Comment by the_af
7 days ago
> 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.
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.
>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 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.