Major website shutdown by US govt without trial

[Ghostbear]

Nowhere did I say that a denied opportunity in and of itself equates to theft.

It was a rather important part of what you said however. If we go with your exact quote:

Piracy is immoral because it deprives a vendor of the opportunity to profit off of his work while still using that work without his permission,

The deprivation of opportunity is half of your definition, with the other half being use of that work. How does that fit with the situations in the second paragraph of my reply? No opportunity is lost.

Because people ignore things like this.

I'm aware of the legal classification of copyright infringement.

The legal classification was created based on the logic that they aren't the same thing. Courts don't make arbitrary decisions- they ruled that it wasn't theft because they aren't equatable actions. Or, to use their own words:

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

They conclude that the effects and results of copyright infringement have a very different impact on property rights- notably that at no point do they deny the owner the use of the object in question, which is something that theft does.

Actually, this brings to mind a point: your definition of theft doesn't make sense here. You are trying to give theft an overly broad definition beyond its scope. I would feel rather strongly agree with the court's logic- theft requires the owner to be denied the use of an object. Limiting or denying the ability to profit off of an object through copyright infringement might reduce the utility of an object, especially an object made with the intent for sale, but it can still be used and accessed by its owners with zero additional restrictions. They are still free to sell it, if they can find a buyer, or implement it into other products, or use it directly, or many myriad options. When something is stolen, you can't do anything with it, because it has been denied to you.

EDIT: Whoops, left a sentence incomplete there.

[sourmìlk]

Both parts of my definition are important. But basically, copyright infringement does eliminate (or at least dramatically reduce) a vendor's ability to use his product, in that he can no longer sell it. But you're still ignoring about half of my definition.

For the record, I am fine with piracy where a person cannot purchase the software or media legally. There's no financial harm done there.

[yurell]

Both parts of my definition are important. But basically, copyright infringement does eliminate (or at least dramatically reduce) a vendor's ability to use his product, in that he can no longer sell it. But you're still ignoring about half of my definition.

For the record, so does a better product.

[sourmìlk]

Holy crap, that's not the only criterion as I've said for the third time now. And it doesn't make sense that would be the only criteria. Obviously it's not the case that just limiting a person's ability to make sales is morally wrong.

[yurell]

I think we can call pirating theft because the practical effect is the same: a vendor is unable to sell his product or has substantially more difficulty selling it, despite the fact that people are using it, and are doing so without his permission..

You only list the definitions of the two so far as they are similar. You miss out the part for theft where the vendor no longer has possession of the product. If you are using a different definition of 'theft' from the rest of us, then it's just an attempt to obfuscate the matter with emotional appeals to loaded words. There is a precise, legal definition for theft, and since we're discussing law, why wouldn't we be using that? I mean, if our different countries disagreed on the definition I could understand, but they don't. Your argument is similar to someone who uses the colloquial definition of 'heat' to try and win an argument in a physics debate — it is quite frankly dishonest.

The practical effects of theft and copyright infringement are not the same. Copyright infringement has a subset of the effects that theft does, but that does not make it theft — as I pointed out in my last post, making a better product also has a subset of the effects theft does. Theft has additional 'practical effects' that copyright infringement doesn't, and simply glossing over that is an attempt to deceive using language, rather than using it to clarify your statement.

[sourmìlk]

The moral effects of copyright infringement and physical theft are pretty much identical. That cannot be said of economic competition. If two actions have approximately the same moral outcome, I really don't see what's wrong with classifying each as different forms of the same crime. Manslaughter and murder are treated differently under the law, with good reason, but as they're each ultimately wrong for the same reason, I don't see why it would be wrong to say that they're both wrongful killing.

[Ghostbear]

But basically, copyright infringement does eliminate (or at least dramatically reduce) a vendor's ability to use his product, in that he can no longer sell it.

They can still sell it, they can even still sell it to the person who pirated it. Many people buy things that they have downloaded illegally- that would seem to invalidate the claim that the object can no longer be sold. That is because they still have the object to sell! Theft requires them to no longer have the object. Further, selling an object is something I would call a bit of a stretch for "using"; it's just the transfer of ownership, in exchange for something else. The owner can still make any use of their object that they could beforehand- they can sell it, they can use it for whatever its purpose is, they can throw it away, they can give it away, they can improve it, etc.- it has not been stolen from them, because they still own it.

You are using a definition of theft that makes no sense for this discussion.

The moral effects of copyright infringement and physical theft are pretty much identical.

Except where they aren't. See above.

EDIT:

Manslaughter and murder are treated differently under the law, with good reason, but as they're each ultimately wrong for the same reason, I don't see why it would be wrong to say that they're both wrongful killing.

The problem in this case is that you're saying they are both murder- if you think copyright infringement and theft are wrong for the same reason, then you should be calling them both "wrongful acquisition".

[yurell]

Manslaughter and murder are treated differently under the law, with good reason, but as they're each ultimately wrong for the same reason, I don't see why it would be wrong to say that they're both wrongful killing.

Yes, the're both 'wrongful killing', but they're not both 'murder'. 'Dogs' and 'cats' are both 'animals' but they're not both 'dogs'. 'Theft' and 'copyright infringement' are both 'violations of property', but they're not both 'theft'.
You keep interchangeably using theft to mean both 'theft' and this 'violation of property', while everyone else is only using the former definition. This serves to obfuscate the issue, not help make your point clearly.

Edit: And Ghostbear beat me to the punch. Curse you ninja!

[sourmìlk]

They can still sell it, they can even still sell it to the person who pirated it. Many people buy things that they have downloaded illegally- that would seem to invalidate the claim that the object can no longer be sold. That is because they still have the object to sell! Theft requires them to no longer have the object. Further, selling an object is something I would call a bit of a stretch for "using"; it's just the transfer of ownership, in exchange for something else. The owner can still make any use of their object that they could beforehand- they can sell it, they can use it for whatever its purpose is, they can throw it away, they can give it away, they can improve it, etc.- it has not been stolen from them, because they still own it.

Yes, I know that the vendor can theoretically sell an item, but if people are going to pirate it instead, he, for all practical purposes, can't. Thus the difference between removing property and removing the ability to use that property is superficial.

The problem in this case is that you're saying they are both murder- if you think copyright infringement and theft are wrong for the same reason, then you should be calling them both "wrongful acquisition".

Not really. I'm saying that both piracy and larceny are theft.

[yurell]

The law (i.e. the thing that defines 'theft') says you're wrong, and everyone to whom you're trying to convey your point is using the legal definition. Can you see how using your definition is not helping communication? Theft has a very specific meaning and, even more importantly, powerful connotations. It's the difference between saying soldiers kill other soldiers or if they murder them. Sure, the effect is the same (i.e. the other person is dead), but the meaning and intended connotations of those two points are completely different.

Thus the difference between removing property and removing the ability to use that property is superficial.

They're not removing the ability to use, they're (debatably) limiting the ability to sell

[sourmìlk]

The law (i.e. the thing that defines 'theft') says you're wrong, and everyone to whom you're trying to convey your point is using the legal definition. Can you see how using your definition is not helping communication? Theft has a very specific meaning and, even more importantly, powerful connotations. It's the difference between saying soldiers kill other soldiers or if they murder them. Sure, the effect is the same (i.e. the other person is dead), but the meaning and intended connotations of those two points are completely different.

My point is that the connotations that apply to theft also apply to piracy. They are immoral for the same reason, and as such I do not morally view a pirate any differently than I would a petty thief. If anything, I think I'm helping communication by showing those moral similarities whereas your arguments create obfuscations that distract from what's actually wrong with piracy.

They're not removing the ability to use, they're (debatably) limiting the ability to sell

Which, for the vendor, is the same thing.

[Ghostbear]

Yes, I know that the vendor can theoretically sell an item, but if people are going to pirate it instead, he, for all practical purposes, can't. Thus the difference between removing property and removing the ability to use that property is superficial.

How is it superficial? They can still use that object in its entirety, they can still sell it, they can do whatever they want with it. If it was stolen, they can't do anything with it. That's a very large distinction. At most, as yurell has said, it limits the ability to sell that item- however, it does not remove it at all.

The problem in this case is that you're saying they are both murder- if you think copyright infringement and theft are wrong for the same reason, then you should be calling them both "wrongful acquisition".

Not really. I'm saying that both piracy and larceny are theft.

Larceny, noun:
the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently
Theft, noun:
the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Those are synonyms, with practically identical definitions (the only notable difference I can see is that theft, here, includes "stealing" in its definition). All you're saying is that piracy and theft are theft. So, again, you're just using a definition that fits your own purposes. Piracy doesn't fit under that definition at all. Just like how murder ("the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought") and manslaughter ("the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice") aren't the same. Yes, they are both wrongful killings, and piracy and theft would both fall under wrongful acquisition (or similar wordings). Piracy isn't theft because it makes no sense for it to be theft, even if they both fall under a similar umbrella.

[sourmìlk]

How is it superficial? They can still use that object in its entirety, they can still sell it, they can do whatever they want with it. If it was stolen, they can't do anything with it. That's a very large distinction. At most, as yurell has said, it limits the ability to sell that item- however, it does not remove it at all.

Except that the vendor can't do whatever he wants with it: he can't sell it, which was the sole reason he had that piece of property. To the vendor, i.e. the victim, there is no difference between piracy and larceny.

Larceny, noun:
the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently
Theft, noun:
the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Those are synonyms, with practically identical definitions (the only notable difference I can see is that theft, here, includes "stealing" in its definition). All you're saying is that piracy and theft are theft. So, again, you're just using a definition that fits your own purposes. Piracy doesn't fit under that definition at all. Just like how murder ("the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought") and manslaughter ("the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice") aren't the same. Yes, they are both wrongful killings, and piracy and theft would both fall under wrongful acquisition (or similar wordings). Piracy isn't theft because it makes no sense for it to be theft, even if they both fall under a similar umbrella.

Your equation of larceny to theft is far from universal:

The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2] In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny;[2] in others, theft has replaced larceny.

[yurell]

They are immoral for the same reason

That's the thing that people are disagreeing with you about. Most of the people arguing with you (btw, if I'm misrepresenting someone's view, please correct me) view theft as immoral because it removes the original object from the user so that it cannot be utilised by them. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is making an exact replica and not paying some third party for it. We're arguing it's immoral for different reasons. And even if they were immoral for the same reason, that doesn't make them the same; for example, murder and manslaughter are both immoral because they're the wrongful termination of a person, but that doesn't make manslaughter murder.

Which, for the vendor, is the same thing.

Not for an end-user, though. Theft is the same when performed on everyone — it deprives the victim of the item. Copyright infringement? Nope, doesn't deprive the victim of the item ever, and if it's on an end-user doesn't even limit its 'use'.

[sourmìlk]

I'm pretty sure that the morality of crimes is defined with respect to its effect on the victim, not the criminal. And as I've explained, this stuff about removing the original is a total red herring. In both cases the vendor is unable to sell his product even though people are using it. This is what is wrong with larceny and piracy: removal of the original doesn't matter when the original is rendered useless anyways.

[Steax]

Back to Megaupload's case, there's been a surge of phishing websites questionably trying to pose as the real one... some being so convincing I don't even know why people don't believe it.

[Ghostbear]

Except that the vendor can't do whatever he wants with it: he can't sell it, which was the sole reason he had that piece of property. To the vendor, i.e. the victim, there is no difference between piracy and larceny.

Except for the fact that they still can sell it. Why do you ignore that fact? Your argument seems to hinge entirely on it, but it isn't actually true.

Your equation of larceny to theft is far from universal:

A nitpick that does nothing to change the rest of what I said in the slightest.

[sourmìlk]

Except for the fact that they still can sell it. Why do you ignore that fact? Your argument seems to hinge entirely on it, but it isn't actually true.

Because it's simply untrue that vendors can still sell pirated products unless you think that every person who pirates a product would not buy that product if piracy were not an option.

A nitpick that does nothing to change the rest of what I said in the slightest.

It's not intended to utterly destroy your argument.

[yurell]

I'm pretty sure that the morality of crimes is defined with respect to its effect on the victim, not the criminal.

Really? So if I accidentally kill someone (e.g. the brakes on my car break and I hit them) it's just as immoral as deliberately killing them? The effect on the victim is the same either way — they die. The act of a soldier killing a terrorist is just as immoral as a mugger murdering a nun?
I think you'll find the morality of a crime isn't defined solely off the effect it has on the victim.

And as I've explained, this stuff about removing the original is a total red herring. In both cases the vendor is unable to sell his product even though people are using it.

How the hell do you figure that out?
Theft: Person A likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person B steals Movie 1, and so Person A has to buy a new copy. Total copies sold: 2
Normally: Person A likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person B likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Total copies sold: 2

Copyright Infringement: Person C likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person D likes Movie 1, and so copies Movie 1. Total copies sold: 1
Normally: Person C likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person D likes Movie 1, but isn't willing to pay the price and so doesn't buy it. Total copies sold: 1

Removing the original is not a 'red herring', it's why theft used to be such a major crime to the point of losing hands. You'll notice that in the the first set of examples, the cost of two copies were born by Person A, even though he only ended up with one, while in the second the cost of one copy was born by Person C and Person C got one copy.

And whether I steal from Person A or copy from Person C the effect on the vendor is not the same.

This is what is wrong with larceny and piracy: removal of the original doesn't matter when the original is rendered useless anyways.

It is not rendered useless, though. You can still watch it, and you can still sell it to person E, F, G, H etc.

I bought a DVD with my flatmate, meaning that two people have access to the same DVD, can watch it at their leisure and paid the price they were willing to pay (i.e. half the sale price) for it. From the point of view of the store: they sold exactly the amount as if I had bought it and my flatmate had copied it. Does this make what we did just as immoral as piracy? After all, the effect on the 'victim' is still the same.

[Ghostbear]

Except for the fact that they still can sell it. Why do you ignore that fact? Your argument seems to hinge entirely on it, but it isn't actually true.

Because it's simply untrue that vendors can still sell pirated products unless you think that every person who pirates a product would not buy that product if piracy were not an option.

You're changing the goal here: they can still sell it. Period. If someone pirates a copyrighted work, there is nothing stopping the owner from selling that product. Further, and you keep ignoring this, they can still make other uses of that product. If something is stolen, you can't make ANY use of it at all. If something is pirated, you can still use it.

A nitpick that does nothing to change the rest of what I said in the slightest.

It's not intended to utterly destroy your argument.

It also doesn't reply to my argument, which means for the purpose of the discussion you didn't actually do anything about it.

[elasto]

Wow. This again?

Piracy is immoral because it deprives a vendor of the opportunity to profit off of his work while still using that work without his permission,

Let's consider both halves of this premise:

Is depriving a vendor the opportunity to profit off his work wrong?
- Clearly it's not always, else creating a better product or marketing your own worse product - causing people to buy it over the better product - would always be immoral - which I presume most people don't believe

Is using a person's work without their permission immoral?
- Clearly it's not always, since the government only allows people to control their own work for a limited time, after which it goes into the public domain - at which point the person can deny permission all they want and people can legally ignore it - and I presume most person agree that's acceptable

Since neither half is always immoral it seems like we should be able to come up with a much more accurate phrasing - such as: 'Using an owner's work without legal permission is immoral on those specific occasions when it would deprive the owner of revenue'

Written like that it makes it quite clear how different from theft copyright infringement is - since theft doesn't just 'deprive the vendor the opportunity to profit from his ownership', it deprives him the opportunity to do anything else with it either. If I steal someone's tv, they can't just now not sell it, they now can't watch any tv until they get a new one.

No, it's intellectually dishonest to equate theft and copyright infringement. Like many here, I believe IP rights should be protected by strong civil (and in exceptional situations criminal) law - but protection should be extended for much shorter periods of time than at present: 10 years with an opportunity to apply for a 5 year extension or something should be plenty; If you haven't come up with a new, better product to sell in that time from that IP then get out and give someone else a chance to have a go with it.

[Griffin]

I'm pretty sure that the morality of crimes is defined with respect to its effect on the victim, not the criminal.

Aha! So, you're willing to admit that Israeli soldiers murder Palestinians pretty regularly, then?

[sourmìlk]

I think you'll find the morality of a crime isn't defined solely off the effect it has on the victim.

I never said that was the sole criterion.

How the hell do you figure that out?
Theft: Person A likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person B steals Movie 1, and so Person A has to buy a new copy. Total copies sold: 2
Normally: Person A likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person B likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Total copies sold: 2

Copyright Infringement: Person C likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person D likes Movie 1, and so copies Movie 1. Total copies sold: 1
Normally: Person C likes Movie 1, and so buys Movie 1. Person D likes Movie 1, but isn't willing to pay the price and so doesn't buy it. Total copies sold: 1

You forgot the situation in which Person D likes the movie and so person D buys it because he can't pirate it. Copies sold: 1. Copies used: 2.

Removing the original is not a 'red herring', it's why theft used to be such a major crime to the point of losing hands. You'll notice that in the the first set of examples, the cost of two copies were born by Person A, even though he only ended up with one, while in the second the cost of one copy was born by Person C and Person C got one copy.

I don't think I see what you're getting at here.

And whether I steal from Person A or copy from Person C the effect on the vendor is not the same.

Sure it is: the vendor is no unable to sell what he already bought, and thus loses money.

It is not rendered useless, though. You can still watch it, and you can still sell it to person E, F, G, H etc.

Yeah, just like if a product is stolen you can sell other copies to person E, F, G, H, etc. That's beside the point though: you now have more copies than you can sell because somebody used one without your permission.

I bought a DVD with my flatmate, meaning that two people have access to the same DVD, can watch it at their leisure and paid the price they were willing to pay (i.e. half the sale price) for it. From the point of view of the store: they sold exactly the amount as if I had bought it and my flatmate had copied it. Does this make what we did just as immoral as piracy? After all, the effect on the 'victim' is still the same.

Because the effect on the victim isn't the same, as your flatmate is still a potential customer: he has a reason he might want to own his own copy, and thus he's still a potential customer.

Since neither half is always immoral it seems like we should be able to come up with a much more accurate phrasing - such as: 'Using an owner's work without legal permission is immoral on those specific occasions when it would deprive the owner of revenue'

I meant what I said, and it works perfectly well. My definition depends both upon use without permission and denial of opportunity to profit.

Written like that it makes it quite clear how different from theft copyright infringement is - since theft doesn't just 'deprive the vendor the opportunity to profit from his ownership', it deprives him the opportunity to do anything else with it either. If I steal someone's tv, they can't just now not sell it, they now can't watch any tv until they get a new one.

But the only thing the vendor was going to do with that TV was sell it. The effects from the vendor's point of view are the same.

Aha! So, you're willing to admit that Israeli soldiers murder Palestinians pretty regularly, then?

See above: I didn't say that the effect on the victim was the only criterion.

You guys are trying to obfuscate this until you find some superficial difference between piracy and larceny that doesn't affect the morality. In each case a vendor loses money because people used his product without his permission. This is all that matters because this is the only reason it's morally wrong: the specific method doesn't matter. If I rob a bank with a pistol or a machine gun or via computer, I've still robbed a bank.

[Hawknc]

I'm pretty sure that the morality of crimes is defined with respect to its effect on the victim, not the criminal.

Aha! So, you're willing to admit that Israeli soldiers murder Palestinians pretty regularly, then?

Listen: I hate you.

For the uninitiated, we have a thread purely for Israel/Palestine. Don't drag other topics down with it.

[yurell]

You forgot the situation in which Person D likes the movie and so person D buys it because he can't pirate it. Copies sold: 1. Copies used: 2.

That's dealt with with person B. My point is that if person D doesn't want it enough to pay the price asked there is absolutely no difference to the vendor whether she pirates it or simply doesn't buy it. None whatsoever.

I don't think I see what you're getting at here.

You're claiming that theft and copyright infringement have the same effect on the vendor. I just gave an example of a scenario where they have different effects — namely, if the DVD is stolen, the vendor sells two copies, but if it's pirated they only sell one.

And whether I steal from Person A or copy from Person C the effect on the vendor is not the same.

Sure it is: the vendor is no unable to sell what he already bought, and thus loses money.

No it isn't, I just listed the example.
If Person A buys a copy from Vendor, Vendor has now sold one copy.
If Person B then steals it from Person A, Person A buys another copy from Vendor to replace it. Vendor has now sold two copies.
In this example, theft results in the sale of two copies.
vs
If Person C buys a copy from Vendor, Vendor has now sold one copy.
If Person D copies off person C, Vendor has still sold one copy.
In this example, piracy results in the sale of one copy.

See? Different effect on Vendor. In one he sells two, in the other he sells one.

That's beside the point though: you now have more copies than you can sell because somebody used one without your permission.

What makes it think it's because somebody used it without your permission? If the person wouldn't have bought it anyway, then you would still have too many.

Because the effect on the victim isn't the same, as your flatmate is still a potential customer: he has a reason he might want to own his own copy, and thus he's still a potential customer.

No they aren't — we both bought it, we jointly own it. The vendor is exactly as hurt as if I had been the only one who bought it and made a copy for my flatmate.

Regarding the "I didn't say it was the sole reason" statement: then why the hell did you bring it up at all? The effect on everyone involved is important for the morality of the situation, why did you have to solely point out the victim?

[elasto]

I meant what I said, and it works perfectly well. My definition depends both upon use without permission and denial of opportunity to profit.

It doesn't work perfectly well - that's why the law (and most other people) don't use it.

But the only thing the vendor was going to do with that TV was sell it. The effects from the vendor's point of view are the same.

Seriously? You think Microsoft don't use Windows on their computers? You don't see that stealing Windows from Bill Gates PC would not be the same as cloning it - morally and in practical effect?

You guys are trying to obfuscate this until you find some superficial difference between piracy and larceny that doesn't affect the morality. In each case a vendor loses money because people used his product without his permission. This is all that matters because this is the only reason it's morally wrong: the specific method doesn't matter. If I rob a bank with a pistol or a machine gun or via computer, I've still robbed a bank.

What you're missing is that people agree with you that piracy is typically immoral. You're trying to equate piracy with theft to win an argument people aren't having with you. Piracy isn't immoral because it's the same as theft, it's immoral for its own unique reasons. Those unique reasons are why the law and most other people put piracy into its own unique area of criminality - 'copyright infringement' instead of theft.

[sourmìlk]

Seriously? You think Microsoft don't use Windows on their computers? You don't see that stealing Windows from Bill Gates PC would not be the same as cloning it - morally and in practical effect?

That's a horrible analogy. It's more as though somebody stole a copy of Windows.

What you're missing is that people agree with you that piracy is typically immoral. You're trying to equate piracy with theft to win an argument people aren't having with you. Piracy isn't immoral because it's the same as theft, it's immoral for its own unique reasons. Those unique reasons are why the law and most other people put piracy into its own unique area of criminality - 'copyright infringement' instead of theft.

I've explained several times over why piracy is immoral for the same reason as theft, and all I get in response are strawmen providing other situations that don't match the description I made.

Yurell: I think I see our problem. I'm talking about theft from the vendor vs. piracy and you're talking about theft from the purchaser vs. piracy. The victims are totally different people in the latter situation, I don't think their morality can be compared.

[yurell]

Yurell: I think I see our problem. I'm talking about theft from the vendor vs. piracy and you're talking about theft from the purchaser vs. piracy. The victims are totally different people in the latter situation, I don't think their morality can be compared.

So ... we have a circumstance where theft and copyright infringement aren't the same? So copyright infringement isn't theft?

[Ghostbear]

Seriously? You think Microsoft don't use Windows on their computers? You don't see that stealing Windows from Bill Gates PC would not be the same as cloning it - morally and in practical effect?

That's a horrible analogy. It's more as though somebody stole a copy of Windows.

It's a good analogy, because it captures the difference: the owner can still use an object that has been pirated. You ignore that again and again. Theft requires the item to no longer be available to its owner. If piracy does not achieve this result, why is it theft? You return again and again to being no longer able to sell it, but THEY CAN. Unless you can change those facts, piracy and theft can't be the same, because piracy is not meeting one of the central requirements of theft. If somebody downloads a movie, the movie studio can do anything they want with the movie still, including selling it. They have not had anything that they own taken from them, they are not denied the ability to use that movie, and it is still their property. Before the movie was downloaded, they could have put the whole film on reels and then set the reels on fire while dancing a merry jig (as in, they can do whatever they want- replace "set on fire while dancing a merry jig" with anything you want- including trying to sell a copy to the pirate in question- they can still do that!). After it was downloaded, they can still do that. Contrast that with somebody stealing something: before someone steals a dvd from a store, the store can take that dvd off the shelf and set it on fire while dancing a merry jig. After it has been stolen, they can't.

EDIT: I missed this bit earlier.

You guys are trying to obfuscate this until you find some superficial difference between piracy and larceny that doesn't affect the morality. In each case a vendor loses money because people used his product without his permission. This is all that matters because this is the only reason it's morally wrong: the specific method doesn't matter. If I rob a bank with a pistol or a machine gun or via computer, I've still robbed a bank.

You're just creating your own definition of theft and your own definition of piracy to suit your needs here. If you use whatever definition you want, sure they're the same thing. Your definition of theft, however, disagrees with reality.

[Malice]

You guys are trying to obfuscate this until you find some superficial difference between piracy and larceny that doesn't affect the morality. In each case a vendor loses money because people used his product without his permission. This is all that matters because this is the only reason it's morally wrong: the specific method doesn't matter. If I rob a bank with a pistol or a machine gun or via computer, I've still robbed a bank.

But his permission isn't an absolute affair; it's based on a specific set of determined legal limitations. The fact that Amazon will sell you a Dickens novel does not mean you are using their product without permission when you pirate the same novel; legally, neither Dickens, nor his estate/descendants, nor Amazon has any right to control how people continue to use, adapt, or view the work. (Yes, Amazon may have rights over the specific edition; that's irrelevant to my point.)

The question, then, is whether morality follows the law or whether morality dictates a specific set of limitations on the respect someone must pay to an author's work, limitations which may or may not coincide with the law.

The former possibility--that morality follows the law--seems absurd to me. If on Tuesday the law says the Narnia books are in the public domain and Wednesday the laws are changed so that they are not, then the same act of piracy would have different moral values depending on which day it was done. This seems to me to be a poor basis for a moral code.

The alternative, however, suggests that an individual should decide for themselves how much respect they feel obligated to give authors (or even an individual author).

[sourmìlk]

So ... we have a circumstance where theft and copyright infringement aren't the same? So copyright infringement isn't theft?

Yeah, when they're committed against different victims. That's like saying that murder and murder aren't the same because if I kill Person B it doesn't affect Person A, but if I do kill Person A it does affect Person A.

It's a good analogy, because it captures the difference: the owner can still use an object that has been pirated. You ignore that again and again.

I haven't, actually, I've addressed it directly. You're committing a strawman here: I'm not saying that piracy is the same as stealing every copy of a product, which is what your argument relies on. I'm saying that pirating is morally equivalent to stealing a single copy of that product.

Malice: to clarify, are you arguing that piracy is not necessarily immoral?

[Ghostbear]

I haven't, actually, I've addressed it directly. You're committing a strawman here: I'm not saying that piracy is the same as stealing every copy of a product, which is what your argument relies on. I'm saying that pirating is morally equivalent to stealing a single copy of that product.

That should have been my quote. It is not a strawman, because it is based on the very definition of theft. Theft requires for the owner to no longer be able to use that object. It's a critical part of the definition. That does not occur with piracy. Using your own definition doesn't change that, because nobody else uses your definition.

[elasto]

Malice: to clarify, are you arguing that piracy is not necessarily immoral?

You've already acknowledged that to be the case:

For the record, I am fine with piracy where a person cannot purchase the software or media legally.

By saying you're 'fine with it' you're accepting that it is moral (or, at least, amoral). Others would argue additional occasions where it is moral/amoral - and I assume you would allow them that right in return.

I haven't, actually, I've addressed it directly. You're committing a strawman here: I'm not saying that piracy is the same as stealing every copy of a product, which is what your argument relies on.

No, it doesn't. Even if a person owns thousands of instances of an object, stealing one instance and cloning one instance are not the same thing - whether we're talking Windows or tv's - which is why, legally and morally, they are different.

I'm saying that pirating is morally equivalent to stealing a single copy of that product.

You can say theft and piracy have aspects in common and noone would disagree, but 'moral equivalence' is a stretch that not even the law makes. Theft is a criminal act whereas copyright infringement is a civil one, for example. Murder and manslaughter have aspects in common but I presume you wouldn't regard them as morally equivalent (or would you? It would explain a lot if you did.)

The fact you concede that there are occasions when piracy is ok whereas there are much fewer instances where theft is ok ought to clue you in to the lack of moral equivalence though.

[sourmìlk]

That should have been my quote. It is not a strawman, because it is based on the very definition of theft. Theft requires for the owner to no longer be able to use that object. It's a critical part of the definition. That does not occur with piracy. Using your own definition doesn't change that, because nobody else uses your definition.

The definition of theft doesn't actually play into that specific argument.

I think we may be arguing about slightly different things, so to clarify: assuming that piracy and larceny are immoral for the same reasons, would it be reasonable to call each a subset of the crime of "theft"?

You've already acknowledged that to be the case

I should have specified: is Malice okay with piracy in some situations where the pirate can purchase the product legally?

No, it doesn't. Even if a person owns thousands of instances of an object, stealing one instance and cloning one instance are not the same thing - whether we're talking Windows or tv's - which is why, legally and morally, they are different.

This is a total non-sequitor from what I said.

You can say theft and piracy have aspects in common and noone would disagree, but 'moral equivalence' is a stretch that not even the law makes. Theft is a criminal act whereas copyright infringement is a civil one, for example. Murder and manslaughter have aspects in common but I presume you wouldn't regard them as morally equivalent

Again, it's not just that piracy and larceny have similar aspects, it's that all relevant moral aspects are identical.

The fact you concede that there are occasions when piracy is ok whereas there are much fewer instances where theft is ok ought to clue you in to the lack of moral equivalence though.

I don't see how that follows.

[Silas]

The question, then, is whether morality follows the law or whether morality dictates a specific set of limitations on the respect someone must pay to an author's work, limitations which may or may not coincide with the law.

The former possibility--that morality follows the law--seems absurd to me. If on Tuesday the law says the Narnia books are in the public domain and Wednesday the laws are changed so that they are not, then the same act of piracy would have different moral values depending on which day it was done. This seems to me to be a poor basis for a moral code.

Wait wait wait wait wait. If the legality of such-and-such an act has no bearing on whether an act is moral, why is it ok for the police to arrest someone with a warrant out, but not someone without? (I assume we're on the same page about the legal system in principle, without going into its systemic flaws.) Or to keep a convict in prison the day before his sentence is complete, but not the next? You've made way too broad a claim here.

You've got to pay your taxes, get your car emissions-tested, and leave the deer alone until hunting season. Soon, you'll have to make sure you have insurance to pay your hospitals bills (in the US). If the government has any legitimacy at all when it comes to administering public goods and securing social outcomes, there has to be a moral requirement to obey its laws, even when they are arbitrary.

[elasto]

I think we may be arguing about slightly different things, so to clarify: assuming that piracy and larceny are immoral for the same reasons, would it be reasonable to call each a subset of the crime of "theft"?

Only if you redefine 'theft'. I think this is most of the problem here: You are working from your own set of definitions while everyone else is using the commonly agreed definitions.

I should have specified: is Malice okay with piracy in some situations where the pirate can purchase the product legally?

He can answer for himself, but for me the answer is yes. An easy broad example would be anything that comes under the legal designation of 'fair use' - technically piracy but morally acceptable. There is no 'fair use' legal equivalent for larceny or theft.

Again, it's not just that piracy and larceny have similar aspects, it's that all relevant moral aspects are identical.

And, well, others, including the law disagree - probably mostly because you are using different definitions of all these terms to everyone else. It's easy to manufacture up an argument if you do that.

If the legality of such-and-such an act has no bearing on whether an act is moral, why is it ok for the police to arrest someone with a warrant out, but not someone without?

He's not saying it has no bearing, just that it has no one-to-one correspondence: Things can be legal and moral [eg. giving to charity], legal and immoral [eg. adultery], illegal and moral [eg. smoking pot, perhaps] or illegal and immoral [eg. murder].

In addition, it is generally considered moral for the police to follow the law - but that's not a universal truth.

[yurell]

Yeah, when they're committed against different victims

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what you said.

Again, it's not just that piracy and larceny have similar aspects, it's that all relevant moral aspects are identical.

I don't agree that all moral aspects are identical. Stealing requires the physical removal of someone's property, copying it does not. If I copy your 100% homework (presuming that they're marked by different people), we both get 100%. If I steal your homework, I get 100%, you get 0%. How are those circumstances morally equivalent?
Furthermore, the main characterisation of theft is that the object is removed from the owners possession. Rendering it unusable (e.g. vandalism) is not the same as theft. Making a copy is not the same as theft. If I build my own fridge, am I now responsible for 'stealing' it from some poor vendor that can no longer sell me a brand new one? No, I'm not.

Lastly, the law doesn't exist to define moral equivalences. It creates definitions for specific acts — 'theft' has a precise, legal definition (and is a criminal act, as was pointed out earlier), while 'copyright infringement' has a different legal definition (and is a civil offence). You're trying to conflate two definitions of 'theft' (your own, an umbrella term for all property offences vs specifically removing an item from someone's possession), which is dishonest and causing much of this argument. You're arguing that a well defined term is the same as another well defined term based on some 'moral equivalency' even thought he acts that denote them are markedly different. You have a tendency to do this — redefining words to fit your argument, which only serves to obfuscate and infuriate people who are otherwise arguing in good faith.

[Ghostbear]

That should have been my quote. It is not a strawman, because it is based on the very definition of theft. Theft requires for the owner to no longer be able to use that object. It's a critical part of the definition. That does not occur with piracy. Using your own definition doesn't change that, because nobody else uses your definition.

The definition of theft doesn't actually play into that specific argument.

The definition of theft plays into any argument where someone argues that something is theft: if that something doesn't match the definition, you have a very steep hill to climb to prove equivalence.

I think we may be arguing about slightly different things, so to clarify: assuming that piracy and larceny are immoral for the same reasons, would it be reasonable to call each a subset of the crime of "theft"?

No, it wouldn't, because even if you assume that, one of them does not meet the definitions of theft, which is something I think should be strongly required to be able to make anything a subset of something. It would be reasonable to call them each a subset of "illegal acquisition", as I used earlier in the thread. It is entirely the use of the word theft that is the objection here- if you want to say they're both similarly "wrong" because something is being gotten in an illegal manner, sure. But you can't put that under the subset of the word theft, because not all things that are acquired wrongfully are stolen.

Basically, you are using the word "theft" or "stealing" incorrectly here, and that's what (most) people here are taking issue with. The legal and the practical definitions of theft are not equivalent to piracy. They have their similarities- no one (that I have noted) has denied that in this thread. That is not at question. You are conflating them as equivalent actions, when they very clearly are not. Not morally, not practically- they just aren't equivalent. Similar, sure. Equivalent, no.

[sourmìlk]

Elasto: if things are morally the same for the same reasons, why cannot I call them subsets of the same moral act?

I don't agree that all moral aspects are identical. Stealing requires the physical removal of someone's property, copying it does not.

I've explained why that doesn't matter.

If I copy your 100% homework (presuming that they're marked by different people), we both get 100%. If I steal your homework, I get 100%, you get 0%. How are those circumstances morally equivalent?

They aren't, so it's a good thing I didn't say that any copy without permission is morally equivalent to theft.

Furthermore, the main characterisation of theft is that the object is removed from the owners possession. Rendering it unusable (e.g. vandalism) is not the same as theft. Making a copy is not the same as theft. If I build my own fridge, am I now responsible for 'stealing' it from some poor vendor that can no longer sell me a brand new one? No, I'm not.

Again, see the criterion in which a person's property is used without his permission. That's an important moral component to theft.

Lastly, the law doesn't exist to define moral equivalences.

Then why are you using legal definitions to refute my moral equivalences?

It creates definitions for specific acts — 'theft' has a precise, legal definition (and is a criminal act, as was pointed out earlier), while 'copyright infringement' has a different legal definition (and is a civil offence). You're trying to conflate two definitions of 'theft' (your own, an umbrella term for all property offences vs specifically removing an item from someone's possession), which is dishonest and causing much of this argument. You're arguing that a well defined term is the same as another well defined term based on some 'moral equivalency' even thought he acts that denote them are markedly different. You have a tendency to do this — redefining words to fit your argument, which only serves to obfuscate and infuriate people who are otherwise arguing in good faith.

The whole point of my argument is why it's acceptable to define piracy as a form of theft. You can't say I'm wrong because I'm redefining words: of course I am, that's the whole point.

Ghostbear, I honestly don't see how what you said follows from what I said.

[Silas]

[Malice]'s not saying it has no bearing, just that it has no one-to-one correspondence: Things can be legal and moral [eg. giving to charity], legal and immoral [eg. adultery], illegal and moral [eg. smoking pot, perhaps] or illegal and immoral [eg. murder].

That's not what he said. He said morality can't follow [from] the law, because, then, the moral thing to do could change from one day to the next with a change in the law. But that's not entirely absurd, like he said it was. You shouldn't hunt out of season, even if the dates are arbitrary. It cheats the people who obey the law, who submit to a rule that promotes a public good.