But copyright infringement, in certain contexts, is a crime.
The "it's not theft" argument is pedantry. There are lots of ways to obtain things for free that aren't technically theft: extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc. Illegal copying is one of those ways.
> The "it's not theft" argument is pedantry. There are lots of ways to obtain things for free that aren't technically theft: extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc. Illegal copying is one of those ways.
Disagree. Even in the extortion, blackmail, and fraud cases, you're removing ownership when you obtain the thing. Copying never removes ownership, so it is not in the same class. It is not theft, and it it not pedantry to claim it is not. It's incorrect to state it is something that it is not to make it sound worse than it is.
Well, let's be totally clear: "obtaining things for free" is not particularly what's at issue here. What's at issue is something more like "obtaining something which is not yours to obtain." That invokes a tremendous question of what is "yours to obtain" which is not easily settled, and because we have competing intuitions on this point, Hacker News discussions can go wild between camps which take both extremes of the issue.
I would guess that it's at least a strong minority view -- if not a majority view -- that record labels have abdicated their moral authority to assert transgressions of this kind. It is not unlike patent trolls, where we feel that if someone fails to capitalize on a potential market and in fact attempts (politically, legally, etc.) to hinder the growth there, that they forfeit their right to be wronged.
So I think it's a shame that both sides never seem to get around to Step One, which is to say, "here's what I think the spirit of the law is, here's what I think the purpose of law as a whole is; now, do these conditions efficiently uphold those ideals?"
If those questions are answered then it may not be "pedantry" -- perhaps they think that the purpose of the law is to stop theft, and theft-like deprivations of property. There may or may not be a nuanced argument here; and we won't know until people manifest their assumptions rather than burying them under knee-jerk slogans.
No, that it is theft is pedantry. If it's more complicated than that and requires all kinds of caveats in order to equate the two, then use your words and stop taking shortcuts.
Indeed - and really the "potential" keyword is really dependent on if that person would have purchased it outright if they had not been able to pirate it in the first place.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I hope you do quote me on that...I don't believe you can steal an idea or a design either. In fact, I don't believe that anything that is not both physical and finite can be assigned ownership.
Looks like you work for Panopta. Why are you guys charging up to $250/month for your product[1]? It should be free shouldn't it? I've decided $250 is too expensive and demand use of that tier for $3/month. I'm in the right aren't I?
I'm not sure what you're asking me. Demanding something is not the same as copyright infringement or theft.
If you're asking why we won't give you the service for what you demand because nobody owns it, I would argue that a service is both physical and finite, so I believe it can be owned. Our service involves physical work being performed, and it is limited by resources, so it being owned such that you cannot demand it is still consistent with my beliefs.
All I really see above is some hand waving justifying why your income should be charged for, yet for some reason some other person (musician) somehow is in the wrong for expecting other people to pay for their service and time it took to create their music for your entertainment.
No. I gave you very specific reasons why I believe what I believe. You see hand-waving because you don't want to argue against my reasons, which are clear and logically consistent.
> yet for some reason some other person (musician) somehow is in the wrong for expecting other people to pay for their service and time it took to create their music for your entertainment.
They are not wrong. I like how you put the word "service" in there, because, in fact, they do get paid for their services. Try to hire a musician to put on a show, and you will have to pay. That physical and finite service is owned by the musician, and he trades it for money.
Just because copyright infringement is not theft doesn't mean there aren't cases where infringement is problematic. I think most people support reasonable modifications to copyright law, not the total abolition of copyright altogether.
And for the record, a "startup idea" cannot be copyrighted, and they can be and are copied all the time. The closest you can get is patenting a fundamental part of the business model.
