this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
1105 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
315 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Theft isn’t specific to property, you can steal services too.

You can't really "steal" services, even though they sometimes call it that. You can access services without authorization, but you're not stealing anything. You can access services you don't have authorization to access and then disrupt people who are authorized to use those services. But, again, not stealing. Just disruption.

Stealing deprives a person of something, copyright infringement and unauthorized access to services don't.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You can't really "steal" services, even though they sometimes call it that.

If you hire me to paint your portrait and then don't pay me you have stolen my labour. I have given my time and effort and have not been reimbursed for it.

If you paid me and then gave your neighbour a copy of your portrait then you have not stolen my labour.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -4 points 11 months ago

you have stolen my labour

No, that's not theft. That's fraud.

[–] floppade@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know if any freelancer who has not been paid for their work will agree with you

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Freelancers may be upset if they're mistreated, but that doesn't mean they get to declare they were murdered, or that they were raped, or any other crime that didn't occur. Theft has a specific definition, and fraud is not the same thing as theft.

[–] floppade@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You’re being pedantic in the cases you want while complaining to others when they are differently pedantic. I’m not stooping to pretending to misunderstand due to pedantry.

If you are using the term theft colloquially, which most of us are as this is not a court, legal journal, economic journal, etc. Given that colloquial means the way people generally speak, as we are now, theft has a meaning: taking something that’s not yours through force or trickery. That would mean fraud is a type of theft in this case and not a different thing altogether.

So be a pedant I guess but it’s boring and lazy-brained.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm all in favour of people being pedantic, especially in the case of laws.

If you are using the term theft colloquially

I'm not, "theft" is misused all the time. It's something that the copyright cartels encourage because they get to pretend that copyright infringement is theft. It's not. We should push back and say theft has to meet certain conditions, and copyright infringement isn't theft. Nor is "wage theft", which is a form of fraud.

By buying into the colloquial definition of "theft" and expanding the scope to be any time someone is inconvenienced, you give the copyright cartels power to make people think copyright infringement is as bad as actual real theft, when it's clearly not.

[–] floppade@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you’re not going to use the term in a colloquial context while you are in a colloquial setting, then you need to cite what source you are referencing for your definition. Given that you are talking about laws, then you need to recognize that every place defines things differently according to the law. So which law, where?

Being unnecessarily argumentative and snobby while at the same time not meeting your own standards is ridiculous.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Nah, no need to go to laws, just use a dictionary.

[–] desconectado@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So salary theft by employers is not really theft. Got it.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If it's theft, it's theft. If it's fraud, it's fraud. It could be either. But "wage theft" is not copyright infringement, which is not theft.

Here's what California's Department of Industrial Relations says:

Wage theft is a form of fraud

https://www.dir.ca.gov/fraud_prevention/Wage-Theft.htm

[–] desconectado@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Stealing services doesn't necessarily have to do with copyright infringement.

My point is that OP over simplification of theft is not even worth considering, from a legal or personal point of view.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not really, theft is theft. Fraud is fraud. Just because something feels like theft doesn't make it theft.

[–] desconectado@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You were the one who quoted that wage theft is a form or fraud, so I'm not sure what's your point. Yes, some theft can be fraud... but still theft.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Wage theft isn't theft, it's fraud.

[–] MostlyHarmless@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So if someone creates a piece of art and I take a photo of it and sell the photo, or create prints of it, or even just give it give that photo to lots of people, what is that?

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 11 months ago
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who cares? The point is, it's not theft. The person who had the art still has the art, so it's not theft.

[–] floppade@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That is an assumption made that the artist still has the original thing that was not paid for. I understand what you’re being pedantic about. I just don’t think you’re right.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

What part of that statement suggests that the artist no longer has the original art? As stated, no theft occurred.

[–] Stuka@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I guess you can't steal anything when you just decide to limit the definition of the word.

But if we're in reality and using the way words are actually defined then yes you can steal something intangible, and no it does not require someone to be deprived of something.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not going to look up every state, but the Penal Code in some states explicitly define theft as:

A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

So, I think it is reasonable to include intent to deprive as part of the definition.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

decide to limit the definition of the word.

To what it actually means? Sure.

[–] Stuka@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To selectively focus on one small sliver of the definition of the word, ignoring the full meaning of the word and the context to push your agenda? Smells like propaganda.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago

The entire definition matters. There's already a term for "copyright infringement" it's "copyright infringement". Pretending it's theft is just a trick the copyright cartels are using to try to make it seem like a serious crime that has existed for millennia instead of a relatively new rule imposed in the last few centuries by the government, then made ridiculous by the entertainment cartel.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I guess you can't steal anything when you just decide to limit the definition of the word.

I guess you can steal anything when you expand the definition of the word to anything you want.

You live on the internet, it would take you 5 seconds to link to the "actual definition" you are using if the word was actually used that way.