Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Split from progressive rage;

In regards to copyright infringement:

Theft has always been a recognized aspect of human behavior, but the internet has provided for it to be simple and nearly undetectable.

And, I should emphasize, piracy is not theft and has jack-all to do with it.

I really hate that conflation.

Piracy is completely theft and is directly related to how anonymity, ease, and peer-pressure are known to loosen an individual's moral standards on things like theft.

Ok, I know should drop this but.... Here's some definitions of theft.

In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent

a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Piracy does not actually deprive anyone of a copy, it just makes a copy, thus it is copyright infringement. That is to say, making a copy without permission. Rather than theft, which is taking away someone else's copy.

This is the issue here.

[Pnx]

Question, if someone quotes me, can I legitimately sue them for stealing my words?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ok, I know should drop this but.... Here's some definitions of theft.

In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent

And it does take their property, but it's intellectual property instead of physical property. Although you could see it as physical property depending on how you view electronic data.

Question, if someone quotes me, can I legitimately sue them for stealing my words?

Your words are not being marketed as a commercial product, nor are they copyrighted. Furthermore, one could argue that your words here actually belong to Tarn Adams, as this is his website. Emphasis on "could", as that probably wouldn't stand up in court.

[scriver]

Copyright infringement is just a specialised word for the means of the theft, like robbery or pick-pocketing.

And, I should emphasize, piracy is not theft and has jack-all to do with it.

I really hate that conflation.

It's like saying that using the yogurt I bought from the store to culture my own batch is theft. It is completely asinine.

It is illegal, yes (under certain conditions), but at no point am I depriving another person of their property.

Not property, but money which they charge you for theit services. For example, plundering someone's bank account doesn't deprive anyone of property either (the money is all digital anyway), but it's still theft.

I'm going to go do some training now, so please don't explode the thread while I'm gone

[GlyphGryph]

Except you aren't taking their electronic data either. It's still there. If its still there, how exactly are you "taking it"?

And what if, as is commonly the case, you are making a copy of someone else's copy? Who are you stealing from, and how, since that company never possessed the data you're copying?

Copyright infringement is just a specialised word for the means of the theft, like robbery or pick-pocketing.

Do you have any actual support for that? Any at all?

Not property, but money which they charge you for theit services

Ah, so buying a competitors product is theft as well, then?

[Nadaka]

Theft has always been a recognized aspect of human behavior, but the internet has provided for it to be simple and nearly undetectable.

And, I should emphasize, piracy is not theft and has jack-all to do with it.

I really hate that conflation.

Piracy is completely theft and is directly related to how anonymity, ease, and peer-pressure are known to loosen an individual's moral standards on things like theft.

Copyright is completely theft of culture from all of society and is directly related to how power graft bribery and corruption are known to loosen an individuals moral standards on things like theft.

Theft means the owner is deprived of his property. Copyright infringement does no such thing.

Copyright deprives society of its property (art and culture). It was originally intended to do so only on the following conditions: 1: this is in order to promote the creation of science and art. 2: this is for a limited time. Both those conditions are now being violated by copyright law and have destroyed the spirit in which they were founded.

[GlyphGryph]

MetalSlimeHunt, I do have a question, hoping to get to the root cause of our disagreement:

Why, exactly, do you want copyright to be considered theft. You clearly do. Why is it not enough that it is illegal - why do you want it to be illegal in that specific way, contrary to every law from pretty much every country I know of?

[Pnx]

Theft has always been a recognized aspect of human behavior, but the internet has provided for it to be simple and nearly undetectable.

And, I should emphasize, piracy is not theft and has jack-all to do with it.

I really hate that conflation.

Piracy is completely theft and is directly related to how anonymity, ease, and peer-pressure are known to loosen an individual's moral standards on things like theft.

Copyright is completely theft of culture from all of society and is directly related to how power graft bribery and corruption are known to loosen an individuals moral standards on things like theft.

Theft means the owner is deprived of his property. Copyright infringement does no such thing.

Copyright deprives society of its property (art and culture). It was originally intended to do so only on the following conditions: 1: this is in order to promote the creation of science and art. 2: this is for a limited time. Both those conditions are now being violated by copyright law and have destroyed the spirit in which they were founded.

Except now you're arguing that it's metaphorical theft rather than literal theft.

[G-Flex]

Copyright infringement is just a specialised word for the means of the theft, like robbery or pick-pocketing.

No, it's not, which is why they are governed by completely different laws and legal systems.


Copyright infringement is not very comparable to theft of a physical object. If you infringe upon a copyright, nothing of the "original" is lost. You're getting something without paying for it, in a sense, but you are not taking anything from anyone else.

Again: If copyright infringement were "theft", it would be treated as such legally. It is not. They are distinct legal and ethical concepts.

[GlyphGryph]

Except now you're arguing that it's metaphorical theft rather than literal theft.

I think the point Nadaka was making is that MSH was only able to justify it as metaphorical rather than literal theft, and if we are going that far then it would be hard to argue copyright itself isn't theft by the same understanding of theft.

[Bauglir]

Is the important part of the usual definition of theft (one we can agree is theft - let's say grabbing somebody's rightfully purchased gold watch) that you deprive somebody of something unjustly, or that you gain something without an act of reciprocity?

[G-Flex]

Is the important part of the usual definition of theft (one we can agree is theft - let's say grabbing somebody's rightfully purchased gold watch) that you deprive somebody of something unjustly, or that you gain something without an act of reciprocity?

The former. If I steal your shoes and immediately burn them to ash, I have still stolen your shoes. It doesn't matter much what you do with it, just the fact that you've deprived the person of their property.

[GlyphGryph]

If its the second, then gaining pleasure from looking at a pretty person and a host of other things would also be theft. I don't think that definition is sustainable.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Except you aren't taking their electronic data either. It's still there. If its still there, how exactly are you "taking it"?

Which is why I mentioned it as intellectual property first, because that aspect is more important. The person is marketing this data and selling it for money. It is their livelihood and belongs to them, only belonging to others if it is sold to them or given (not copied) by someone else who bought it.

And what if, as is commonly the case, you are making a copy of someone else's copy? Who are you stealing from, and how, since that company never possessed the data you're copying?

You are still stealing from the artist and their company because the intellectual ownership of the copy and the copy's copies and so forth all still have the same intellectual owner. A copy can physically belong to you without it being theft if it is a copy that is directly transferred from the intellectual owners for whatever monetary worth they charge for it.

MetalSlimeHunt, I do have a question, hoping to get to the root cause of our disagreement:

Why, exactly, do you want copyright to be considered theft. You clearly do. Why is it not enough that it is illegal - why do you want it to be illegal in that specific way, contrary to every law from pretty much every country I know of?

Legally, I'm not really looking for any change in the definition of copyright law. As was pointed out by Scriver, copyright infringement is a specific type of theft itself. I am only saying that piracy is equal to stealing.

In fact, the only change I really support in copyright law is significantly lowering the time period something is considered copyright before it enters the public domain. Currently it's at something like 75 years in the US when it should be closer to 10 or 20.

[GlyphGryph]

Except, legally, it isn't theft. The laws that govern the two are completely different.

Also, are you advocating making certain types of theft legal? Wouldn't it be just as much theft after the copyright expired? (Assuming we aren't arguing solely on the legal distinction, because if we were it wouldn't be theft right now)