5 ms·

Theft is theft, not free speech.

by icantthinkofone 12y ago

the8472 12y ago
529C39CC24553DFE030119BD35E19884F34A65E0 Free speech or theft?
- terrence_giggy 12y ago
  Context matters. I can yell FIRE in my own home, but I can't go into a crowded theatre and yell it. The hash as you post it here is meaningless. But elsewhere it could be the key to another's property.
  - the8472 12y ago
    Personally I think you should be free to yell "FIRE" in a theater too. If that started a panic and someone came to harm due to it then you might be held partially responsible to that harm, but so should those people who mindlessly trample on others without assessing the situation. But if nothing happened then there should be no reason to make your exclamation illegal. Of course you could still be thrown out of the theater for disrupting the performance, providing further disincentive for doing something like that, but that's separate from the legality of your speech.
  - 0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
    So piracy is fine if done in my own home?
  - ultramancool 12y ago
    > The hash as you post it here is meaningless. But elsewhere it could be the key to another's property. Not really, anyone who knows the basic structure of a magnet link can go... magnet:?xt=urn:btih:529C39CC24553DFE030119BD35E19884F34A65E0 And it's perfectly useful. Paste it into any BT client, wind up with a copy of... Windows 7 it looks like. Practically the same as finding the link on TPB. So, is this another's property or not? Did I just make it by appending a short string to turn it into a URL?
tomp 12y ago
Theft is a concept that originates from our definition of "property". I oppose the legal definition that copyright == property; I agree that a reasonably short copyright term can encourage the creation of art, but what we have now is outrageous and I don't think the trade-off makes sense for the public.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "I oppose the legal definition that copyright == property" How about a definition like - "If I create something, I own it and have the right to profit from it." Why should my right to profit from what I create have a limited term? Why should it be ok for someone to copy it just because they have the ability to?
  - AndrewDucker 12y ago
    Why should the person who first arrange a series of words in a particular order have the power to prevent other people from arranging words into the same order, in perpetuity? Copyright prevents the free speech of others. There's some justification for it doing so. But it's not a natural, or absolute, right.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      There are exceptions to copyright to minimise the impact on free speech (satire, news for example). I guess people's opinions on this will ultimately come down to their views on free speech and that varies throughout the world.
      - rjaco31 12y ago
        DMCA is pretty sloppy when it comes to separate copyright infringement from satire..
      - sp332 12y ago
        The US Constitution does not recognize ideas as property. Copyrights and patents are limited-time incentives which may be granted by the government to encourage creativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Also, satire isn't protected, but parody is.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hedwall 12y ago
And he never was jailed for theft, he was jailed for aiding copyright infringement.
sangnoir 12y ago
What is your opinion of the people who shared the DeCSS key? If "46DCEAD317FE45D80923EB97E4956410D4CDB2C2" is free speech, so is a magnet URI
- egil 12y ago
  I adore them for their pronunciation skills if they literally shared it through speech. (Sorry, I had to :) )
- gambiting 12y ago
  Let's say you wrote a book and writing books is your only means of putting food on the table - and then one day you sit next to someone on the train who is reading a scanned copy of your book on their tablet. You ask them about it, and they say "yeah I don't buy books really, I downloaded this off torrents". Sure, the book they have is not "stolen" per se, but would you personally not feel like someone "stole" at least some of your work from you? I believe that this is a very interesting entry point to a discussion, because the immediate reply to this is - that library books don't generate any extra income to the author. And that is also true. But I feel like even without calling it theft it is not entirely fair.
  - the8472 12y ago
    > writing books is your only means of putting food on the table That's a strange assumption. Many authors fail, or only produce works in their spare time and work other jobs. I mean there's no fundamental right to be a successful author who can live off selling books. Of course as a society we find it desirable to create an environment where artists can make a living from their works and create more art. That's why copyright exists. It's a tradeoff, all citizens are required to respect the creations of others in exchange for the opportunity for everyone to dedicate their lives to it and make an income with it. (Note: It's just an opportunity to make profit, not a right to profit) But that societal contract gets perverted by commercial interests to the point where people stop seeing copyright as something positive and instead will refuse to adhere to it. The internet making copying so much easier than ever before also skews that tradeoff by making it much more difficult for everyone to respect copyright. Breaking copyright is even easier than jaywalking and I don't think private citizens will stop anytime soon. So ultimately that scheme to incentivize people to be creative used to be "fair", but now that view has somewhat shifted. And the system needs an overhaul.
jordigh 12y ago
Copying is not theft! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ
boomlinde 12y ago
Theft is theft, but copyright infringement isn't.
lazylizard 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985...

Theft is theft, not free speech.

the8472 12y ago

529C39CC24553DFE030119BD35E19884F34A65E0 Free speech or theft?

terrence_giggy 12y ago
Context matters. I can yell FIRE in my own home, but I can't go into a crowded theatre and yell it. The hash as you post it here is meaningless. But elsewhere it could be the key to another's property.
- the8472 12y ago
  Personally I think you should be free to yell "FIRE" in a theater too. If that started a panic and someone came to harm due to it then you might be held partially responsible to that harm, but so should those people who mindlessly trample on others without assessing the situation. But if nothing happened then there should be no reason to make your exclamation illegal. Of course you could still be thrown out of the theater for disrupting the performance, providing further disincentive for doing something like that, but that's separate from the legality of your speech.
- 0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
  So piracy is fine if done in my own home?
- ultramancool 12y ago
  > The hash as you post it here is meaningless. But elsewhere it could be the key to another's property. Not really, anyone who knows the basic structure of a magnet link can go... magnet:?xt=urn:btih:529C39CC24553DFE030119BD35E19884F34A65E0 And it's perfectly useful. Paste it into any BT client, wind up with a copy of... Windows 7 it looks like. Practically the same as finding the link on TPB. So, is this another's property or not? Did I just make it by appending a short string to turn it into a URL?

tomp 12y ago

Theft is a concept that originates from our definition of "property". I oppose the legal definition that copyright == property; I agree that a reasonably short copyright term can encourage the creation of art, but what we have now is outrageous and I don't think the trade-off makes sense for the public.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "I oppose the legal definition that copyright == property" How about a definition like - "If I create something, I own it and have the right to profit from it." Why should my right to profit from what I create have a limited term? Why should it be ok for someone to copy it just because they have the ability to?
- AndrewDucker 12y ago
  Why should the person who first arrange a series of words in a particular order have the power to prevent other people from arranging words into the same order, in perpetuity? Copyright prevents the free speech of others. There's some justification for it doing so. But it's not a natural, or absolute, right.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    There are exceptions to copyright to minimise the impact on free speech (satire, news for example). I guess people's opinions on this will ultimately come down to their views on free speech and that varies throughout the world.
    - rjaco31 12y ago
      DMCA is pretty sloppy when it comes to separate copyright infringement from satire..
    - sp332 12y ago
      The US Constitution does not recognize ideas as property. Copyrights and patents are limited-time incentives which may be granted by the government to encourage creativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Also, satire isn't protected, but parody is.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hedwall 12y ago

And he never was jailed for theft, he was jailed for aiding copyright infringement.

sangnoir 12y ago

What is your opinion of the people who shared the DeCSS key? If "46DCEAD317FE45D80923EB97E4956410D4CDB2C2" is free speech, so is a magnet URI

egil 12y ago
I adore them for their pronunciation skills if they literally shared it through speech. (Sorry, I had to :) )
gambiting 12y ago
Let's say you wrote a book and writing books is your only means of putting food on the table - and then one day you sit next to someone on the train who is reading a scanned copy of your book on their tablet. You ask them about it, and they say "yeah I don't buy books really, I downloaded this off torrents". Sure, the book they have is not "stolen" per se, but would you personally not feel like someone "stole" at least some of your work from you? I believe that this is a very interesting entry point to a discussion, because the immediate reply to this is - that library books don't generate any extra income to the author. And that is also true. But I feel like even without calling it theft it is not entirely fair.
- the8472 12y ago
  > writing books is your only means of putting food on the table That's a strange assumption. Many authors fail, or only produce works in their spare time and work other jobs. I mean there's no fundamental right to be a successful author who can live off selling books. Of course as a society we find it desirable to create an environment where artists can make a living from their works and create more art. That's why copyright exists. It's a tradeoff, all citizens are required to respect the creations of others in exchange for the opportunity for everyone to dedicate their lives to it and make an income with it. (Note: It's just an opportunity to make profit, not a right to profit) But that societal contract gets perverted by commercial interests to the point where people stop seeing copyright as something positive and instead will refuse to adhere to it. The internet making copying so much easier than ever before also skews that tradeoff by making it much more difficult for everyone to respect copyright. Breaking copyright is even easier than jaywalking and I don't think private citizens will stop anytime soon. So ultimately that scheme to incentivize people to be creative used to be "fair", but now that view has somewhat shifted. And the system needs an overhaul.

jordigh 12y ago

Copying is not theft! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ

boomlinde 12y ago

Theft is theft, but copyright infringement isn't.

lazylizard 12y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985...