Comment by the_af
9 days ago
Piracy is not theft.
We already had this debate decades ago, and your side of the debate lost. It's not "theft" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
It may not be legal, and it may be many other things, but it's not theft.
As to why "people justify it", what's the point of even asking when the article and many comments here explain the reasons? You may disagree with the reasons, but they exist and they are coherent.
> We already had this debate decades ago, and your side of the debate lost. It's not "theft" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
That's only true when you ignore many, many common usages of the word "theft". I would hazard a guess that your interpretations are along the dictionary lines of "depriving a person of their property." However, here are some commonly used forms of the word (supported by wikipedia and government sites) that don't fit that definition:
- Wage theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft
- Time theft: https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles...
- Identity theft: https://www.usa.gov/identity-theft
- Theft of services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services
- Theft of trade secrets: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=TRADE+SECRETS
- Attention theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_theft
- Data theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_theft
- Electricity theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_theft
- Joke theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke_theft
- Stolen valor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_valor
And here are more colloquial usages of theft of abstract things:
- Credit card theft (it's really just the number that is "stolen")
- Password theft (usually "stolen" during a data breach, more numbers being stolen)
- Bitcoin theft (even more numbers being "stolen".)
Here's a very simple explanation for this: In common parlance, "theft" generally means taking something of economic value -- either physical, like property, or abstract, like labor -- from someone without giving any value in return against their wishes.
If you extend this line of thought, you'll see why IP laws exist and why these abstract forms of theft are illegal.
And when examined from that perspective, those coherent reasons are basically just different ways of saying "because I can get away with it."
The proper legal term is copyright infringement. Robbery and theft cover real property, not intellectual property.
"Common usages" of a word are irrelevant. We can't discuss legal concepts without precise terminology. Only the correct words and their precise meanings matter.
Equation of copyright infringement to theft and piracy is propaganda. People do this deliberately in order to draw on the negative connotations of the words. Good faith cannot be assumed if people insist on using these words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
> 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
We're not discussing legal definitions. From the original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44908809
> It's not "theft" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
That is the standard under discussion.
As I said, we already had this conversation ages ago and your side lost.
Shout until you're blue in the face, and you'll be just as wrong.
I've already stated my position, and "because you can get away with it" is no part of it. You must be confusing me with someone else in this conversation.
Half your examples fail to make the point you intend, and are not at all analogous to watching a pirated TV show. A lot of the rest use an informal (not legal, and highly subjective) definition of the word "theft" -- but you knew this.
It's exhausting to keep repeating this. Please read what's been said (hint: these are decades old arguments, we're not going to rehash them here for your benefit).
All of this harkens back to even before the days of the silly "you wouldn't steal a car" (2004) antipiracy campaign. I hope I don't need to explain that stealing a car and pirating a TV show are nothing alike, neither legally nor morally.
> 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.
13 replies →
>As I said, we already had this conversation ages ago and your side lost.
I had a conversation too. Several conversations. And I won those conversations so YOU lost. In fact, just imagine every single stance you've ever had on any topic and just know I had a conversation about it in the past, and you lost.
My point is. Nobody cares about your conversation especially when ALL of those conversations you're referencing are utterly wrong.
>It's exhausting to keep repeating this. Please read what's been said (hint: these are decades old arguments, we're not going to rehash them here for your benefit).
Who the hell is "we?" How about this. Whoever you're referring to, however many decades you guys spent talking about it... you're all wrong. You wasted decades and came up with a wrong outcome.
5 replies →