This is a good discussion. I definitely agree that piracy is theft. Taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission is stealing. It's really not that complicated. What is complicated is different peoples' levels of morality when it comes to stealing. Those with no morals would steal a wheel chair from a disabled Vet and not lose any sleep. Others can't bring themselves to take more hot sauce packets than they need from Taco Bell. Most people are somewhere in between. This is an interesting subject because there are so many degrees. Technically, the degrees don't matter- stealing is stealing, no matter the degree or reason. But morally it matters very much. Let's equate it to speeding. Going faster than the speed limit is speeding, period. If doesn't matter if there is no traffic, the middle of nowhere, perfect visibility, the speed limit is too low- it's still speeding. Most of us would have zero moral issues with driving 70 in a 65. 70 in a school zone- we'd demand the driver go to jail. Piracy is a lot like that. It's theft- but many people have little moral issue with downloading some old game that is not available for sale for their personal use. Next up are people who will download stuff for "free" that they wouldn't really buy. They make the argument that they wouldn't have bought it anyway, so no one lost anything. Next you have the "I really want this but I don't want to pay for it. I'd buy it if I had to, but I'll try to find it for 'free' first." I'd wager that most people would consider this stealing. Last, you have those that copy and resell for profit. I doubt that many people would try to defend that position. All are stealing. But as the degrees differ, so does individual and societal sense of morality and tolerance.
I don't think it matters, as far as theft is concerned, whether the person being stolen from knows. If my HR department syphoned a little off of each of my paychecks and I didn't notice, it's still theft.
The car parts question was interesting, but I think the difference is that the parts are created from scratch. I believe- but haven't researched- that there are laws that prevent manufacturers from having monopolies on replacement parts. There are laws that prevent manufactures from voiding warranties due to aftermarket parts. I also believe there are differences between patenting physical items and copywriting. For example, Wera tools had a unique handle design. But the patent for that has an expiration date. So they incorporated that design into their logo, which makes it hard to duplicate without infringing on the copy write rather than just the patent.
Javelin said:
Duke said:
Thou shalt not steal.
Moral enough for you?
68.89% of the population does not recognize that moral authority at all, and of those who do practice that particular theology, only ~24% prescribe to the Old Testament. So no, that is not moral enough for this discussion.
And as everybody knows 91.3345% of statistics are invented on the fly to justify a particular position.
"Mischief Managed"
RichardNZ said:
Javelin said:
Duke said:
Thou shalt not steal.
Moral enough for you?
68.89% of the population does not recognize that moral authority at all, and of those who do practice that particular theology, only ~24% prescribe to the Old Testament. So no, that is not moral enough for this discussion.
And as everybody knows 91.3345% of statistics are invented on the fly to justify a particular position.
"Mischief Managed"
That position being that a book (one of literally hundreds of versions at this point) that is not believed by the vast majority of humanity is not the legal precedent for this discussion? Do tell.
Mr_Asa
PowerDork
2/8/22 10:37 p.m.
Duke said:
In reply to Mr_Asa :
It's irrelevant if B knows or not. The theft has still happened. It doesn't magically not exist until it is discovered.
So you're a "if a tree falls in the forest" guy that believes it creates a sound. Fair enough.
Since we're approaching philosophical territory here, if you can't prove something happened, how do you know it happened?
More thoughts.
Have you ever hot linked a photograph on the internet? Did you check for copyright or monetization before you did? What about before saving it to your PC?
Have you ever retold a joke around the water cooler? Did that joke come from a paid comedian? Did you reimburse them?
How about recipe? Did you ever read a recipe, make it, and present it to others to eat? Did you renumerate the chef/author?
Have you ever said "May the force be with you" to someone? Did you mail a check to Disney for it?
Okay now that we've established ambiguity and gray areas in regards to digital goods, ideas, works of art, and copyright, let's get even more technical.
Have you ever taken a mold off of a car part to make your own copy in fiberglass? Did you pay GM/Mazda/etc for their IP? How is that different? What if you're molding a hood for a Wartburg? They don't exist anymore and nobody bought them out. What if it's a 2022 FRS? Does that change your stance? What if you add a scoop to it and then sell it as your own work? Does your answer change if it's a Wartburg or FRS? What if it's a 69 Camaro? GM still exists, but the 69 Camaro doesn't. In fact, other than it's "whole likeness", it's not even bound by copyright anymore. What if it's an 04 GTO, which is a copyright GM vacated in the bankruptcy?
Try to really think about all of these stances and realize that there is no hard and fast, black and white, right and wrong with this. It's all varying shades of gray.
In reply to Javelin :
I think if you're willing to read the EUA's and relevant legislation, you'll find plenty of areas that are black and white. Not to say there aren't grey areas, but to claim that there is no black and white is a bit of an exaggeration.
Duke
MegaDork
2/9/22 7:32 a.m.
Mr_Asa said:
Duke said:
In reply to Mr_Asa :
It's irrelevant if B knows or not. The theft has still happened. It doesn't magically not exist until it is discovered.
So you're a "if a tree falls in the forest" guy that believes it creates a sound. Fair enough.
Since we're approaching philosophical territory here, if you can't prove something happened, how do you know it happened?
So you're a "two lonely strangers meet in the woods so it's OK for one to kill the other as long as he'll get away with it" person. Got it.
Being able to prove something happened is irrelevant to whether it actually happened or not. The proof is not the act. This is not Shroedinger's website. You either did download someone else's property without their permission, or you did not. Whether they find out about it does not alter the fact that it happened. And just because you may not know the identity of the legal property owner does not mean that entity does not exist.
You know who else stole other people's intellectual property?
...
...
...
...
..
...
The Nazis!
