[shevy-java]

I would not call it a "piracy" streaming site.

I would call it a hero-site. That's what they are - they are heroes for unrestricting information.

Take ublock origin. Now, many say it is an ad-blocker; the ublock origin author says the extension is a generic content blocker. I agree with that but I go further: I call ublock origin a hero-blocker, or better, a heroic blocker. It blocks unwanted things in general. For similar reasons I think the term "piratebay" is old. It made more sense in the 2000s. Now I would call it herobay.

People may wonder about those terms, but I think it is important to use better terms than old terms. The old terms often were hijacked by the law system and mega-corporations with their own particular interests. It is time that the people re-define the law. Law should serve the people.

[patanegra]

Pirating of course exists. You might rebrand it, but hardly as hero-, more like theft-. Theftbay would sound good to me.

[lazyfanatic42]

Copying isn't theft.

[Aurornis]

If copying isn’t theft then I guess we can stop worrying about open source licensing. Anyone, including corporations, would be able to take open source code and copy it into their own products, reselling it without consent or releasing their changes because they haven’t stolen anything, just copied it, right?

If you spend years of your life writing some software and then it accidentally gets revealed to the world by mistake, anyone can copy it and use it as their own? Because copying isn’t theft, theft they haven’t stolen anything from you, so you have nothing to complain about?

[tmerc]

"they haven’t stolen anything from you" correct by the legal definition as my non lawyer brain reads it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft

"so you have nothing to complain about" incorrect. Copyright infringement is it's own crime with it's own penalities.

The terminology section of this Wikipedia article is quite informative on why copying is not theft according to the US Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

A big difference in theft vs copyright infringement is if you go to jail or not (criminal vs civil). Again, not a lawyer.

[JuniperMesos]

Yes this would be one of many consequences of a world where copyright was actually killed or seriously ganked.

[BeFlatXIII]

Good. Bacteria have the right idea about plasmid-swapping. Information is meant to be collective.

[kube-system]

Of course, if you give people fewer incentives to share their information they can and often will simply keep it private. You can't copy information that people never gave to you, regardless of the law.

[BeFlatXIII]

Make industrial espionage legally forgivable, but only if it is shared to the public.

[hamdingers]

I can't tell if you're sarcastically describing the world we live in or if you genuinely haven't realized all these things happen regularly. Poe's law I guess.

[kube-system]

It isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.

[Telaneo]

Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.

[JohnLocke4]

Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft - not matter how it is done. Copying a dead person's work isn't theft because a dead person can't create value, but stealing a dead person's car is still theft, because something of value is gone.

Stealing a car you were never going to buy and making an exact replica of a car you were never going to buy is two entirely different things.

[davedx]

> Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft

No, it's not. You (or random large media corps) do not get to unilaterally redefine words of the English language like that.

Pass whatever laws you want about it, enforce them however you feel is appropriate, but don't try to redefine language itself to push your agenda.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft

[kube-system]

"IP theft" is not counter to that definition. Intellectual property is a 'something'. That definition, does not require depriving someone else of something. As another valid example, see "identity theft".

Furthermore, English is not prescriptive; dictionaries are a lagging reference of observed use... so yes, the users of English absolutely do get to redefine language. That's how all modern English words originated.

And finally, if your dictionary doesn't account for "IP theft", you have simply found an incorrect dictionary, because that usage is undeniably widespread -- whether or not you agree with the concept politically.

[tmerc]

"IP theft" is a contradiction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft

Between these two pages, you should be able to understand why "ip theft" is a bogus term. It's specifically called out in the intellectual property article.

"Unlike other forms of property, intellectual property can be used by infinitely many people without depriving the original owner of the use of their property."

Whereas theft has this definition: "Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property."

My not-a-lawyer understanding is that we use a common law system in the USA. This means that the definitions for things are based on history, previous cases, and the statutes that have been codified into law. This is a good thing because redefining words can make previously legal actions become illegal. Allowing that to happen at the pace slang develops in the modern era means we will hold people to different standards based on how "hip" they are.

[davedx]

I said you don’t get to redefine what words mean unilaterally. I disagree that enough English speakers agree with the MPA definition for us to adopt it. I sure don’t.

[Telaneo]

> Intellectual property is a 'something'.

Good thing I don't recognise the existence of that. We live in a society that does, and I despise that. At least the EU has the sense to not recognise software patents, so 'intellectual property' is not all-encompassing. Maybe one day they can loosen the grip further.

> As another valid example, see "identity theft".

'Identity fraud' is a much better term for what this is. Someone using my name, phone number and my mother's maiden name to get money in my name is not stealing my name and phone number; it's just fraud. It's much closer to lying than stealing.

[JohnLocke4]

English is not a programming language. You're only disagreeing with my articulation here, which is irrelevant in relation to the thing of the matter - namely what I mean rather than what I type into the keyboard physically.

[tmerc]

Ways to prevent someone from extracting value out of their work that are clearly not theft:

- murder

- kidnapping

- ddosing their site so they can't sell things

- carpet bombing their reviews with 1 star

- filing an injunction blocking the sale of their product on bogus ip claims (aka copyright trolling)

- gaslighting them to the point where they think the idea is worthless

- being the owner of IP that prevents them from selling their IP

Probably others but I think that's enough to show your definition is wrong.

[JohnLocke4]

All theft is preventing people from getting value out of their work, but not all preventing people from getting value out of their work is theft.

I'm not trying to make a definition, just trying to convey my opinion. I suggest we discuss our opinions rather than trying to codify English

[patanegra]

Well, 'theft' is more of an artistic licence.

It's a breach of intellectual property rights owner.

[prasadjoglekar]

Down the rabbit hole we go.

[cwillu]

Found the villain.

[patanegra]

LOL. Does intellectual property exist, or not?

If yes, then it can be stolen.

If no, then it is fine to take any source code, any photo, any information, and do whatever I want with it, right?

[raincole]

Really? Have you read this post at all?

This is a monetized streaming site that spams reddit users. This is the hero in your mind? Is your philosophy that as long as the legal IP holders don't get paid it's great?