[sciboy]

I completely agree - technically.

If we invent a technology that allows us to read thoughts, should you be allowed to read them without the thinkers permission? The thinker still has their thoughts. What about disseminate them via torrents? Would that be "fair"? Is that the society we want?

What about monitoring conversations via surveillance means? The speakers still have their conversation. Should we be allowed to a) surveil anyone and b) distribute that surveillance digitally as the surveilled still have their conversation?

The time is close approaching where such questions will need to be asked and I see little difference between piracy of songs, movies or other artistic expression and the extraction and distribution of thoughts against the owners wishes. The only real difference is that the artists chose to let it out into the world in a way the pirate didn't like. One way was via concert/itunes/cd/dvd, another way could be a conversation with a friend. Both ways the pirate says they have the right to use it how they want - original thinker be damned.

In my view it comes down to respect. While technically it's not stealing, you're still an asshole for using others thoughts without their blessing.

I can imagine the day where someone hacks into your laptop, records you in a compromising position, shares it with the world and shrugs and says "how is it stealing if you still have that something"? I just copied your dignity.

Not all that can be stolen is a thing.

[gillianseed]

Truly broken analogy. If you want to go with the 'reading thoughts' (whats wrong with cars!?) then with copyright infringement (which is what we are discussing here) it would be like someone selling the right to listen to their thoughts, and someone who paid for it choosing to relay those thoughts to others for free.

Certainly relaying those thoughts for free can possibly limit potential opportunities to futher sell the right to 'listen to those thoughts' (assuming that anyone of those listening in for free would be prepared to pay for it). But this 'intellectual rape' thing you are trying to paint here just doesn't hold water since they are already granting permission to 'read their thoughts' for money.

These files containing ip that are being illegally copied all across the web are things which were already being distributed in various forms, albeit with artificial scarcity mechanisms in place to force payment per copy.

[sciboy]

The point is that it shouldn't matter how the person chooses to put their thoughts into the world, they are their thoughts not yours. If they choose to do a private performance (a concert) and it gets pirated, that's not much different then if they are having a conversation and it gets pirated. The distinction isn't theirs it's the pirates.

Just because they are already granting permission to "read their thoughts" for money doesn't give anyone license to just do what they want does it?

I fail to see how the users choice on how to distribute files grants pirates license to go against the thought originators wishes.

Note I'm not saying I agree with this - but I find it interesting to think about the opposite viewpoint to my own as it helps me rationalise my position.

[rdtsc]

> Not all that can be stolen is a thing.

Good example and I agree. But I think it should be called something else rather than theft. Because one issue with this is how much have you lost after something was copied. That's the law suit side of this. Grandmas are being asked to pay hundreds of thousands of $ because their grand-kids downloaded Lady Gaga songs. By calling it "stealing" they are able to convince juries and judges that this is the equivalent of grandma breaking into a bank and taking $100k worth of gold and then speeding away. You see the problem?