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

Don't Make Me Steal

dontmakemesteal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#81

Post by citricsquid »

jamesbritt wrote: post #79
citricsquid wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not to steal it." EXACTLY. Yes, downloading a movie isn't exactly stealing, but it's still taking something without permission and it should be frowned upon just as much as stealing is. If a person pirates a movie they're taking something without reimbursing the rights owner with what they want. People aren't judged for stealing because it costs the store owner money, they…

"but it's still taking something " taking ? Or copying? Some thing ? Or some representation? A problem with these discussions is that people use common words as if everyone had the same understanding of their meaning and application. If I download a movie, I'm not taking that movie. And what I end up with is not a thing ; if I then move it over to another drive, no thing has moved, yet the movie can be watched. Now,…

taking = gaining possession of [item]

taking doesn't have to be negative and it's not a word associated with either side of the discussion, it's just a word. I can take $10 from my mum to pay for dinner, or take a magazine from a shop (after paying for it), it's just the opposite of give. You can take with permission, that's why I stated take without.

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#82

Post by jessriedel »

Silhouette wrote: post #44
mike_esspe wrote: post #7

This can start a copyright flame, but in order to be fair, "steal" should be replaced with "copy".

Technically yes, but it is and always has been a shallow argument to claim that copyright infringement is not theft. Of course it's not the same to duplicate information as it is to remove a physical item, but both are based on an artificial legal concept of property. The natural state of things is indeed that I can copy any information coming my way, and copyright artificially restricts my right to do so in the eyes…

I don't want to get into a detailed argument here, but there are popular, consistent moral philosophies which hold that (1) physical property rights exist a priori to the state (Locke-style) and so are immoral to violate at all times, and (2) intellectual property rights are a social construction which only have moral import when defined by a legal framework and enforced by a reasonably just government.

In other words, many philosophers do draw a morally relevant distinction between these categories of rights.

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#83

Post by rickmb »

rubidium wrote: post #10

I really don't like the "don't make me steal" attitude. It undermines a good society. The creators of this campaign decided that "Purchase should not exceed the cinema price." Really? What if we did that for, say, organic bread. "I won't buy organic bread unless it's x3 or less than the cost of the generic white bread. If it is more expensive, I'm entitled to steal it." Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not…

A "good society" is a society where corporations can run a legal extortion racket by creating artificial scarcity of the cultural products of said society and take draconian measures to protect said racket based on outdated legislation that was originally intended to achieve exactly the opposite?

No, that's not a "good society". That is a sick and corrupt society.

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#84

Post by nlogn »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #34
mike_esspe wrote: post #7

This can start a copyright flame, but in order to be fair, "steal" should be replaced with "copy".

I find it amusing that second-rate grammar (loose/lose) and spelling is the norm for some communities, but the second this topic comes up, everyone turns into a armchair semantic guru.

Very true. Hacker News is not a community where second-rate grammar and spelling is the norm, however.

Also, I'm sure you can see how those who are copying/stealing/whatever you want to call it might wish to call it copying instead of stealing, as that implies a lesser moral judgment (deservedly imo).

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#85

Post by kijinbear »

citricsquid wrote: post #81
jamesbritt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but it's still taking something " taking ? Or copying? Some thing ? Or some representation? A problem with these discussions is that people use common words as if everyone had the same understanding of their meaning and application. If I download a movie, I'm not taking that movie. And what I end up with is not a thing ; if I then move it over to another drive, no thing has moved, yet the movie can be watched. Now,…

taking = gaining possession of [item] taking doesn't have to be negative and it's not a word associated with either side of the discussion, it's just a word . I can take $10 from my mum to pay for dinner, or take a magazine from a shop (after paying for it), it's just the opposite of give. You can take with permission, that's why I stated take without .

When you take $10 from your mom, your mom no longer has that $10. When you pay money to buy a magazine, the shop no longer has that magazine and you no longer have the money. Taking in the usual sense is moving.

But pirates insist that they can "take" without depriving the owner of anything. That's copying, which is a different kind of taking. It gets even more complicated if somebody first purchases a legitimate copy of a song or a movie, and then produces more copies to share with other people. You run the fallacy of equivocation when you use the word "taking" in both senses.

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#86

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jamesbritt wrote: post #79
citricsquid wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not to steal it." EXACTLY. Yes, downloading a movie isn't exactly stealing, but it's still taking something without permission and it should be frowned upon just as much as stealing is. If a person pirates a movie they're taking something without reimbursing the rights owner with what they want. People aren't judged for stealing because it costs the store owner money, they…

"but it's still taking something " taking ? Or copying? Some thing ? Or some representation? A problem with these discussions is that people use common words as if everyone had the same understanding of their meaning and application. If I download a movie, I'm not taking that movie. And what I end up with is not a thing ; if I then move it over to another drive, no thing has moved, yet the movie can be watched. Now,…

So, copying a representation belonging to someone else is "not stealing"? Is that the goal of this semantic fudging - somehow its not so bad?

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#87

Post by randallsquared »

citricsquid wrote: post #69
kijinbear wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People aren't judged for stealing because it costs the store owner money, they're judged because it's immoral! I'm not sure it's as simple as that. One could always ask: "Why is it immoral to steal?" and the answer usually revolves around how stealing deprives the owner of something he had a legitimate claim to, etc. etc. That's how our moral intuitions have evolved over thousands of years. The fact that this age-o…

I must be completely insane then, because I don't see stealing as wrong because it deprives the owner of their property, I see it as wrong because you're taking something you don't own on your own terms, not the terms of the person who owns it. If John the shop owner wants to sell bread for $10/loaf and you take it for free, that's immoral because it was his bread and he wanted $10 for it. If Tony the musician wants…

I don't see stealing as wrong because it deprives the owner of their property, I see it as wrong because you're taking something you don't own on your own terms, not the terms of the person who owns it.

So if you work harder at stealing something than the previous owner did at making it, it's not wrong? That actually meshes pretty well with the popularity of heist movies. :)

If Tony the musician wants $10 for an mp3 copy of his latest single and you take it for free, that's immoral because it's his and he wants $10 for it.

I don't think most pirates would disagree, properly defined. It's just that if Tony gives Uhuru an mp3 copy of his latest single for $10, and then Uhuru makes her own copies and sends them to her best friends, the pirate would say that the copies Uhuru made were hers, and she wanted to share them for free.

[edit: subject object agreement]

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#88

Post by drivebyacct2 »

Silhouette wrote: post #49
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #22

If I could watch content on Hulu, Netflix or other in Linux and I didn't want to throw myself in front of the lunatic-driven University bus, I'd be happy. TPB -> "The Italian Job" + 3 hours = me happy. There is NO legal alternative for me. No, I'm not walking 30 miles to Best Buy to waste $30 on a DVD that won't play in my computer that doesn't have a DVD drive. And I don't consider running Win7 in a VM to be reasona…

There are plenty of legal alternatives for you. Indeed, you just mentioned several of them, and another is not to consume that particular content at all and to find your entertainment in some other way. Please don't pretend anyone somehow forced you to break the law. You chose to do that yourself.

1. Hulu in Linux is effectively impossible. It's completely broken in Chrome and it stops after 10 minutes of playback in Firefox. More importantly, it does not have the movies I'm interested in.

2. Netflix has no client or support for Linux. Microsoft won't license the DRM components and Netflix refuses to change.

I never, ever mentioned that I was forced into breaking the law, but thanks for putting those words into my mouth. Make no bones about it. I broke the law because it is more convenient. I would pay for the movies if, as I already stated, I wasn't forced to borrow someone's car to buy a frickin DVD.

Surely, you can understand that "Don't consume the content at all" is as much of a copout as someone saying they were "forced" to steal the content. Both I and the movie industry would benefit from me having easier access to the content that I would happily pay for.

This is partly why I'm hopeful to see what Amazon has in store.

Re: Don't Make Me Steal

#89

Post by citricsquid »

kijinbear wrote: post #85
citricsquid wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

taking = gaining possession of [item] taking doesn't have to be negative and it's not a word associated with either side of the discussion, it's just a word . I can take $10 from my mum to pay for dinner, or take a magazine from a shop (after paying for it), it's just the opposite of give. You can take with permission, that's why I stated take without .

When you take $10 from your mom, your mom no longer has that $10. When you pay money to buy a magazine, the shop no longer has that magazine and you no longer have the money. Taking in the usual sense is moving . But pirates insist that they can "take" without depriving the owner of anything. That's copying , which is a different kind of taking. It gets even more complicated if somebody first purchases a legitimate c…

My usage of "take" is insignificant, it's just a word in my argument. You can "take help" you can "take ideas" and they're not physical.

Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument :|

Post reply on HN