Comment by PurpleRamen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PurpleRamen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> that the unauthorized sharing of content and ideas is an objectively immoral act, and paint the issue of piracy in terms of right and wrong, as opposed to legal vs. illegal.

Breaking the law is often considered immoral, depending on the person.

> copyright law is an artificial construct

Any human-made rule is artificial, any form of order in a society is artificial. Copyright laws are just on a very high level, compared to other rules.

> copyright law is not a reflection of natural, fundamental morality regarding the sharing of ideas and creative works.

There is nothing natural in creativity. It's all in your mind. There is also nothing natural about ownership, it's just rules that any higher society at some point considers as necessary.

> In conclusion, when I personally say "copying is not theft", I'm simply saying, let's not conflate the issues, so we can have a more nuanced discussion.

There is no nuanced discussion about this. Theft and stealing are legal terms. If you break the laws, they apply. If they not apply, you have not broken the law. The nuanced discussion is only about the laws themselves, whether they should exist and in which form and details. But this discussion is usually about whether people are willing to accept the foundation of society itself or not. In which case you could debate "nuanced" about any law.

Theft and stealing are legal terms in criminal law. Copyright infringement is a different term, mostly in civil law in fact. (To be fair there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement, it's just a less common thing)

If you're interpreting things strictly in legal terms: Copying is not Theft.

+edit: (And much copying is in fact explicitly permitted, in which case it's even more clearly something else. Case in point: This video is CC-BY-SA: You are permitted to copy this particular video, provided you credit it to Nina Paley et al. , and extend similar terms to people who would copy it from you)

It would say that depends on the country and how they phrase their laws. But ok, quite likely, is it not literal theft, by law. But those discussions are also not about the literal usage of the word, but the spirit and understanding of the act.

If you're saying that it's actually a very nuanced discussion, (even -or especially- when it comes to the law), then I'll take it!

Note that much of the world has signed the Berne convention[1], and thus most countries tend to have similar laws when it comes to copyright.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

"This video is CC-BY-SA...

There is a very different aspect going on here: the author acknowledges and approved of this licensing arrangement. If I allow you to copy my proprietary, trade-secret autonomous self-driving software, there is nothing wrong with that. If you illegally copy it without my consent, there is. The whole point is the act of copying without consent of the owner. Adhering to licensing agreements is a different point entirely.

That's exactly right.

In many cases, it's not a problem.

In your hypothetical case, it's a civil matter.

Either way, it's not theft.

(And CC is imho a bit more than merely another (set of) licensing agreement(s). It sets up an alternate ecosystem where copying is beneficial. It has been set up by people who disagree with the erosion of the copyright system that happened in the 20th century.)

It’s likely a criminal problem in that scenario, because stealing trade secrets is generally done for profit.

Oh wait, you said trade secret.

Previously I was discussing copyrights, since that is what the video is about. My statements above do hold for copyrighted information.

Unlike copyrights, trade secrets are a not something I come across very often, so I'll politely bow out and defer to your expertise on that particular topic.

I don’t claim any expertise outside of once upon a time taking an engineering law course. But my discussion has mainly been about the larger umbrella of intellectual property. In this case, the US generally considers infringement of intellectual property with the intent to enrich oneself to be a criminal matter. It can be copyright, patents, trade secrets etc. I mentioned trade secrets because the example was stealing self driving car tech, which has had relatively recent examples of that very thing.

> There is no nuanced discussion about this. Theft and stealing are legal terms

I think you missed OP's point; those calling copyright infingement "theft" (or "stealing") are being disingeneous to try and gain support for their argument - they're conflating legal terms about ownership with the idea of copyright infringement and they are not the same as theft/stealing include the concept of depriving the owner the use of whatever it is that was stolen.

Copyright infringement is not an idea, it's a law. There is nothing disingenuous about this, it's the legal reality in most countries. But, to be fair, there is a nuanced discussion on the topic of whether something is copyright infringement or original work with some inspiration or quoting of another work. But I didn't get the impression this is what's talked about here?

I (and OP if they'll forgive me speaking for them) are aware of that - but when you start to call copyright infingement "theft" you are combining two different legal issues.

And whilst IANAL, my understanding is that copyright infringement is a civil issue, whereas theft is a criminal one - they're trying to move the burden of the courts onto the taxpayer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com