4 ms·

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 1y ago
It isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.
- Telaneo 1y ago
  Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    It does not qualify as the legal offence of "theft" in many courtrooms. It may be theft in colloquial English.
    - Telaneo 1y 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.
      - hamdingers 1y ago
        It's not worth the effort. Anyone pretending not to understand the distinction is being deliberately obtuse.
        Telaneo 1y ago
        I should really be able to recognise that by now. This is exactly the kind of discussion that has burned me out on using certain platforms before. Thanks for putting it in plain text.
        kube-system 1y ago
        Nah, the people who pretend that definitions in a criminal law book override natural linguistics are being deliberately obtuse. Language exists mostly outside of a courtroom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
        hamdingers 1y ago
        This wild misrepresentation of the argument proves my point.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        > A pretty big part of theft is the victim no longer having whatever is stolen. No, colloquial English doesn't require this. e.g. "Identity theft"
        Telaneo 1y ago
        Given that identity fraud leads directly into what is functionally actual theft (taking money out of you bank account or taking up loans in your name and scarpering), there's no wonder the term's confused. Doesn't make it theft though.
        kube-system 1y ago
        It isn't legally theft, but because people commonly use the word that way, it is colloquially theft. The qualifications are different. Legal crimes are defined by law. English is defined by its common use. They're not necessarily the same thing.

kube-system 1y ago

It isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.

Telaneo 1y ago
Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.
- kube-system 1y ago
  It does not qualify as the legal offence of "theft" in many courtrooms. It may be theft in colloquial English.
  - Telaneo 1y 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.
    - hamdingers 1y ago
      It's not worth the effort. Anyone pretending not to understand the distinction is being deliberately obtuse.
      - Telaneo 1y ago
        I should really be able to recognise that by now. This is exactly the kind of discussion that has burned me out on using certain platforms before. Thanks for putting it in plain text.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        Nah, the people who pretend that definitions in a criminal law book override natural linguistics are being deliberately obtuse. Language exists mostly outside of a courtroom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
        hamdingers 1y ago
        This wild misrepresentation of the argument proves my point.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      > A pretty big part of theft is the victim no longer having whatever is stolen. No, colloquial English doesn't require this. e.g. "Identity theft"
      - Telaneo 1y ago
        Given that identity fraud leads directly into what is functionally actual theft (taking money out of you bank account or taking up loans in your name and scarpering), there's no wonder the term's confused. Doesn't make it theft though.
        kube-system 1y ago
        It isn't legally theft, but because people commonly use the word that way, it is colloquially theft. The qualifications are different. Legal crimes are defined by law. English is defined by its common use. They're not necessarily the same thing.