then I guess we can stop worrying about open source licensing. Anyone, including corporations, would be able to take open source code and copy it into their own products, reselling it without consent or releasing their changes because they haven’t stolen anything, just copied it, right? If you spend years of your life writing some software and then it accidentally gets revealed to the world by mistake, anyone can copy it and use it as their own? Because copying isn’t theft, theft they haven’t stolen anything from you, so you have nothing to complain about?
  - hamdingers 11mo ago
    I can't tell if you're sarcastically describing the world we live in or if you genuinely haven't realized all these things happen regularly. Poe's law I guess.
    - kube-system 11mo ago
      It isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.
      - Telaneo 11mo ago
        Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.
        kube-system 11mo ago
        It does not qualify as the legal offence of "theft" in many courtrooms. It may be theft in colloquial English.
        Telaneo 11mo ago
        A pretty big part of theft is the victim no longer having whatever is stolen. When I steal your car, phone, bike or milk, you no longer have it, and no longer enjoy the benefit of it. I'm fairly certain that's the part of theft most people have a problem with. If I zap your car and produce a perfect duplicate, and drive that duplicate away, leaving your car as if nothing had ever happened, other than minutiae like the VINs and licence plates being identical, I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with that. Nobody is going to call that theft. If you still believe that's theft, then I cannot understand where you're coming from. This does not hold true for copyright infringement. When I copy Die Hard 3: The Expendables' Return of the Jedi, the original owner/copyright holder still has it. As they still have it, I have not deprived them of their work or good, and calling it theft makes about as much sense as me making a copy of the milk in your fridge and taking that copy.
- patanegra 10mo ago
  Well, 'theft' is more of an artistic licence. It's a breach of intellectual property rights owner.

cwillu 11mo ago

Found the villain.

patanegra 10mo ago
LOL. Does intellectual property exist, or not? If yes, then it can be stolen. If no, then it is fine to take any source code, any photo, any information, and do whatever I want with it, right?

lazyfanatic42 11mo ago

Copying isn't theft.

prasadjoglekar 11mo ago
Down the rabbit hole we go.
JohnLocke4 11mo ago
Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft - not matter how it is done. Copying a dead person's work isn't theft because a dead person can't create value, but stealing a dead person's car is still theft, because something of value is gone. Stealing a car you were never going to buy and making an exact replica of a car you were never going to buy is two entirely different things.
- davedx 11mo ago
  > Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft No, it's not. You (or random large media corps) do not get to unilaterally redefine words of the English language like that. Pass whatever laws you want about it, enforce them however you feel is appropriate, but don't try to redefine language itself to push your agenda. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft
  - kube-system 11mo ago
    "IP theft" is not counter to that definition. Intellectual property is a 'something'. That definition, does not require depriving someone else of something. As another valid example, see "identity theft". Furthermore, English is not prescriptive; dictionaries are a lagging reference of observed use... so yes, the users of English absolutely do get to redefine language. That's how all modern English words originated. And finally, if your dictionary doesn't account for "IP theft", you have simply found an incorrect dictionary, because that usage is undeniably widespread -- whether or not you agree with the concept politically.
    - Telaneo 11mo ago
      > Intellectual property is a 'something'. Good thing I don't recognise the existence of that. We live in a society that does, and I despise that. At least the EU has the sense to not recognise software patents, so 'intellectual property' is not all-encompassing. Maybe one day they can loosen the grip further. > As another valid example, see "identity theft". 'Identity fraud' is a much better term for what this is. Someone using my name, phone number and my mother's maiden name to get money in my name is not stealing my name and phone number; it's just fraud. It's much closer to lying than stealing.
      - kube-system 11mo ago
        English is how people use English words. You can not like it, but that is simply your opinion.
        Telaneo 11mo ago
        Never said it was anything but.
    - tmerc 11mo ago
      "IP theft" is a contradiction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft Between these two pages, you should be able to understand why "ip theft" is a bogus term. It's specifically called out in the intellectual property article. "Unlike other forms of property, intellectual property can be used by infinitely many people without depriving the original owner of the use of their property." Whereas theft has this definition: "Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property." My not-a-lawyer understanding is that we use a common law system in the USA. This means that the definitions for things are based on history, previous cases, and the statutes that have been codified into law. This is a good thing because redefining words can make previously legal actions become illegal. Allowing that to happen at the pace slang develops in the modern era means we will hold people to different standards based on how "hip" they are.
- tmerc 11mo ago
  Ways to prevent someone from extracting value out of their work that are clearly not theft: - murder - kidnapping - ddosing their site so they can't sell things - carpet bombing their reviews with 1 star - filing an injunction blocking the sale of their product on bogus ip claims (aka copyright trolling) - gaslighting them to the point where they think the idea is worthless - being the owner of IP that prevents them from selling their IP Probably others but I think that's enough to show your definition is wrong.
  - JohnLocke4 11mo ago
    All theft is preventing people from getting value out of their work, but not all preventing people from getting value out of their work is theft. I'm not trying to make a definition, just trying to convey my opinion. I suggest we discuss our opinions rather than trying to codify English
Aurornis 11mo ago
If copying isn’t theft then I guess we can stop worrying about open source licensing. Anyone, including corporations, would be able to take open source code and copy it into their own products, reselling it without consent or releasing their changes because they haven’t stolen anything, just copied it, right? If you spend years of your life writing some software and then it accidentally gets revealed to the world by mistake, anyone can copy it and use it as their own? Because copying isn’t theft, theft they haven’t stolen anything from you, so you have nothing to complain about?
- hamdingers 11mo ago
  I can't tell if you're sarcastically describing the world we live in or if you genuinely haven't realized all these things happen regularly. Poe's law I guess.
  - kube-system 11mo ago
    It isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.
    - Telaneo 11mo ago
      Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.
      - kube-system 11mo ago
        It does not qualify as the legal offence of "theft" in many courtrooms. It may be theft in colloquial English.
        Telaneo 11mo ago
        A pretty big part of theft is the victim no longer having whatever is stolen. When I steal your car, phone, bike or milk, you no longer have it, and no longer enjoy the benefit of it. I'm fairly certain that's the part of theft most people have a problem with. If I zap your car and produce a perfect duplicate, and drive that duplicate away, leaving your car as if nothing had ever happened, other than minutiae like the VINs and licence plates being identical, I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with that. Nobody is going to call that theft. If you still believe that's theft, then I cannot understand where you're coming from. This does not hold true for copyright infringement. When I copy Die Hard 3: The Expendables' Return of the Jedi, the original owner/copyright holder still has it. As they still have it, I have not deprived them of their work or good, and calling it theft makes about as much sense as me making a copy of the milk in your fridge and taking that copy.
patanegra 10mo ago
Well, 'theft' is more of an artistic licence. It's a breach of intellectual property rights owner.