←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
GPerson ◴[] No.43575114[source]
I just think it’s stealing, and honestly not that cool once you’ve seen it once or twice, and given the ramifications for humanity.
replies(2): >>43575162 #>>43575248 #
shadowgovt ◴[] No.43575162[source]
I know of no other type of theft that results in more of something existing in the world. Stealing deprives someone of something; copying data (from training an AI all the way to pedestrian "YoU wOuLdN'T DoWnLoAd a cAr" early-aughts file-sharing) decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it.
replies(3): >>43575322 #>>43576544 #>>43578764 #
1. yathaid ◴[] No.43578764[source]
>> Stealing deprives someone of something

Yes. In this case, it is the artist's sole right to reproduce said images, based on their creative output.

>> decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it

What does scarcity have to do with stealing? You can steal bread and reduce food scarcity, but that is still theft.

replies(1): >>43583091 #
2. shadowgovt ◴[] No.43583091[source]
Your analogy between copyright infringement and bread theft is interesting, given how "stealing bread" has traditionally been used as a shorthand for systemic inequality.

Copyright is why Disney can ruin someone for doing something with Goofy they don't like. Yes, it protects smaller, less profitable artists too, but make no mistake: it's a tool of mass control and cultural capture.

Perhaps it's time to seriously ask whether copyright is actually doing its job of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "...but generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrasment than advantage to society" [Jefferson].