> As I said, we already had this conversation ages ago and your side lost.

Repeating that does not make it true.

> A lot of the rest use an informal (not legal, and highly subjective) definition of the word "theft" -- but you knew this.

Yes, all the examples I gave are exactly of that. I think we are in violent agreement here.

> It's exhausting to keep repeating this.

I do agree it's exhausting, because neither you nor the decades of arguments (where I have repeatedly brought it up, but well, the Internet is a big place) have addressed this point. Let me lay it out in more detail:

1. All society and trade is based on exchange of value. This is true since the oldest days of barter.

2. When somebody provides something of value and gets something they value in return, that is a fair trade. The exact amounts of value are negotiable (including zero, cf. creative commons, but again this is based on the provider's consent.) This is the fundamental basis of trade.

3. So when someone takes something of value -- physical goods or abstract things like services or TV shows -- without giving its provider something of acceptable value in return, it is considered unfair and morally wrong. Which is why society has decided to make it legally wrong as well.

So whether it's stealing a car or pirating a TV show, it is essentially taking something of value without giving any in exchange, for which the word "theft" is perfectly fine.

▲

matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> So when someone takes something of value

> it is essentially taking something of value

Intellectual property is not "taken". It is not a tangible good that can change hands. Copies are made instead.

Having a copyright means having the right to make copies.

To infringe someone's copyright is to make copies despite the right to make copies belonging to someone else.

The words are self-explanatory.

Real property logic and words do not apply to intellectual property. Insisting on their use is bad faith argumentation. It is an attempt to convince others by shock and manipulation. Virtually nobody is moved by such a nebulous crime as copyright infringement, so the words theft and piracy are substituted in its place for greater impact.

▲

keeda 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sigh, I knew the word "take" would invoke pedanticity...

So when you "take interest" or "take advantage" or "take a look" or "take your time", what tangible good is being "taken"?

When you "take pleasure in something", like say a TV show, you are deriving value from it. What tangible goods are involved here?

When somebody provides you a service -- say washing your car -- you are still taking value from it even without a single tangible good being given. Or would you not pay the person because no "tangible good" has been given to you?

English is a rich language and pedanticity does not help this debate. Instead, you may want to address the core argument: when someone provides value (again: goods AND services) to another party and does not receive acceptable value in return, it is considered immoral, which is why society has made it illegal.

And yes, the word "theft" is prefectly suitable in this case. Otherwise you should explain why all of these involve some loss to party and are immoral / illegal without a single tangible good being "taken": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565

▲

matheusmoreira 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

We're citing and discussing the precise definitions of specific legal terms. Your counterargument is to point out the colloquial and out of context usage of words.

I already replied to the argument you cited. It's already been explained to you. Even the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

If I really wanted to be pedantic, I would start claiming that it's all the english expressions you cited that are weird and make no sense at first glance.

I don't "take pleasure in something", I derive pleasure from something. The pleasure is obviously not contained in the object or activity. It's not even a real thing that can be taken. Pleasure is just the way my mind reacts when I engage with an object or in an activity I enjoy. A feeling spontaneously generated from something else.

I don't "take interest in something", I develop an interest in something. The subject did not contain the interest, it just spontaneously appeared in my mind after I considered the subject, leading me to want to know more.

The detail that makes these expressions work is the word "in". The places pleasure and interest are taken from are actually left unspecified. What this means is people "take" pleasure and interest from the intangible abstract world and place them in their minds over the course of engaging with an object or activity. I can definitely empathize with the thought process that produced these weird colloquial expressions.

But who am I to question the meaning of english words anyway? I'm not even a native. That's why I cite authorities such as the Supreme Court of the United States. They say copyright infringement is not strictly equivalent to theft. Courts have ruled that it's not even strictly equivalent to commercial loss. All that makes sense and I believe them.

This really should mark the end of this discussion.

▲

the_af 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not "pedanticity", it's that the facts matter and you are wrong.

We've seen this tactic before: proponents of draconian copyright laws intentionally conflated "copying" (as in the digital world) with "theft" (as in "you wouldn't steal a car" -- are you familiar with this campaign from 2004 that largely backfired?).

So that's why words matter. You are misusing them in a way that has been weaponized in the past, which is why I and many others are vigilant and quick to correct you.

▲

ninetyninenine 3 days ago | parent [-]

>We've seen

This is what bugs me about you. Who is "we"? It's like you're calling "we" the rest of the free world. Be real, most people aren't on your side.

"We" in reality is just a small group of fanatical FSF members vs. The rest of the entire world.

	▲	matheusmoreira 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"We" refers to people who agree with us, and that includes the Supreme Court of the United States. Refer to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44921015 > Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. > However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. > Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss > the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft > Judge Kathleen M. Williams granted a motion to deny the MPAA the usage of words whose appearance was primarily "pejorative" > This list included the word "piracy", the use of which, the motion by the defense stated, serves no court purpose but to misguide and inflame the jury
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

the_af 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You are not "taking" anything. It's not theft.

This conversation was settled, whether you like it or not.

It's as frustrating as debating whether slavery is moral or D&D is satanic. We've had this conversation, it's settled.

Piracy is not theft.

▲

keeda 4 days ago | parent [-]

Wait, I thought we decided we were using the word "theft" informally. Like all those examples I posted above and you agreed with. What is being "taken" in "wage theft" or "identity theft" or "joke theft"?

> This conversation was settled, whether you like it or not.

Ignoring salient points does not settle a conversation. I laid out the case point-by-point for why not returning fair value when taking something of value (remember: services are not a "thing" and yet provide great value!) is immoral and illegal and often considered "theft". (Again, if you want to nitpick over the word "theft" look at the long list of examples I posted above.) I notice you have not shown any flaw in that logic.

Maybe this conversation frustratingly never ends because this point has never been refuted.

▲

the_af 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Wait, I thought we decided we were using the word "theft" informally.

Nope. We were discussing with someone else (before you chimed in) who argued it was exactly theft.

When shown this was false, the person argued it was morally equivalent (this was also false).

> Again, if you want to nitpick over the word "theft" look at the long list of examples I posted above

I'm not nitpicking, you're factually wrong.

Have you read important works about the distinction, such as Lessig's "Free Culture"?

It's frustrating because this is akin to discussing, yet again, the moral panics of the olden days, long settled but (apparently) brand new generations without an understanding of the past want to resurface them.

▲

keeda 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

All your arguments are assertions or appeals to authority with no logical reasoning supporting them.

I invite you again to pinpoint the flaw in this very brief 2-point reasoning (with a number of supporting links above) that nobody over the decades has (maybe you could find something in Lessig's works, but good luck with that):

- Society and commerce is based on exchange of value (again: goods and services)

- When one party gets the value from the other party without returning an acceptable value, it is considered immoral and wrong, and informally called "theft" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565)

Just two points. Very simple. Otherwise no point in continuing this thread.

▲

ninetyninenine 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>When shown this was false, the person argued it was morally equivalent (this was also false).

This is an utter lie. Not just false. But dishonest. Nothing was shown. What happened was, the person (me) stated regardless of whether or not it's theft or not, none of your logic works. It doesn't matter if it's theft, it's just pedantic bullshit on your part, so why don't we just go with it to move the argument forward.

Why did you lie here? Obviously because you're wrong and covering shit up.

>I'm not nitpicking, you're factually wrong.

Whether or not your nitpicking, when everyone sees you talk you look like your nitpicking and being overly pedantic about everything. Let's keep the argument moving forward and just say what you're doing is morally and ethically equivalent to nitpicking. Whether it's actually definitionally nitpicking doesn't matter.

>Have you read important works about the distinction, such as Lessig's "Free Culture"?

Yes, I’ve read Free Culture. But have you read the works of Dr. Emilia Hartmann (‘The Myth of Cultural Lock-In: Reassessing Intellectual Property Narratives’, 2009), or Professor Takuya Nishimura’s ‘Property, Commons, and the Illusion of Freedom’ (Oxford Review of Law and Policy, 2013)? These, along with Michael D. Carroway’s ‘The Economics of Restriction: Why Free Culture Fails the Creative Class’ (Cambridge Digital Law Journal, 2015), systematically dismantle Lessig’s assumptions. Even more directly, the anthology edited by Sophie R. Klein and David M. Torres, ‘Beyond Free Culture: Regulation, Autonomy, and the Digital Public’ (2017), is often cited as the definitive rebuttal.

I mean if you read even one of these things, you'll know you're severely misinformed.

>It's frustrating because this is akin to discussing, yet again, the moral panics of the olden days, long settled but (apparently) brand new generations without an understanding of the past want to resurface them.

The past is the one that's irrelevant. Times have changed. You're still walking 10 miles to get to school while the rest of the world now drives cars. Wake up.

	▲	the_af 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> The past is the one that's irrelevant. Times have changed. You're still walking 10 miles to get to school while the rest of the world now drives cars. Wake up. You have it backwards. The modern world is naturally copyright-infringing. Computers and the digital are copying devices. It's you who, applying an outdated lens of "theft", are stuck in the past. You know you're wrong. After all, you admitted you pirate everything.