(Aside: whether it's "the same thing" isn't something you can settle that simply. Can two people ever have "the same thought"? Certainly something different happens in the physical world when two people think things that they'd describe as the same.)
Here's how *I'd* determine whether someone can have stolen something:
1) Does the "thief" have something they didn't have before?
(Clearly yes.)
2) How did they get it?
(This matters, a lot. If someone else cracks into your "Google Play" account and uploads music you're not entitled to without your knowledge, *you* haven't stolen anything.)
3) Is the "thief" *entitled* to have that thing?
(This also matters a lot, and is why not *all* copying is sharing -- in fact, the vast majority of it isn't.)
Don't pretend that such word-use is one-sided, or even that the bulk of it is on Mike's side.
*I* happen to consider it stealing, but I understand that some people do not, and that it's not "settled". The verb "to steal" is certainly not as well-defined as MPAA/RIAA pretend, no more than it's as well-defined as the author pretends.
I also happen to consider IP-related stealing to be literally *victimless*. The original IP-owner is *not* (IMHO) entitled to *any* compensation. The proper remedy is for the "stealing" to be reversed (ie. the copy is to be destroyed), and if there's a pattern of offending behavior, the "thief" should be imprisoned.
But the original IP-owner is not entitled to any remedy or compensation at all, since they have not actually been deprived of anything at any point.
1) No skin in the game. I'm a computer programmer, but I do in-house programming for my employer. Where it makes sense to, I participate in open source projects, and make my own projects available to others.
2) You say "all of humanity is entitled to enjoy the results of artists work". You say it axiomatically. Obviously, I do not agree, but I'm open to discussion -- *why* do you believe that? What argument would you make to persuade someone who's undecided?
I don't see that *any* of the definitions shown there necessarily involve depriving anyone of anything. You may argue that #1 is in applicable because you don't consider a digital copy to be something that can be "possessed". I'm willing to leave #3 out of consideration for the moment since failing to do so would short-circuit the discussion. But #2 clearly has nothing to do with depriving anyone of anything, it has to do with the "thief" *acquiring* something, whether anyone is deprived or not.
Your dictionary may of course have a different set of definitions that do show such a requirement.
You say "copying is still not stealing" as if that were a fact.
I'm open to argument, but you didn't make an argument, you made an assertion. If you'd like to take a stab at persuasion instead of assertion, I'll listen.
(And, communicating a threat *can* cause harm, so I'm not sure I accept the "one does not really hurt you" part in your last paragraph. And you *can* use the term "attack" for both, it's routinely done.)
I agree that "words don't mean whatever you want them to mean". But it *is* up for debate.
The dictionary I just consulted has 8 definitions for "steal", 3 of which are completely compatible with my way of thinking about this. Other dictionaries may disagree.
There isn't some universal objective "master dictionary" we can consult to settle this -- I don't get to redefine words, but I *do* get to explain that my understanding is different from yours, and is backed by a dictionary that I had nothing to do with writing. There is disagreement, and there is room for argument.
The question is: did you take something you weren't entitled to take?
If the original is in the public domain, then "of course not". It has to go back to the entitlements.
(That said: the solution is not for the IP-holders to sue and get paid. That's bogus. Just because someone stole something doesn't mean the IP-owners were deprived of anything. They are not entitled to any remedy of the sort -- what *should* happen is, the copies are destroyed, the "thief" goes to jail, and the owner of the original IP has no involvement beyond testifying as to the entitlements involved.)
Saying "copying still isn't stealing" doesn't make it true.
I understand that you don't agree that copying is stealing. But there are people -- not all of them on the side of RIAA/MPAA/et cetera -- who disagree with that, who think copying *is* stealing. (I'm one of them, even though I think the big IP holders are acting like idiots and deserve to have their businesses, perhaps their whole industries, go down in flames.)
(Why can it be stealing? Because afterwards, a person through their own action can end up with something they're not entitled to. The "stealing" doesn't come from the original owner *losing* access, but from the recipient *gaining* it. If you take an action by which you unilaterally claim something you're not entitled to, then you've stolen something. Nobody has to be deprived of anything for that to be true, or for it to be wrong.)
If you said "not everyone agrees that copying is stealing", I'd have nothing to add. But if you simply say "copying isn't stealing" as if that were a fact, or were agreed upon by over 95% of people, well, I have to respond.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It can be.
Here's how *I'd* determine whether someone can have stolen something:
1) Does the "thief" have something they didn't have before?
(Clearly yes.)
2) How did they get it?
(This matters, a lot. If someone else cracks into your "Google Play" account and uploads music you're not entitled to without your knowledge, *you* haven't stolen anything.)
3) Is the "thief" *entitled* to have that thing?
(This also matters a lot, and is why not *all* copying is sharing -- in fact, the vast majority of it isn't.)
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It can be.
*I* happen to consider it stealing, but I understand that some people do not, and that it's not "settled". The verb "to steal" is certainly not as well-defined as MPAA/RIAA pretend, no more than it's as well-defined as the author pretends.
I also happen to consider IP-related stealing to be literally *victimless*. The original IP-owner is *not* (IMHO) entitled to *any* compensation. The proper remedy is for the "stealing" to be reversed (ie. the copy is to be destroyed), and if there's a pattern of offending behavior, the "thief" should be imprisoned.
But the original IP-owner is not entitled to any remedy or compensation at all, since they have not actually been deprived of anything at any point.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It can be.
2) You say "all of humanity is entitled to enjoy the results of artists work". You say it axiomatically. Obviously, I do not agree, but I'm open to discussion -- *why* do you believe that? What argument would you make to persuade someone who's undecided?
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It can be.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal#Verb
I don't see that *any* of the definitions shown there necessarily involve depriving anyone of anything. You may argue that #1 is in applicable because you don't consider a digital copy to be something that can be "possessed". I'm willing to leave #3 out of consideration for the moment since failing to do so would short-circuit the discussion. But #2 clearly has nothing to do with depriving anyone of anything, it has to do with the "thief" *acquiring* something, whether anyone is deprived or not.
Your dictionary may of course have a different set of definitions that do show such a requirement.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It can be.
I'm open to argument, but you didn't make an argument, you made an assertion. If you'd like to take a stab at persuasion instead of assertion, I'll listen.
(And, communicating a threat *can* cause harm, so I'm not sure I accept the "one does not really hurt you" part in your last paragraph. And you *can* use the term "attack" for both, it's routinely done.)
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It can be.
The dictionary I just consulted has 8 definitions for "steal", 3 of which are completely compatible with my way of thinking about this. Other dictionaries may disagree.
There isn't some universal objective "master dictionary" we can consult to settle this -- I don't get to redefine words, but I *do* get to explain that my understanding is different from yours, and is backed by a dictionary that I had nothing to do with writing. There is disagreement, and there is room for argument.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It can be.
The question is: did you take something you weren't entitled to take?
If the original is in the public domain, then "of course not". It has to go back to the entitlements.
(That said: the solution is not for the IP-holders to sue and get paid. That's bogus. Just because someone stole something doesn't mean the IP-owners were deprived of anything. They are not entitled to any remedy of the sort -- what *should* happen is, the copies are destroyed, the "thief" goes to jail, and the owner of the original IP has no involvement beyond testifying as to the entitlements involved.)
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
It can be.
I understand that you don't agree that copying is stealing. But there are people -- not all of them on the side of RIAA/MPAA/et cetera -- who disagree with that, who think copying *is* stealing. (I'm one of them, even though I think the big IP holders are acting like idiots and deserve to have their businesses, perhaps their whole industries, go down in flames.)
(Why can it be stealing? Because afterwards, a person through their own action can end up with something they're not entitled to. The "stealing" doesn't come from the original owner *losing* access, but from the recipient *gaining* it. If you take an action by which you unilaterally claim something you're not entitled to, then you've stolen something. Nobody has to be deprived of anything for that to be true, or for it to be wrong.)
If you said "not everyone agrees that copying is stealing", I'd have nothing to add. But if you simply say "copying isn't stealing" as if that were a fact, or were agreed upon by over 95% of people, well, I have to respond.
Next >>