←back to thread

275 points starkparker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dankwizard ◴[] No.45133610[source]
Ha, this is the guy that got absolutely butchered in his Reddit post [1] about the same link. OP has extensive history in the piracy subreddits and believes piracy is not theft.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1n87xho/why_i_d...

replies(9): >>45133703 #>>45133713 #>>45134587 #>>45134595 #>>45134596 #>>45134696 #>>45135311 #>>45136361 #>>45141992 #
BLKNSLVR ◴[] No.45133703[source]
> believes piracy is not theft

That's true by definition isn't it? Piracy (Internet piracy, since that's the context) is copyright infringement, not theft.

replies(4): >>45133731 #>>45135356 #>>45136096 #>>45136423 #
dankwizard ◴[] No.45133731[source]
Maybe by definition, but if you're a game developer and you find out everybody is pirating your game and not purchasing it from Steam/physical store, it's akin to them walking into the store, sliding the product under their jacket and walking out. You're not going to say "They are infringing on my copyright".
replies(3): >>45133904 #>>45134497 #>>45135188 #
sfRattan ◴[] No.45133904[source]
> akin to them walking into the store, sliding the product under their jacket and walking out

That is a misrepresentation of what is happening across computers and networks. Here is a better analogue:

If someone walks up to my car, taps it with a magic wand, mutters some incantations, waits a few minutes as a perfect duplicate slowly materializes, and then drives away in the duplicate... Of what have I been deprived? Maybe privacy, depending on what I had in the car at the time it was duplicated... But that's tangential to the point here.

There's a worthy argument that the above scenario is still a wrong (some kind of tort, maybe). But there is simply no argument that the above scenario is equivalent to theft.

Theft deprives someone of a scarce material resource. Copyright infringement subverts someone's exclusive, government-granted monopoly. Unlike being secure in one's possessions, copyright has never been understood as a natural right. People grok this distinction intuitively, even if they neither fully understand the technology nor possess the words to articulate it well.

replies(2): >>45134245 #>>45136459 #
bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.45134245{3}[source]
These apologetics for piracy are ancient and weren't good decades ago, let alone now. Yes, digital data has no scarcity. But that doesn't mean it's a victimless crime to just take it. Someone worked hard on making that music (or game, or whatever), with society giving them the chance to turn a profit by selling copies to people. When you just take it without paying (thus violating the social contract), you are in a very real sense stealing that person's time. So while it might not be the case that a digital copy taken does not cause the original to go missing, piracy is very much theft in the moral sense. And that is why people get upset about it.
replies(2): >>45134453 #>>45134844 #
1. don_quiquong ◴[] No.45134844{4}[source]
People who pirate in the year 2025 are almost definitely going to be spending more on music (physical media, merch, tickets, etc) than the average Spotify subscriber. This was true ~20 years ago and given the ease of Spotify and the relative pain of pirating, I would imagine it's even moreso the case today. And even if they spend half a Spotify subscription on music, that's more money going to artists than a Spotify subscription giving them carte blanche access to most music.