4 ms·

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 own

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?

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?