Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnid2 | Hacker News Reader

I don't believe that two products are different simply because one is represented in bronze and the other in bits. No one would suggest it is okay to steal a bronze sculpture.

I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing. If you don't believe it is stealing because of some semantic argument, then it the effect is the same -- you're taking something of value without paying for it and harm is caused to the market in which that product exists because value is lost.

View on HN

I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing.

What, in your opinion, happens when I check a book out of the library and read it?

It's called "checking out a book" or you could use the term "borrowing."

Look, this "it's not stealing" argument is a bunch of hog wash. If you think it isn't stealing because the "stolen" goods are simply a copy, why do you use the term "piracy"? Did pirates make a copy of the loot?

When you say someone is stealing music -- everyone knows what is happening. People use the same term with cable television -- they're stealing cable. It means they are enjoying the benefits of cable -- without paying the cable company.

You can use whatever term you want for the behavior -- we all know what it is and why it isn't right and it is just as wrong as stealing IMO.

You can use whatever term you want for the behavior -- we all know what it is and why it isn't right and it is just as wrong as stealing IMO.

But when does the theft actually take place? When I download the content? That's obviously a victimless crime, up until the point I derive value from what I 'stole' by watching it. At that point, what have I done that's any different from checking a book out of a library, where a vast number of readers can derive value from a limited number of purchased copies?

Words, like laws, sometimes outlive their relevance.

Yes, when you download it. Specifically, when you acquire possession of the material. If you steal someone's money, but don't spend it, you still stole it.

It's not a victimless crime. The victim is the artist who should have received compensation for your acquisition of the material.

Some laws do outlive their relevance, but these laws are just as relevant today as they were when the printing press was invented or audio recording devices.

Guns made murder easier, but not more legal -- or more moral.

If you steal someone's money, but don't spend it, you still stole it.

Don't be ridiculous.

The victim is the artist who should have received compensation for your acquisition of the material.

How is someone victimized by the presence of a particular arrangement of magnetic dipoles on my hard-disk platter? The only way an artist can lose anything they're rightfully entitled to is if someone experiences what they've created without paying for it.

Guns made murder easier, but not more legal -- or more moral.

You've clearly thought this issue through, I can tell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com