Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
wly_cdgr | on: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
[flagged]
autoexec | parent | next
If we're going to stretch the meaning of "stealing" to include situations where no one is being deprived of their property we might just as easily say that text book publishers have been "stealing" from the pockets of students for decades with the insane prices they charge.
_DeadFred_ | root | parent
The creators put in labour with the intention that their efforts would be recouped in the form of remuneration. You stole their labour simply because you could in do it in a way that is not easily visible/detectable. Theft of labour is still theft to me, be it Amazon or parasites on creative works that are the results of the cumulations of years of an individuals learning and mental effort to create something. There is a reason copyright was created. We wanted a mechanism where these people could be rewarded for their labour because having professional fiction writers/historians/philosophers benefits society.
MrDrMcCoy | root | parent
When a creator's labor is recuperated yet they still seek payment via copyright due to the unreasonable length of time that is assigned, does the charging for further copies beyond manufacturing costs then count as theft?
boring_twenties | parent | next
Whatever you may think of what OP's buddies were doing, there is no way to apply any reasonable meaning of the word "stealing" to it.

There is indeed plenty murky here, and it is mostly coming from you in an attempt to incorrectly use an emotionally-loaded word in order to deceive people into supporting your position.

vagrantJin | root | parent
> emotionally-loaded word in order to deceive people into supporting your position

That's an entirely colourful way of phrasing it, considering I merely just said what I thought and have experienced, nor do I think I have the capacity to deceive at such a level. That is your opinion, and I accept it.

vkou | parent | next
If we are going to use ridiculous definitions of stealing, I will have to point out that private, non-personal property - anything that you don't have direct personal possession and control over - is theft.

It's copyright infringement. It's not theft. Theft deprives an owner of use of an item.

_DeadFred_ | root | parent
TIL theft of labour is not real theft.
vkou | root | parent
If it were, managers would be going to prison for wage theft and misclassifying workers.

Instead, it's treated as a civil issue, when it's pursued at all.

Wissenschafter | parent | next
Define stealing.
_DeadFred_ | root | parent | next
When Bob puts in labour in order to make financial gain, and Tom takes the fruit of Bob's labour without paying what Bob has set the work of his labour as being worth.
czl | root | parent | next
Adding a parameter X to your definition expands it as follows:

> When Bob invests labor into X to generate financial gain, and Tom utilizes the results of Bob's labor on X without compensating Bob at his requested rate.

However, this definition becomes problematic for many values of X. Consider cases such as:

* Fashion styles * Business models or store layouts * Factory or house designs * Cake decorating techniques * Cooking methods * Agricultural practices

In these examples and many others, the concept of "owning" the fruits of one's labor becomes murky. *Intellectual property laws were originally conceived to benefit society as a whole, not just individuals.* As our understanding of innovation and creativity evolves, we may find that some communities flourish better with more flexible approaches to intellectual property.

speedchess | root | parent
But Bob was paid. That's the point. Also most of 'intellectual' property is owned by corporations, not the creators.

If Bob prints a book and you take it without paying for it, that's stealing. If Bob prints a book and you buy it from Bob and you make copies of it and give it to your friends, that isn't stealing. And it shouldn't be classified as stealing, morally or legally.

The only reason it is considered illegal is because greedy corporate interests decided to make it so. Historically, people bought books and copied it and spread it around. That was the norm until fairly recently.

'Intellectual property' is theft. It is a fiction invented by the parasite class. Just think about it.

loading story #41583893
| root | parent
{"deleted":true,"id":41458023,"parent":41457907,"time":1725552933,"type":"comment"}
farts_mckensy | parent
This is just moral pedantry. The law doesn't really mean anything if its not enforceable. Students pirate books all the time and face no legal consequences. Meanwhile, the good faith actors are punished with completely unreasonable book costs. At a certain point, you should point your finger towards an unfair system that leads to bad incentives, not students simply trying to learn.