8 ms·

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

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.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
- ronaldx 13y ago
  We can argue about whether IP rights should exist, but I see this as a separate point. IP rights do exist. The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
matthewmacleod 13y ago
I don't think this is accurate. "Theft" is the wrong word to use, because theft is fundamentally a different concept, and the use of that word draws a false equivalence. And I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is legitimate on the basis that "intellectual property is unjust" or anything like that; but there are explicit differences that must be taken into account.
- chc 13y ago
  Theft is not a fundamentally different concept in the English language. The word "theft" has been used to refer to the appropriation or misuse of things other than physical property for a very long time.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    It's neither appropriation nor misuse. They don't take the photos for themselves (or anyone) the photos remain where they were, they duplicate them. Looking at photos is the intended use. It's copyright infringement. Copyright is an agreement between the demos and an individual creator of an "artistic" work. Theft is a fundamentally different concept - the crux of that difference is denying the legal owner the enjoyment/use/benefit of that which has been appropriated. It's not even like that's an especially nuanced point.
    - chc 13y ago
      > It's neither appropriation nor misuse. They don't take the photos for themselves (or anyone) the photos remain where they were, they duplicate them. The fact that the photos remain where they were is completely irrelevant — I never said that they didn't. When we say "Great artists steal," we do not mean that great artists remove things from their previous location. We mean that they copy other artists' ideas and techniques. But we say "steal." When we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another, we do not mean that they stamp out those elements in the original culture. We mean that they copy those things. But we say "appropriate." When somebody steals my identity, I actually still have my identity, but he's using it too, and in ways that I don't approve of. But it's still called "identity theft." The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect.
burntsushi 13y ago
> 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. This is ridiculous. Believing that IP is unjust is not the same as "denying any contribution."
- archgrove 13y ago
  It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked". Too many people seem to think a "belief" is justification for breaking the law (AKA "agreement made by society"). A belief is fine - fantastic even. All big change comes from passionate beliefs. However, we have a system in place for affecting this change. It's "discuss in public fora, create political will, and change the law". Or even "download in public, get prosecuted, take punishment and create public will to change the system based on ridiculous nature of punishment to crime". It's emphatically not "Use anonymising proxies to download Hollywood blockbusters whilst claiming I'm standing up for political principles".
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    It is a mistake to think that people against IP are just a bunch of kids ripping off content for free from [insert favorite bittorrent tracker]. For me personally, I pay for much of the media I consume. My concerns with IP are more wide reaching, particularly with respect to the medical and agriculture industries. (And more personally, the software industry.) The book I cited, "Information Feudalism," chronicles this to a (horrifying) extent. In broad terms, countries rich in IP use it to extort developing countries. I recognize the OP of this article sets the context with youthful apathy that can be annoying, but you shouldn't assume that the only criticisms of IP are selfishly trite. To a secondary point, I don't think civil disobedience is a bad thing. But I agree that claiming civil disobedience while downloading the latest Game of Thrones episode is a bit incredulous. > It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked". It seemed to me that you were equating "lack of IP" with "content creators aren't rewarded from the fruits of their labor." I was stating that this was a false equivalency. A lack of IP merely means that there is no body of law enforcing the notion of ownership over ideas.
digitalengineer 13y ago
Remember their entire motive for doing this is to profit. Once there are enough followers the product (twitter handle) is sold off. So they take photo's (actual products of others) and run with them.

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.
- rhizome 13y ago
  the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
ronaldx 13y ago
We can argue about whether IP rights should exist, but I see this as a separate point. IP rights do exist. The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.

matthewmacleod 13y ago

I don't think this is accurate. "Theft" is the wrong word to use, because theft is fundamentally a different concept, and the use of that word draws a false equivalence. And I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is legitimate on the basis that "intellectual property is unjust" or anything like that; but there are explicit differences that must be taken into account.

chc 13y ago
Theft is not a fundamentally different concept in the English language. The word "theft" has been used to refer to the appropriation or misuse of things other than physical property for a very long time.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  It's neither appropriation nor misuse. They don't take the photos for themselves (or anyone) the photos remain where they were, they duplicate them. Looking at photos is the intended use. It's copyright infringement. Copyright is an agreement between the demos and an individual creator of an "artistic" work. Theft is a fundamentally different concept - the crux of that difference is denying the legal owner the enjoyment/use/benefit of that which has been appropriated. It's not even like that's an especially nuanced point.
  - chc 13y ago
    > It's neither appropriation nor misuse. They don't take the photos for themselves (or anyone) the photos remain where they were, they duplicate them. The fact that the photos remain where they were is completely irrelevant — I never said that they didn't. When we say "Great artists steal," we do not mean that great artists remove things from their previous location. We mean that they copy other artists' ideas and techniques. But we say "steal." When we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another, we do not mean that they stamp out those elements in the original culture. We mean that they copy those things. But we say "appropriate." When somebody steals my identity, I actually still have my identity, but he's using it too, and in ways that I don't approve of. But it's still called "identity theft." The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect.

burntsushi 13y ago

> 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. This is ridiculous. Believing that IP is unjust is not the same as "denying any contribution."

archgrove 13y ago
It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked". Too many people seem to think a "belief" is justification for breaking the law (AKA "agreement made by society"). A belief is fine - fantastic even. All big change comes from passionate beliefs. However, we have a system in place for affecting this change. It's "discuss in public fora, create political will, and change the law". Or even "download in public, get prosecuted, take punishment and create public will to change the system based on ridiculous nature of punishment to crime". It's emphatically not "Use anonymising proxies to download Hollywood blockbusters whilst claiming I'm standing up for political principles".
- burntsushi 13y ago
  It is a mistake to think that people against IP are just a bunch of kids ripping off content for free from [insert favorite bittorrent tracker]. For me personally, I pay for much of the media I consume. My concerns with IP are more wide reaching, particularly with respect to the medical and agriculture industries. (And more personally, the software industry.) The book I cited, "Information Feudalism," chronicles this to a (horrifying) extent. In broad terms, countries rich in IP use it to extort developing countries. I recognize the OP of this article sets the context with youthful apathy that can be annoying, but you shouldn't assume that the only criticisms of IP are selfishly trite. To a secondary point, I don't think civil disobedience is a bad thing. But I agree that claiming civil disobedience while downloading the latest Game of Thrones episode is a bit incredulous. > It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked". It seemed to me that you were equating "lack of IP" with "content creators aren't rewarded from the fruits of their labor." I was stating that this was a false equivalency. A lack of IP merely means that there is no body of law enforcing the notion of ownership over ideas.

digitalengineer 13y ago

Remember their entire motive for doing this is to profit. Once there are enough followers the product (twitter handle) is sold off. So they take photo's (actual products of others) and run with them.