Print

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

[Fenrir]

Unless I misundertand the dispute, the following would seem relevant. http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

[Nadaka]

EDIT: removed quote pyramid.

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.

No. Actually I am not. I am saying that copyright is literal theft in that it literally deprives society of its shared culture and art if everyone goes along with it.

[Siquo]

Nuance and context-version: Well, you could be taking supposed income from the author, so that would be theft. But only if you would've paid in the first place, other wise it wouldn't.

So it isn't theft if you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, as nothing actually changes whether you did or did not copy the data.


... yeah, I just made that up.

[GlyphGryph]

There's no legal concept of "theft" that includes depriving someone of potential. Wearing a condom isn't abortion, releasing a superior competitive product isn't stealing from current manufacturers, and telling your friend not to buy that guys book because he's an asshole isn't robbery.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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

And I am fine with that. As before, I am looking for no legal changes to copyright law. When I say "piracy is theft" I am saying that "piracy is equal to stealing someone's property and thus is morally wrong".

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)

It's all about livelihood. 10 or 20 years after the fact a singular book, game, or movie is going to be making little to no money for the creator, who almost certainly will have either changed fields or made another work. By then, maintaining copyright is futile and only serves to be malicious.

You might point out how there are long lasting series which are renewed for far longer than that, but if that is an issue then you can just renew the series copyright itself. The series will remain your intellectual property while the individual part of it will become public domain.

[GlyphGryph]

So, the point, for you, isn't that copyright infringement is theft, but that that it is, morally, just as bad as theft (except that, unlike theft, it gets less bad as time goes by)?

Legally, it isn't theft. You admit that. Conceptually, it isn't theft. Definitionally, it still is. not. theft.

You can say it is as bad as theft, fine, I'm okay with that. But they are, quite simply, not the same thing.

So, again, if you admit that piracy isn't theft (legally), why do you insist on saying they are the same thing simply because they have equal moral weight?

[Luke_Prowler]

It's technically not theft as some have pointed out already, but they have the same result: you're getting something for nothing, but at least the theif actually put some effort into it.

It's more like counterfeiting money than theft

[GlyphGryph]

Actually, counterfeiting is a pretty awesome comparison here. Because that is much closer to "getting something for nothing" than theft, which has been sourced repeatedly is based around depriving someone of something rather than getting something for yourself.

I think I'm going to use that as my opening in future debates like this. It's very good.

but they have the same result: you're getting something for nothing, but at least the theif actually put some effort into it.

Not quite the same result. One always deprives someone of something, and the other has a chance of depriving them of potential. Part of the result is the same, but not the whole thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So, the point, for you, isn't that copyright infringement is theft, but that that it is, morally, just as bad as theft (except that, unlike theft, it gets less bad as time goes by)?

Legally, it isn't theft. You admit that. Conceptually, it isn't theft. Definitionally, it still is. not. theft.

You can say it is as bad as theft, fine, I'm okay with that. But they are, quite simply, not the same thing.

So, again, if you admit that piracy isn't theft (legally), why do you insist on saying they are the same thing simply because they have equal moral weight?

Because, as I explained with my post on intellectual property, it is conceptually and morally theft during the time period that a person's livelihood depends upon it.

[GlyphGryph]

Except you haven't, actually, explained that at all. You've STATED it, sure, but you don't seem to grasp the difference between stating something and explaining your reasoning for it.

But with our new analogy - Do you consider counterfeiting to be theft as well?

And is not copyright itself theft of our ability to make copies of something we posses (by your conceptual definition)?

Does your definition indicate some types of theft are okay and others aren't?

[Bauglir]

Actually, counterfeiting is a pretty awesome comparison here. Because that is much closer to "getting something for nothing" than theft, which has been sourced repeatedly is based around depriving someone of something rather than getting something for yourself.

I think I'm going to use that as my opening in future debates like this. It's very good.

Main problem with that is that a sufficiently obnoxious pirate who makes a preposterous number of copies doesn't reduce their value for anybody with the genuine thing.

...except that pirate copies are often free of the absurd DRM schemes that can make using legitimate copies pretty damn annoying. Shit, this is a really good analogy.

[Pnx]

The landscape of information and information rights is utterly unique, and has to be taken on its own terms, there really is no comparison to be made, the more easily information is exchanged, the more apparent the problem becomes.

[Nadaka]

So, the point, for you, isn't that copyright infringement is theft, but that that it is, morally, just as bad as theft (except that, unlike theft, it gets less bad as time goes by)?

Legally, it isn't theft. You admit that. Conceptually, it isn't theft. Definitionally, it still is. not. theft.

You can say it is as bad as theft, fine, I'm okay with that. But they are, quite simply, not the same thing.

So, again, if you admit that piracy isn't theft (legally), why do you insist on saying they are the same thing simply because they have equal moral weight?

Because, as I explained with my post on intellectual property, it is conceptually and morally theft during the time period that a person's livelihood depends upon it.

No it returning stolen goods to society. The right to copy belongs to everyone. And that right is restricted by copyright law. And that is conceptually, morally and in the long term literally equivalent to theft.

[MorleyDev]

It's not even a criminal offence. It's a civil offence, at least in every country that has any trace of sanity left in it's legal system. So legally or by dictionary definition, is it theft? No.

Of course you may feel that it is similar to or on par with theft in moral terms, but moral discussions are by nature imprecise, ill-defined and in my opinion, as a result utterly pointless.

Since by the dictionary definition of theft, it's not theft, and by legal definitions of theft, it's not theft, then it's not theft.

[Fenrir]

No it returning stolen goods to society. The right to copy belongs to everyone. And that right is restricted by copyright law. And that is conceptually, morally and in the long term literally equivalent to theft.

Rights are not something that is held. You are not born with arms and legs and rights. They are not a property of yourself to be stunted or removed or altered.