3 ms·

No need to be snarky, I know there's a difference of opinions about ownership when it comes to data. That's why I also wrote "DRM breaking" as an alternative te

No need to be snarky, I know there's a difference of opinions about ownership when it comes to data. That's why I also wrote "DRM breaking" as an alternative term. Would you say "hackers broke into the NHS and copied patient data without permission" or would you simply say they "stole" it?

Dylan16807 8mo ago
> That's why I also wrote "DRM breaking" as an alternative term. Except that there's nothing bad about breaking DRM, even when respecting copyright. If anything DRM interferes with how copyright is supposed to work by being an obstacle to fair use. > Would you say "hackers broke into the NHS and copied patient data without permission" or would you simply say they "stole" it? It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data, especially when breaking in to get to it. (Preemptive note, breaking DRM is not breaking in, it happens on your own devices.)
- streetfighter64 8mo ago
  Did I say or imply that breaking DRM was bad? It is a neutral description of what was done. > It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data. Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing.
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    > Did I say or imply that breaking DRM was bad? It is a neutral description of what was done. Well you said it's supposed to be an "alternative term". If it's valid to reword your statement as "seeding Anna's Archive is showing support for large scale DRM breaking", then everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever. Which I think is pretty different from your actual argument. > Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing. They didn't say that, they said a much simpler sentence applying to this specific context.
    - streetfighter64 8mo ago
      If you consider the context of my original comment (or just read what it says), you'll see that I wasn't implying that breaking DRM was necessarily morally bad, only that it'd make you a target for prosecution in the US. Which is clearly true, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Corley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v... and many others. > everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever The downside being, as I very clearly stated in my original comment, that you might face legal troubles for that, at least if your support entails breaking the law (which seeding torrents does).
      - Dylan16807 8mo ago
        Supporting a DRM breaker doesn't put you at risk.

Dylan16807 8mo ago

> That's why I also wrote "DRM breaking" as an alternative term. Except that there's nothing bad about breaking DRM, even when respecting copyright. If anything DRM interferes with how copyright is supposed to work by being an obstacle to fair use. > Would you say "hackers broke into the NHS and copied patient data without permission" or would you simply say they "stole" it? It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data, especially when breaking in to get to it. (Preemptive note, breaking DRM is not breaking in, it happens on your own devices.)

streetfighter64 8mo ago
Did I say or imply that breaking DRM was bad? It is a neutral description of what was done. > It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data. Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  > Did I say or imply that breaking DRM was bad? It is a neutral description of what was done. Well you said it's supposed to be an "alternative term". If it's valid to reword your statement as "seeding Anna's Archive is showing support for large scale DRM breaking", then everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever. Which I think is pretty different from your actual argument. > Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing. They didn't say that, they said a much simpler sentence applying to this specific context.
  - streetfighter64 8mo ago
    If you consider the context of my original comment (or just read what it says), you'll see that I wasn't implying that breaking DRM was necessarily morally bad, only that it'd make you a target for prosecution in the US. Which is clearly true, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Corley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v... and many others. > everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever The downside being, as I very clearly stated in my original comment, that you might face legal troubles for that, at least if your support entails breaking the law (which seeding torrents does).
    - Dylan16807 8mo ago
      Supporting a DRM breaker doesn't put you at risk.