(no title)
stcg | 2 years ago
The person that came up with the idea still has it. The photographer still has the picture. The programmer still has the program.
It's just about what another person may do with it, the one receiving the picture. May they also send it to someone else? We could have different ideas about that, but calling it "stealing" is inaccurate.
lesostep|2 years ago
I'd like to add, that revoking a license is about taking someone access away. Only one side is taking something and it's not the pirates.
photonerd|2 years ago
I’m sympathetic to the moral argument you’re making—though when the raw goods are digital too I think it’s an impractical & ill conceived one—but both legally AND linguistically… it’s incorrect
autoexec|2 years ago
This is all really pretty simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
Also, (at least in the US) legally copyright infringement is distinct from stealing.
stcg|2 years ago
Are you then saying that when Bob sends another copy to Charlie, Bob is taking something? What is Bob taking?
28304283409234|2 years ago
idle_zealot|2 years ago
maweki|2 years ago
jonhohle|2 years ago
Likewise, the legal definition of theft or stealing does not apply to copyright infringement despite decades long campaigns to get the public to believe that to ge the case. Relatedly, there are similar campaigns to redefine violence as something that offends someone.
Trombone12|2 years ago
npoc|2 years ago
One way of looking at it is that the banks didn't have to expend a tiny fraction of $100 worth of effort to obtain the dollar bill, whereas any normal person would have to. The question is does the bank deserve that $100? Especially at a cost to everyone else (who are largely unaware/tricked).
Personally I'd class that as "fraud" but it all comes under a similar umbrella.
Theft is taking something you don't deserve, without the other party's consent.
Fraud is taking something you don't deserve, with the other party's _misplaced_ consent.
So yes, in the case of copying music for example, I agree - you're copying someone's idea, which is essentially taking the product of their work without their consent. Their work is no longer scarce, and so loses half its value. It's not really any different to stealing half the money they've worked for, other than that it seems almost impossible to stop you without creating paradoxes such as this topic.
It's detrimental as they no longer have the same incentive to do that work and so society doesn't progress.
You've taken the reward from the person that did the work and shared it amongst the whole of society who didn't work for it. It's pure socialism - and we can see the effects of it in the quality of modern music.
tacocataco|2 years ago