Hacker News Reader

Comment by bradharper | Hacker News Reader

"There is no loss when something is copied, or the loss is radically different from losing something like your bike..."

The question is not about tangible loss, it's about property rights, and the forceful encroachment thereof.

Being semantically picky about the concept doesn't alter the fact that the property of one individual is interacted with apart from their prerogative, i.e., their right to property is being violated - by force.

There is a loss when something is copied by force, the loss of one's right to private property. Call it theft or not, the legal repercussions should be the same.

View on HN

A lot of the issue is about how the debate is being framed. There's no value in a discussion to shift terms around to confuse the issue. Copyright infringement is well defined; there's no need to use "theft".

"Call it theft or not, the legal repercussions should be the same."

You are aware there's a difference between uploading a file, and breaking into your house to steal a physical DVD? Why on earth should a license violation be considered a criminal offense?

Identity theft is still called theft, even though there's no actual stealing going on. You still have your identity, it's just copied.

I'm waiting for another GNU license violation story to come out, because when a company uses source code in a proprietary app and doesn't follow the license, people here throw around the word "theft" even though there's no actual stealing going on. A good example is the Thesis Theme.

The trouble with the term identity theft is that there typically _is_ actual stealing going on, but that it's not actually your identity that is being stolen.

Identity thieves don't normally just go around introducing themselves to strangers with the stolen identity. Were that the case, it would rarely be a problem. They apply for loans with no intention to repay, and buy goods with the goal of landing the bill with the real owner of the identity.

It's curious that you mention this because I had my identity stolen when I went to college. A Chinese student was currently using my SS# at a school. The same school. I had to go out of my way to prove I was the correct owner of the number.

He is charging loans on my account. Is that not a form of theft?

This is why I used the words "typically" and "rarely" above, but I'd still argue that your identity wasn't the thing that was stolen from you, rather that they used your identity to steal something, either from you or someone else.

Not being from the same country as you, I don't really understand what it means to have someone else use your social security number, but as I said above, it is theft, not of your identity, but of the money being lent to the false "you".

Basically, the term "identity theft" could be likened to "knife crime" or "gun deaths". "Knife crime" rarely refers to the theft of a knife, but to crime (robbery, assault, murder) committed using a knife.

So using your reasoning, we can still call piracy "theft"?

If you can show that something is being stolen, then yes. If, on the other hand, no stealing is going on, then no.

The problem I have with the "piracy is theft" thing is that I think its use makes it harder to convince people who counter with arguments saying that the original owner still has the "stolen" item.

For one thing, it's an extra step one needn't take. First you have to convince them that it is actually theft, then you have to convince them that they should do something about it.

If you start with the simple position of "this thing normally costs money, and you haven't paid for it", then you can get straight to the heart of the matter.

Note that I say "convince" and not "be more right than". People indulge in all sorts of self-justification and moral balancing, particularly if they can convince themselves that it's a victimless crime.

"They apply for loans with no intention to repay, and buy goods with the goal of landing the bill with the real owner of the identity."

Which technically is fraud. Another word that can be used when they actually go to the bank, etc.

Copying is just copying. By using it for your own benefit however, you are directly influencing (for the better or worse, but definitely without permission) the original's value, worth, rights.

If you were just copying someone's identity, you wouldn't do anything with it would you?

"Why on earth should a license violation be considered a criminal offense?"

Why shouldn't it? In principle, they are the same - which is my whole point.

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. Where's the difference between civil and criminal offenses?

Do you really consider the act of stealing someone's physical property to be the same? Uploading a video of a child dancing to a song should be prosecuted by the state, with imprisonment as a valid punishment?

"Do you really consider the act of stealing someone's physical property to be the same?"

In principle - absolutely.

"Uploading a video of a child dancing to a song should be prosecuted by the state, with imprisonment as a valid punishment?"

This is not an example of piracy, but of copyright violation.

In any case, copyright is worthy of a thorough analysis. Where to draw the line in such corner cases can be hard to pin down.

Should I be able to author a home movie with copyrighted background music to privately show my friends and family? I think so, under fair use and for the same reason that I can buy a cd or dvd and view it with others (who didn't personally enter into contractual stipulations by purchasing it).

Should I be able to upload it to youtube - since it's a convenient venue for sharing? If it's restricted to private, invitation only viewing, I think so. If it's exposed publicly, then, unfortunately, no.

Should I be able to profit commercially from it without royalties? Of course not.

On the other hand, say I happened to catch on video my child spontaneously reciting the Magna Carta, and this remarkable event took place in a restaurant that happend to have background music playing. Should I be able to post, share, even profit from? Maybe so. I think the intent (or lack thereof) to violate copyright, while not an absolute metric in all contexts, has merit which is selectively applicable.

It's hard to codify objective assessment of intent into law, but the underlying ethical standard is that of the explicit choice to intentionally violate the property rights of another individual by acquiring a commercially available product outside of lawful venues and apart from legally valid contractual stipulations.

Piracy, on the other hand, is - without exception - a blatant manifestation of such malicious intent.

Those who do it should know it's unethical, and any attempt to justify it is merely a rationalization - as is the attempt to whitewash the practice under ambiguity and semantic nitpickery, which is the purpose of the article at hand.

It shouldn't because the original possessor of the copy still has access to his copy. In principle they are different. Copying is no different morally than speeding.

Unless that copy originated with permission of the property owner, or a representing legal agent thereof, then it most certainly is.

Sorry, but the copying is not by 'force'. The force part comes in where the government tries to enFORCE copyright. There is no loss when something is copied. There may be no gain, which is different.

Unless there is a contractual stipulation which pertains to copying. In which case, it is force, and there is loss.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com