6 ms·

> Theft plain and simple. Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement. You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from you

> Theft plain and simple. Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement. You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.

digitalengineer 13y ago
No no, your right. I should have know better. My old company, Royalty Free Models, used to sell regular people for commercial photoshoots. I sold them with all rights included like a ShutterStock database with actual people. Even agency's don't understand copyrights...
- sgdread 13y ago
  Stock companies require signed model release for every person on the photo. But copyright is belongs to creator - photographer.
archgrove 13y ago
This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who have decided, in defiance of the laws and remunerative structures society has constructed, that they're entitled to the work of people without giving anything back (apart from some advice like "I'm giving you free advertising", "find a new business model" or "this will actually help you in the long run"). Society has created intellectual property, in the same way it created physical property, and if you can steal the later, you can surely steal the former. One other angle on this, for the "steal absolutely must deprive someone of something" view, well - something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Many people say "Well, I'd never have bought it anyway". Whilst true for now, would it still be true in 1 year? 5? 10? Would you have bought it for your kids, or because a sequel came out that you do want to buy? By taking it, you rob the person of the ability to sell it to you in the future. I think it's incumbent upon anyone who thinks "intellectual property is unjust" and who acts on this belief by just denying its existence, to propose and get support for a viable alternative for supporting the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihood. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument. (The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
  - archgrove 13y ago
    I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly at you, but in the courts, I would have "assaulted" you. I claim the same holds for theft/stealing in an IP situation. > Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      You're basically saying I'm being too pedantic. I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings. But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important. However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.

digitalengineer 13y ago

No no, your right. I should have know better. My old company, Royalty Free Models, used to sell regular people for commercial photoshoots. I sold them with all rights included like a ShutterStock database with actual people. Even agency's don't understand copyrights...

sgdread 13y ago
Stock companies require signed model release for every person on the photo. But copyright is belongs to creator - photographer.

archgrove 13y ago

This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who have decided, in defiance of the laws and remunerative structures society has constructed, that they're entitled to the work of people without giving anything back (apart from some advice like "I'm giving you free advertising", "find a new business model" or "this will actually help you in the long run"). Society has created intellectual property, in the same way it created physical property, and if you can steal the later, you can surely steal the former. One other angle on this, for the "steal absolutely must deprive someone of something" view, well - something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Many people say "Well, I'd never have bought it anyway". Whilst true for now, would it still be true in 1 year? 5? 10? Would you have bought it for your kids, or because a sequel came out that you do want to buy? By taking it, you rob the person of the ability to sell it to you in the future. I think it's incumbent upon anyone who thinks "intellectual property is unjust" and who acts on this belief by just denying its existence, to propose and get support for a viable alternative for supporting the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihood. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.

burntsushi 13y ago
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument. (The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
- archgrove 13y ago
  I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly at you, but in the courts, I would have "assaulted" you. I claim the same holds for theft/stealing in an IP situation. > Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    You're basically saying I'm being too pedantic. I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings. But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important. However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.