Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkonofalski | Hacker News Reader

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you and copying it. It's stealing. In order to even make the "unauthorized copy" you mention, you have to take the thing first. That's the stealing.

View on HN

There is no loss of data on either side. It's not stealing. Your argument is like saying that a picture of the Eiffel Tower is stealing.

Nothing is lost from copying.

Loss of data is irrelevant. If you don't have permission to take something or copy it, then you're stealing. Again, I think the benefits of what happened in this case are obvious so I'm not arguing the morality of this. I just think it's absolutely silly that people are bending over backwards to pretend that this isn't stealing and that the reason we have something that would have been otherwise lost is because someone had to balls to steal it.

It's stealing. You're taking something from the owner without permission. Just stop with the mental gymnastics.

It is not legally stealing whatsoever. Zero laws that cover "stealing" are applicable to copyright infringement.

No one gives a crap about your pedantry. I never said anything about "legally stealing". They took something that didn't belong to them and that they didn't have permission to give to someone else or copy. That's theft. It's stealing.

What if you already have access to it and don't need to "take" it from anywhere?

Having access to it is not the same as having permission to take it, make copies of it, or remove it or its copies from the owner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com