[picardythird]

Just because there’s a technical workaround doesn’t make it not stealing. If I neglect to lock my car and my stuff gets stolen, it’s still stealing. I might have been able to prevent it had I locked the car, but it’s still stealing.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

If a webserver sent me an exact copy of your car but encased in ice, and I used an ice pick to carve it out, you would still have your car, and i would have a copy of your car. That the web server wants to me buy a flame thrower to melt the ice is irrelivent.

Stealing does not apply to digital goods. You cannot deprive anyone of something infinitely replicable. You can only prevent those that you do not deem worthy to access it. and that attitude makes a person a bad person.

[picardythird]

So if I break in to Microsoft, stick a USB in their computers, and steal the source code for Windows, it's not stealing because it's just digital information that's infinitely reproducible? Keep in mind: nothing physical was stolen.

People lose their jobs because they are digital content creators and the attitude is that paying for intellectual property is uncool.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

Sounds like breaking and entering to me, but I am not a lawyer. Not legal advice.

[picardythird]

I think you would be charged with more than that.

[LocalH]

Do you think that people should be required to view websites as delivered, without modifying them in any way? That would be the logical end of attempting to prevent this kind of "stealing".

If there is another term you'd like to use for "looks like theft, but the original owner loses nothing" then feel free. But it is not theft or stealing, those require also depriving the rightful owner of the stolen property.

If I could duplicate the exact contents of your car, would it still be "stealing" if I did so? Reminder that you would continue to be in possession of 100% of the contents of your car. Maybe with regards to any digital data on any duplicated devices, I could see a bit of the "stealing" logic, then again nothing was actually "stolen" from you if you still have 100% of your original property, but I now also have duplicates of that property.

[picardythird]

If I walk in to a record store and buy a CD, I'm not just paying for the paper and plastic that it's made of. I'm paying the record company, the record store, and the artist for their time and talent.

With a digital goods, we can eliminate the paper and plastic. It's a great thing! But for some reason, we've also decided to write the artist out of the equation too. At least if you're a pirate.

If you're a software engineer, you're being paid not to manufacture hard goods but to create something of intellectual value that could be technically be duplicated forever. What's the difference between pirating music and stealing code that is under a software license?

[webmaven]

> What's the difference between pirating music and stealing code that is under a software license?

If by "stealing code" you mean creating and distributing (probably selling) software derived from it that violates the license, it is quite different.

If what you mean is simply downloading warez for your own use, it is more or less the same.

[picardythird]

So are you against torrenting copyrighted digital goods then? Because people do exactly that. They steal intellectual property and distribute it for other people to use.

Stealing for personal use may be a more minor thing, but it still boggles me that people want to consume the fruits of others' labor without compensating them in anyway, as if creators are slaves who exist only to please.

[webmaven]

I made no claim about the relative morality of piracy vs. license violations.

But I will note that you are (by using the framing of "stealing") implying that piracy results in lost sales, which is largely not the case, except possibly for the most popular works. See "Piracy is Progressive Taxation":

https://www.oreilly.com/content/piracy-is-progressive-taxati...

[picardythird]

If a publisher or author doesn't mind, as is the case with the article you linked, that's fantastic. O'reilly is a good business. But it's still stealing. I think if you have the money, you should pay for the product. It's one thing for a teenager to download a bunch of songs on Kazaa in 2000. But I don't understand why so many self respecting adult knowledge workers feel the need to pirate things they can afford just because they can. Seems entitled and disrespectful to me.

[theturtletalks]

By this definition, ad-blocking is stealing. Is using a technical workaround to hid HTML ok but using it reveal hidden HTML is not?

Your car example is not a good analogy. Once you notice people stealing, you would make sure the door is locked. Just like these websites can restrict the content server-side.

[picardythird]

This is something broken with the internet. That website need a strong ranking on google search to stay afloat is a symptom of a much larger problem with how the internet operates in this day and age.

At the end of the day you are stealing and looting not just from the company, but the everyday people who work for that company, who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families, and no rationalization will change that.

And to the car analogy: Let's say I was stolen from, but I'm so lazy I still can't be bothered to lock my car. Or I leave it open for some other reason. This has zero effect on the morality of the thief stealing from my car. It just means I'm an easy target for stealing. Two completely separate things.

[matt321]

yes...yes it is