I strongly disagree. Copying is fundamentally different than taking because the original source still retains their data. Copying cannot be categorized as theft in any sane society.

▲

saghm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think I come down somewhere in the middle here. I don't think it's particularly harmful for me to copy something for personal use without trying to pass it off as my own if I wouldn't otherwise be inclined to pay for it, but I do think there would be value in society having a way to let people retain the benefits of things they created for a reasonable duration. I don't think that US IP law does a good job of this though because in practice it seems to be wielded in pretty much the opposite way that I think would make sense, with more frequent and larger punishments seeming to be inversely proportionate to the benefit that the one doing the copying gets and the harm inflicted to the original creator.

▲

kube-system 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok, well it isn't in the US. Theft and copyright violations are entirely distinct laws here.

▲

saghm an hour ago | parent [-]

Sure, but you'd also have a pretty different experience with the law if you committed a bank heist or stole a cheap TV from a neighbor. I don't think the exact law that an action might violate is an important a distinction as what society chooses to do to punish or reward people who take certain actions, and US law does have some pretty harsh penalties for certain IP law violations that stem pretty directly from the concept of "property" in "intellectual property".

	▲	kube-system an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, different laws have different penalties. IP laws also have exceptions that other laws don't have. Teachers can, for example, photocopy things to teach their students, but they can't steal pencils from the store.