4 ms·

I honestly don't get why this is so heavily down voted. I want my "original hacker's news" back. What's next in the /. -> k5 -> hn chain?

callahad 17y ago
I think it was downvoted for its tone -- it's very easy to interpret as name-calling. There is a rational basis for opposing copyright controls without simultaneously supporting piracy, but sadly, most people seem to advocate from the latter camp.
SwellJoe 17y ago
What's next in the /. -> k5 -> hn chain? Sorry, but k5 was never in that chain. reddit, perhaps, is/was the next step after Slashdot.
narag 17y ago
I honestly don't get why this is so heavily down voted. Because it's a lie? "Piracy" isn't theft. Abortion isn't murder. You can argue that they're wrong, but this kind of misrepresentation is the lowest possible way of discusion. In fact it's an admission that people doesn't look at copyright infringement as wrong, so it must be tagged with a stronger word. This debate is not going away, because that's the politics of our time. So please, at least let's keep it a little more intelligent than that.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  dude, this debate is not "going away" because it's grey. abortion at 8 months 29 days is undoubtedly murder. abortion at 8 months 28 days is undoubtedly murder. Now work backwards, when is it no longer murder?
  - narag 17y ago
    I don't know US laws, but in my country they're separate crimes. So "undoubtedly"? Really? Try convincing a court. As for the debate being "grey", of course. That's my point. "Piracy is theft" is black and white. And wrong.
  - narag 17y ago
    A separate comment to explain a little more. In my country having sex with a person younger than 13 is considered rape, even with consent. If the 13th birthday is today, is it right to do it today and not yesterday? Why? If a barman sells tobacco to someone who's just turned 16 it's legal. Why wasn't it legal yesterday? Laws need this kind of hard limits. Abortion is legal in many countries within certain weeks of conception. Abortion is illegal (but not murder!!) simply before birth. Penalties are different, that's the law. I'm very happy to have laws, even if I don't like all of them, because they're way better than someone's sense of morality.
  - WinterAyars 17y ago
    That argument is a form of definition-mongering. It's basically "because you can't provide an EXACT line that separates these things there's no separation at all!" But that's plainly not a convincing argument.
    - jpwagner 17y ago
      since when does grey = no separation? what a weird comment!
- Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
  I get what you're after, but the connection between abortion and file sharing is a very bad one
  - narag 17y ago
    My point is that both behaviours are misrepresented by the persons that oppose to them. Calling someone "copyright infractor" doesn't sound like an insult. "Thieve" is incorrect, but sounds more dramatic. With abortion happens the same thing. It doesn't mean that abortion and file sharing are connected in any other way.
- boredguy8 17y ago
  So taking software, music, books, movies, and other things without paying for them isn't theft? Is anything that can be represented as binary data free from ownership? Or only the things you want? Why is taking a car theft? Because it's physical? Care to justify that metaphysical distinction?
  - narag 17y ago
    It's a legal distinction. Laws say that they're different. Also there's a number of material differences that justify that different treatment. Theft removes the object from someone. Copyright infringement does not. Theft (as tipified in my country, opposed to "hurto" or "apropiación indebida", sorry don't know how to translate those) means certain quantity, violence on persons or things. Even if the same laws were applied to digital content, there would be impossible to convict anybody without specific laws, because taking something from someone without violence, dameges and not depriving the owner would amount as a small fine, not worth the legal costs. There is a concept in penal law over here that's called "punibility". The idea is that certain behaviours can't be controlled using criminal law because it's impossible to keep an eye on everybody: "behaviour that's socially accepted". If you need a policeman on every citizen, that also needs to enter your home to see if you're acting bad... then it's a bad idea to criminalize. The punishment isn't uniformly applied so it's even more unjust.
    - boredguy8 17y ago
      That "legal distinction" says stealing music is punishable by millions in fines, so...please start making sense some time soon. The very legal system you want to overthrow you're now saying justifies claiming one isn't theft.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    Taking a picture of a car you got from Google Streetview != theft of the car. Taking a car from the Googleplex [without the owners permission] == theft. Do you need us to explain why? The first has zero cost to the owner of the car, they keep their car and Google keep their [Google's] picture of it, plus I get my copy. The second denies the owner their original and any possible use of that original. The distinction is physical, not metaphysical. The clue is in the terms property and intellectual property. One of these is ethereal and almost impossible to steal [at present], can you guess which?
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Abortion is murder because it purposefully denies the baby their life. Copyright is not theft because it does not deny the creator access to and full enjoyment of their creation [though it's probably possible to construct some situation in which it does?]. Whether you believe the murder of the child is justified is a separate question. But even if you believe copyright infringement is wrong someone doing it will not stop the original creator from have access to their [original] copy.
  - narag 17y ago
    Abortion is murder because... Abortion is not murder because the law says so. Laws and beliefs are two different things. Murder and abortion (except the cirscumstances in which it's permitted) are two legal concepts. There are also "popular" meanings, but the ones that matters if you want to do something about a behaviour are the legal meanings. You can't sue people because of your beliefs. Wrong and right are "moral" or "ethical" concepts, so different persons have different notions of right and wrong. But there is only one law (in each country, at a given moment). Natural law is a dead idea. Of course moral concepts are often the motivation for people to try to crate and change laws. But only when the ideas take the form of law, they become a common ground. BTW, have abortion and murder the same punishment in the USA? I mean illegal abortion. Even performed against the woman's will. I can assure you that it's not the case in many other countries.

callahad 17y ago

I think it was downvoted for its tone -- it's very easy to interpret as name-calling. There is a rational basis for opposing copyright controls without simultaneously supporting piracy, but sadly, most people seem to advocate from the latter camp.

SwellJoe 17y ago

What's next in the /. -> k5 -> hn chain? Sorry, but k5 was never in that chain. reddit, perhaps, is/was the next step after Slashdot.

narag 17y ago

I honestly don't get why this is so heavily down voted. Because it's a lie? "Piracy" isn't theft. Abortion isn't murder. You can argue that they're wrong, but this kind of misrepresentation is the lowest possible way of discusion. In fact it's an admission that people doesn't look at copyright infringement as wrong, so it must be tagged with a stronger word. This debate is not going away, because that's the politics of our time. So please, at least let's keep it a little more intelligent than that.

jpwagner 17y ago
dude, this debate is not "going away" because it's grey. abortion at 8 months 29 days is undoubtedly murder. abortion at 8 months 28 days is undoubtedly murder. Now work backwards, when is it no longer murder?
- narag 17y ago
  I don't know US laws, but in my country they're separate crimes. So "undoubtedly"? Really? Try convincing a court. As for the debate being "grey", of course. That's my point. "Piracy is theft" is black and white. And wrong.
- narag 17y ago
  A separate comment to explain a little more. In my country having sex with a person younger than 13 is considered rape, even with consent. If the 13th birthday is today, is it right to do it today and not yesterday? Why? If a barman sells tobacco to someone who's just turned 16 it's legal. Why wasn't it legal yesterday? Laws need this kind of hard limits. Abortion is legal in many countries within certain weeks of conception. Abortion is illegal (but not murder!!) simply before birth. Penalties are different, that's the law. I'm very happy to have laws, even if I don't like all of them, because they're way better than someone's sense of morality.
- WinterAyars 17y ago
  That argument is a form of definition-mongering. It's basically "because you can't provide an EXACT line that separates these things there's no separation at all!" But that's plainly not a convincing argument.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    since when does grey = no separation? what a weird comment!
Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
I get what you're after, but the connection between abortion and file sharing is a very bad one
- narag 17y ago
  My point is that both behaviours are misrepresented by the persons that oppose to them. Calling someone "copyright infractor" doesn't sound like an insult. "Thieve" is incorrect, but sounds more dramatic. With abortion happens the same thing. It doesn't mean that abortion and file sharing are connected in any other way.
boredguy8 17y ago
So taking software, music, books, movies, and other things without paying for them isn't theft? Is anything that can be represented as binary data free from ownership? Or only the things you want? Why is taking a car theft? Because it's physical? Care to justify that metaphysical distinction?
- narag 17y ago
  It's a legal distinction. Laws say that they're different. Also there's a number of material differences that justify that different treatment. Theft removes the object from someone. Copyright infringement does not. Theft (as tipified in my country, opposed to "hurto" or "apropiación indebida", sorry don't know how to translate those) means certain quantity, violence on persons or things. Even if the same laws were applied to digital content, there would be impossible to convict anybody without specific laws, because taking something from someone without violence, dameges and not depriving the owner would amount as a small fine, not worth the legal costs. There is a concept in penal law over here that's called "punibility". The idea is that certain behaviours can't be controlled using criminal law because it's impossible to keep an eye on everybody: "behaviour that's socially accepted". If you need a policeman on every citizen, that also needs to enter your home to see if you're acting bad... then it's a bad idea to criminalize. The punishment isn't uniformly applied so it's even more unjust.
  - boredguy8 17y ago
    That "legal distinction" says stealing music is punishable by millions in fines, so...please start making sense some time soon. The very legal system you want to overthrow you're now saying justifies claiming one isn't theft.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Taking a picture of a car you got from Google Streetview != theft of the car. Taking a car from the Googleplex [without the owners permission] == theft. Do you need us to explain why? The first has zero cost to the owner of the car, they keep their car and Google keep their [Google's] picture of it, plus I get my copy. The second denies the owner their original and any possible use of that original. The distinction is physical, not metaphysical. The clue is in the terms property and intellectual property. One of these is ethereal and almost impossible to steal [at present], can you guess which?
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
Abortion is murder because it purposefully denies the baby their life. Copyright is not theft because it does not deny the creator access to and full enjoyment of their creation [though it's probably possible to construct some situation in which it does?]. Whether you believe the murder of the child is justified is a separate question. But even if you believe copyright infringement is wrong someone doing it will not stop the original creator from have access to their [original] copy.
- narag 17y ago
  Abortion is murder because... Abortion is not murder because the law says so. Laws and beliefs are two different things. Murder and abortion (except the cirscumstances in which it's permitted) are two legal concepts. There are also "popular" meanings, but the ones that matters if you want to do something about a behaviour are the legal meanings. You can't sue people because of your beliefs. Wrong and right are "moral" or "ethical" concepts, so different persons have different notions of right and wrong. But there is only one law (in each country, at a given moment). Natural law is a dead idea. Of course moral concepts are often the motivation for people to try to crate and change laws. But only when the ideas take the form of law, they become a common ground. BTW, have abortion and murder the same punishment in the USA? I mean illegal abortion. Even performed against the woman's will. I can assure you that it's not the case in many other countries.