| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, for the same that stealing an item isn’t okay because there is more in the back. | | |
| ▲ | ajross 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Impact and harm is absolutely part of the criteria by which we judge crimes and penalties. Not sure where you're going with that. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Of course harm matters. Stealing a priceless original is worse, and punished harder, than stealing a commodity out of a corner store. That doesn’t mean the latter is fine. | | |
| ▲ | ajross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There's a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution! | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution! And I’d say someone who premeditates a company wide shutdown, triggers it, and then doesn’t offer to help after its damage becomes clearly apparent crosses the line of criminal responsibility. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | userbinator 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can infinitely "steal" digital data. That's where the analogy breaks down. Imaginary property is imaginary. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Imaginary property is imaginary Property, a social construct, is always imaginary. The ship on IP, from insider trading laws to copyright, has sailed. If the only argument against a potential crime is IP isn’t real, the person is probably wrong. | | |
| ▲ | zarzavat 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is all very well but exactly what type of IP is CCTV footage? It's not copyrighted. It's not patented. It's not trademarked. ...trade secret? | | |
| ▲ | fuckaj 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Copyright | | |
| ▲ | zarzavat 3 days ago | parent [-] | | CCTV footage is not a creative work, it doesn't even have an author. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You’re correct, it is not copyright. It comes closer to me asking to use your computer to check my bank account and then emailing myself all your identify documents. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | userbinator 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Stealing physical property deprives its original owner of it.
The same can't be said of IP. | | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 3 days ago | parent [-] | | So what? That at most means they’re slightly different flavors of the abstraction we call “property”. And owning property — even physical property — entails having the right to prevent other people from using it, even in ways that don’t deprive you of it. You can’t drive my car without permission, even if you bring it back in perfect condition and I wasn’t planning on using it that day. |
|
|
|
|
|
