Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Infringement != Theft

20bits.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#51

Post by tptacek »

jfarmer wrote: post #50
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're off the rails again. "Theft" isn't what makes it charged. "Crime" is. Plenty of free riding problems are crimes. There's no "economics" versus "morality" issue at play here. Free riding is immoral.

Thanks for the insult! My point was intentionally narrow and I don't really think it's necessary for me to repeat it. Whether copyright infringement is "free riding" and whether or not "free riding" is immoral will have to wait for another day. Cheers, Jesse

Sorry that I managed to insult you. Wasn't my goal.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#52

Post by eyudkowsky »

tptacek wrote: post #31
eyudkowsky wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would copyright infringement still seem intuitively, morally wrong, if there were no copyright laws to begin with? If creators were never promised a legal expectation of control over their work, would you be violating any legitimate expectation by copying? Let's say that someone produces a musical album, and, knowing they cannot legally stop you from downloading it, they ask you not to copy it unless you send them $5…

Let's say that someone produces a musical album, and, knowing they cannot legally stop you from downloading it, they ask you not to copy it unless you send them $5. Would it be morally wrong to copy without paying? Uh, yeah? Like, very?

If you listen to a busker on the subway, and you enjoy the music, but you don't tip them anything, is that just as wrong, or less wrong?

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#53

Post by jfarmer »

mattmaroon wrote: post #48
jfarmer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a semantic argument. The syllogism Matt is using, implicitly, is: Copyright infringement is a kind of theft. All theft is bad. Therefore copyright infringement is bad. He talks about stealing songs and says, more or less, "Well, you can argue all you want, but downloading a song is stealing and stealing is wrong." No, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. The two are distinct along legal, historica…

I made no such syllogism. You did. Whether or not it's legally defined as theft is irrelevant to the overall article and not even worth mentioning.

You specifically equated the "theft" of a song with the theft of a car, but your definition of theft ignores the difference between theft and copyright infringement. These are distinct concepts, legally, historically, and philosophically.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it sounded like you were arguing that there's a moral force behind copyright and that it rests in its similarity to theft.

I'll update my article accordingly.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#54

Post by mariorz »

mattmaroon wrote: post #45
mariorz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you so sure it's harmful? There is hardly enough data yet at a systemic level to prove that argument. You can maybe intuitively say (as many do) that artists not getting paid will obviously result in less incentive to create and hence less art will be created, but you see, the tricky part with complex systems like this one is that they tend to actually be counter-intuitive and respond to many feedback infl…

There's enough data to prove it's harmful to some people. Maybe not the overall music industry, and maybe not the artists, but clearly to retailers, record labels, middlemen, etc.

Yeah absolutely, but such is to be expected from industries being transformed. All those small retailers, middlemen and most of record label employees are out of the job with or without copyright, itunes and Amazon kill them just as well.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#55

Post by andreyf »

mattmaroon wrote: post #45
mariorz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you so sure it's harmful? There is hardly enough data yet at a systemic level to prove that argument. You can maybe intuitively say (as many do) that artists not getting paid will obviously result in less incentive to create and hence less art will be created, but you see, the tricky part with complex systems like this one is that they tend to actually be counter-intuitive and respond to many feedback infl…

There's enough data to prove it's harmful to some people. Maybe not the overall music industry, and maybe not the artists, but clearly to retailers, record labels, middlemen, etc.

There's enough data to prove it's harmful to some people. Maybe not the overall music industry, and maybe not the artists...

Aha! But that's precisely the catch! It doesn't matter if it's harmful for some people, because the constitutional foundation for copyright says that its point is to "promote progress of the useful arts". Intellectual "property" is not property. The terms is meant to confuse the law.

The question we should be asking - what system of copyright best promotes progress? It sure as hell isn't the one we have now, but it also isn't an abolition of copyright altogether.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#56

Post by andreyf »

tptacek wrote: post #30
jfarmer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thou shalt not copy this scroll without the author's permission? I don't buy it and it doesn't hold ground historically. Did people not intuit it before the 18th century? It took over 300 years from the invention of the printing press for modern copyright law to form. Copyright (and patent) law exists and has always existed because it makes political and economic sense. See Section I, Article 8 is the US Constitution…

You still haven't rescued this from semantics. What's intuitively wrong is freeloading. Tax evasion is a criminal offense, even though it too is simply an example of freeloading.

What are these semantic arguments you're so worried about, exactly? The ones ones that use words?

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#57

Post by andreyf »

tptacek wrote: post #3

I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.

It's still wrong

Really? For the majority of human history, it hasn't been.

it's still harmful

It is? To whom? Surely not to people enjoying music - infringing copyright has made more people listen to more music.

it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw

In a government based on the US Constitution, only if such regulation and law "promotes the progress of useful arts".

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#58

Post by cturner »

andreyf wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #3

I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.

It's still wrong Really? For the majority of human history, it hasn't been. it's still harmful It is? To whom? Surely not to people enjoying music - infringing copyright has made more people listen to more music. it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw In a government based on the US Constitution, only if such regulation and law "promotes the progress of useful arts".

It would be interesting to see an attempt at a meaty economic defence that demonstrates that more innovation happens in a world with IP in spite of the harm that has on network effects.

I've been interested in this field for a while and never seen sign of such a thing. "IP" has grown out of the lobby groups, not out of academic integrity.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#59

Post by rms »

tptacek wrote: post #38
rms wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My moral relativism on this issue is as liberal as it gets, so my personal answer is a combination of "yes" and "it doesn't matter."

Which is why I have to suffer FairPlay DRM to download songs from iTunes. Thanks.

No, that is the RIAAs fault.

Re: Copyright Infringement != Theft

#60

Post by mattmaroon »

jfarmer wrote: post #53
mattmaroon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made no such syllogism. You did. Whether or not it's legally defined as theft is irrelevant to the overall article and not even worth mentioning.

You specifically equated the "theft" of a song with the theft of a car, but your definition of theft ignores the difference between theft and copyright infringement. These are distinct concepts, legally, historically, and philosophically. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it sounded like you were arguing that there's a moral force behind copyright and that it rests in its similarity to theft. I'll u…

I equated them only in the sense that they are both natural human behaviors. You could just as easily replace it with "piracy of a song", and the argument would have been the same.
Post reply on HN