3 ms·

File sharing is not not stealing.

4 points by samueladam 17y ago

ram1024 17y ago
so a piece of software should be sold for $100,000 because under that logic it will only ever sell one copy... or you're suggesting that people who make apps, movies, and music don't deserve to get paid for their work
ErrantX 17y ago
This is a well spread around graphic: and makes IMO a pointless point. It is often used to try and legitimise illegal file sharing - which I dont think is a fair argument at all. Yes distribution of copyrighted material is not theft. It doesnt make it not illegal. I feel justified in calling it theft though: the legal definition of theft is old and out of date for starters (same with copyright law: these sharers cannot have double standards on that surely). What we call it is immaterial: recognising the problem is potentially more important. And I believe if calling it theft makes people consider it a crime much more than copyright infringement then that is, surely, a good thing. And at the end of the day it morally feels like theft. :D I approve of the effort to highlight the differences between the activities. But as an attempt to legitimise piracy and illegal file sharing I think it is wrong and highly misleading (the suggestion being the last of the 3 examples is not illegal).
- samueladam 17y ago
  I liked the skill of being able to explain something with a simple drawing. I find the author cautious enough to have drawn around the difference between file sharing and piracy. Details such as "not not stealing" and the non smiling face enforce this idea. I just wanted to promote the way of explaining things with drawings just like the http://commoncraft.com/ http://commoncraft.com/ series.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    that is a fair point: I apologise I guess. The image has been doing the rounds in the regular "copyright it evil" discussions as legitimisation of copyright infringement. I think I might have been guilty of a knee jerk reaction. Though I think my analysis still stands :) EDIT: and wow I totally misread the title. All the versions I have seen dont have the second Not. I apologise for missing the subtlety!! :(
    - samueladam 17y ago
      That's cool ErrantX, always nice having a conversation with fellow HNers. :)

4 points by samueladam 17y ago

so a piece of software should be sold for $100,000 because under that logic it will only ever sell one copy... or you're suggesting that people who make apps, movies, and music don't deserve to get paid for their work

ErrantX 17y ago

This is a well spread around graphic: and makes IMO a pointless point. It is often used to try and legitimise illegal file sharing - which I dont think is a fair argument at all. Yes distribution of copyrighted material is not theft. It doesnt make it not illegal. I feel justified in calling it theft though: the legal definition of theft is old and out of date for starters (same with copyright law: these sharers cannot have double standards on that surely). What we call it is immaterial: recognising the problem is potentially more important. And I believe if calling it theft makes people consider it a crime much more than copyright infringement then that is, surely, a good thing. And at the end of the day it morally feels like theft. :D I approve of the effort to highlight the differences between the activities. But as an attempt to legitimise piracy and illegal file sharing I think it is wrong and highly misleading (the suggestion being the last of the 3 examples is not illegal).

samueladam 17y ago
I liked the skill of being able to explain something with a simple drawing. I find the author cautious enough to have drawn around the difference between file sharing and piracy. Details such as "not not stealing" and the non smiling face enforce this idea. I just wanted to promote the way of explaining things with drawings just like the http://commoncraft.com/ http://commoncraft.com/ series.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  that is a fair point: I apologise I guess. The image has been doing the rounds in the regular "copyright it evil" discussions as legitimisation of copyright infringement. I think I might have been guilty of a knee jerk reaction. Though I think my analysis still stands :) EDIT: and wow I totally misread the title. All the versions I have seen dont have the second Not. I apologise for missing the subtlety!! :(
  - samueladam 17y ago
    That's cool ErrantX, always nice having a conversation with fellow HNers. :)