• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Burning down someone’s house is closer to stealing than copyright infringement, though. Afterwards, they don’t have a house anymore, but with copying they’d still have the data.

    I prefer to compare it to joyriding. There are separate crimes for theft of a car and for joyriding. If you get caught taking a car, you might argue that you just wanted to go for a drive, and never intended to permanently deprive the owner. In that case, it would be hard to convict you of theft, because theft requires an intent to deprive the owner. Instead, they go for joyriding, which has a different bar.

    Even then, though, joyriding is still a crime. Basic copyright infringement is not a crime, it’s a civil offense.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Joyriding depreciates the car. Plus most of the time the gas is not refilled. This is stealing.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Scratching a car also depreciates its value, would you argue that is stealing also?

        I wasn’t trying to give a perfect analogy, anyway. Joyriding is a lesser form of theft, with a lower barrier to conviction. Copyright infringement also has a lower barrier to conviction, however it’s completely different to theft (and joyriding) in that it is not a crime.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stealing requires using something for yourself. Like that gasoline was used or joyriding itself was used. Scratching a car is just vandalizing. What object you are stealing by vandalizing?

          • Uncategory@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Isn’t scratching a car stealing the resale value? The owner has to pay to get it fixed to restore the value. Therefore, vandalism is theft. Quod erat up your demonstrandum :)

            Also, assault is theft (of peace of mind), rape is theft (of trust), flaying someone alive is theft (of skin).

            If you want to stretch the definition of theft to include any harm, even without depriving someone of their property (i.e. the actual definition), you make the word meaningless. There are already words for other crimes.

            • MxM111@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              At least two conditions are necessary. Your are benefiting, and the other person has damages.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s still not right. Theft is taking something with the intent to deprive the owner.

                The US has twisted it somewhat and made it more vague, where depriving the owner of opportunity is sometimes a thing, but really that’s just bullshit that rightsholders have shovelled in - it doesn’t fit the core principles behind the law, and the rest of the world does not follow that. Much like how they’re trying to make copyright infringement be tantamount to theft (which is also being pushed onto other countries).

                Why do you support their profit-driven greed in changing the law against your social interests?

                • MxM111@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Theft is taking something with the intent to deprive the owner

                  I disagree. If I am hungry and I still an apple from the store, I might even feel very guilty about it, and definitely there was no intent to deprive the owner.

                  Why do you support their profit-driven greed in changing the law against your social interests?

                  What? Where? How?

                  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If I am hungry and I still an apple from the store, I might even feel very guilty about it, and definitely there was no intent to deprive the owner.

                    The very act of taking the apple and eating it deprives the owner, you can’t argue you had no intent to do something that you clearly did do. You might regret it, you might internally rationalise and try to justify it, but the fact is you made a choice to deprive the owner.

                    What? Where? How?

                    By trying to label copyright infringement as a crime when it is not, in the black and white letter of the law, you are supporting the media industry’s efforts to rewrite the law.