4 ms·

Luckily, neither the essay nor anyone else in this thread are talking about theft.

by jfoutz 12y ago

jordigh 12y ago
From TFA: > If you’re gonna steal a maze, you might want to try stealing from maze book #47, and do a horizontal swap on it before you rotate it 90 degrees.
- hyperpape 12y ago
  Jiminy cricket. Copyright violation isn't theft, but saying you "stole" a maze isn't a literal accusation of theft either. "Good artists copy; great artists steal." -- someone a long time ago "UMMMMM, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THEFT!" --you.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    It is important to repeat "copying is not theft" because it's at the heart of the arguments that e.g. the MPAA make to the public in order to convince them of the evils of copyright infringement ("you wouldn't steal a car," etc). TFA seems to be trying to appeal to the evil of Kraft's deeds by suggesting that something has been stolen from him. It seems clear to me that nothing of the sort of theft has happened, and at least some people would instead be flattered to have their work reproduced large scale instead of slinging accusations of theft. If it were me, I would use this to promote the value of my own work. Maybe I would try to talk to someone at Kraft before firing the lawyer cannons, perhaps just work out a deal where they give me some sort of recognition. Even recognising the copyright infringement, it seems to be on such small scale (one maze out of hundreds?) that it might be difficult to argue for damages incurred. This person isn't flattered, but the language of "theft" indicates a graver damage than what actually has happened.
    - chrisbennet 12y ago
      Is it not "theft" because that word is pejorative and another word should be used? Is it because it isn't taking something without permission? Is it because intellectual property isn't property in some sense? Is it because the original isn't really "owned"? Is it be because the owner still has the original? Given similar reasoning, "identify theft" isn't really theft. After all, if someone "stole" my identity I'd still have the original.
      - mordocai 12y ago
        Playing devil's advocate: If someone "steals" your identity, it isn't really theft sure. Really, you both have a pointer to that identity. The problem, which makes it a good idea for it to be illegal, is that you both have a pointer to the EXACT SAME identity. Thus, any destructive(or benevolent) changes they make affect your identity as well. Contrast this with most forms of "copyright theft", where the original owner still has the original AND any changes you make to your copy have no effect on the original.
        chrisbennet 12y ago
        However, "copyright theft" does have an effect on the value of the original. Suppose you write a book report for school and another student copies yours and passes their copy in first. You still have your original but it is significantly devalued. Passing it in may actually have negative value as you maybe accused of cheating. It may not be theft but I think it hard to argue that it is not taking something of value without permission.
        emn13 12y ago
        First if all: merely finding some instances of copyright violation that reduce a copyrights value does not validate calling it theft. By that line of reasoning half of the English language is approximately theft. This very answer is stealing your copyrighted answer by undermining its validity, thereby reducing its value, therefore it's equivalent the theft. That's a preposterously loose requirement. Secondly, even in your example, the damage isn't primarily caused by the copying, it's primarily caused by the misrepresentation. If the copier had been truthful about the source, it's doubtful the original would have been much devalued. In any case, clearly copyright violation can devalue the copyright. It's certainly not always the case (it may even increase the value of the copyright), but it's a serious risk. However, that still doesn't make it equivalent to theft, any more than vandalism, fraud, competition, criticism, libel, etc. are theft. Some of those are even considered virtuous - as a society we supposedly encourage criticism and competition (even if many sectors manage to pay only lip service to that notion).
      - 12y ago
  - Liesmith 12y ago
    It was T.S. Eliot. and the real quote is "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."
- jfoutz 12y ago
  ah gotcha. did a ctrl-F for theft and stole, forgot to try the present tense.

Luckily, neither the essay nor anyone else in this thread are talking about theft.

by jfoutz 12y ago

Luckily, neither the essay nor anyone else in this thread are talking about theft.

From TFA: > If you’re gonna steal a maze, you might want to try stealing from maze book #47, and do a horizontal swap on it before you rotate it 90 degrees.

hyperpape 12y ago
Jiminy cricket. Copyright violation isn't theft, but saying you "stole" a maze isn't a literal accusation of theft either. "Good artists copy; great artists steal." -- someone a long time ago "UMMMMM, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THEFT!" --you.
- jordigh 12y ago
  It is important to repeat "copying is not theft" because it's at the heart of the arguments that e.g. the MPAA make to the public in order to convince them of the evils of copyright infringement ("you wouldn't steal a car," etc). TFA seems to be trying to appeal to the evil of Kraft's deeds by suggesting that something has been stolen from him. It seems clear to me that nothing of the sort of theft has happened, and at least some people would instead be flattered to have their work reproduced large scale instead of slinging accusations of theft. If it were me, I would use this to promote the value of my own work. Maybe I would try to talk to someone at Kraft before firing the lawyer cannons, perhaps just work out a deal where they give me some sort of recognition. Even recognising the copyright infringement, it seems to be on such small scale (one maze out of hundreds?) that it might be difficult to argue for damages incurred. This person isn't flattered, but the language of "theft" indicates a graver damage than what actually has happened.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    Is it not "theft" because that word is pejorative and another word should be used? Is it because it isn't taking something without permission? Is it because intellectual property isn't property in some sense? Is it because the original isn't really "owned"? Is it be because the owner still has the original? Given similar reasoning, "identify theft" isn't really theft. After all, if someone "stole" my identity I'd still have the original.
    - mordocai 12y ago
      Playing devil's advocate: If someone "steals" your identity, it isn't really theft sure. Really, you both have a pointer to that identity. The problem, which makes it a good idea for it to be illegal, is that you both have a pointer to the EXACT SAME identity. Thus, any destructive(or benevolent) changes they make affect your identity as well. Contrast this with most forms of "copyright theft", where the original owner still has the original AND any changes you make to your copy have no effect on the original.
      - chrisbennet 12y ago
        However, "copyright theft" does have an effect on the value of the original. Suppose you write a book report for school and another student copies yours and passes their copy in first. You still have your original but it is significantly devalued. Passing it in may actually have negative value as you maybe accused of cheating. It may not be theft but I think it hard to argue that it is not taking something of value without permission.
        emn13 12y ago
        First if all: merely finding some instances of copyright violation that reduce a copyrights value does not validate calling it theft. By that line of reasoning half of the English language is approximately theft. This very answer is stealing your copyrighted answer by undermining its validity, thereby reducing its value, therefore it's equivalent the theft. That's a preposterously loose requirement. Secondly, even in your example, the damage isn't primarily caused by the copying, it's primarily caused by the misrepresentation. If the copier had been truthful about the source, it's doubtful the original would have been much devalued. In any case, clearly copyright violation can devalue the copyright. It's certainly not always the case (it may even increase the value of the copyright), but it's a serious risk. However, that still doesn't make it equivalent to theft, any more than vandalism, fraud, competition, criticism, libel, etc. are theft. Some of those are even considered virtuous - as a society we supposedly encourage criticism and competition (even if many sectors manage to pay only lip service to that notion).
    - 12y ago
- Liesmith 12y ago
  It was T.S. Eliot. and the real quote is "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."
jfoutz 12y ago
ah gotcha. did a ctrl-F for theft and stole, forgot to try the present tense.