[clarry]

Sharing is at worst a victimless crime. At best.. well I don't know about best but I'd say something about living in the future where we have the technological means to give people anything they need or want. That if something is wealth. And progress.

Thievery is an inappropriate description of making copies.

[anon4]

At best it's free promotion. The thing is, piracy right now is rampant, but it doesn't seem to have a measurable effect on profits. As in, they aren't dropping.

Edit: Here's a concrete example of "At best": http://anton.nordenfur.se/paulo-coelho-destroys-piracy-myths...

In 1999, when I was first published in Russia (with a print- run of 3,000), the country was suffering a severe paper shortage. By chance, I discovered a ‘pirate’ edition of The Alchemist and posted it on my web page. A year later, when the crisis was resolved, I sold 10,000 copies of the print edition. By 2002, I had sold a million copies in Russia, and I have now sold 12 million

[mike_hearn]

Eh? Music industry sales have dropped off a cliff starting around the year 2000. It's been a bloodbath, they're now at something like a third of what they once were:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a0...

Do you think people listen to a third of the music they listened to ten years ago? No way!

[paulhauggis]

I seem to remember a huge debate we had right here on HN regarding Wordpress themes a year or so ago. A commercial theme provider had included GNU code and was not redistributing the original source (or offering their altered source under the GNU license).

The vast majority of comments regarded this as outright theft.

If I make copies of your personal data (credit card info, address, name, SSN) and pass it around the Internet, is it a victim-less crime? I'm merely making copies of bits onto a webpage (the other effects shouldn't matter..according to your logic).

The real victims are the people put out of work due to rampant piracy of software and anything else digital. Information wants to be free. Just don't come looking for me to foot the bill when the unemployment rate increases and people are calling for things like basic income.

I'm honestly tired of the "everything should be free" mantra coupled with "We can't figure out why there are no more jobs left..it must be the greedy companies!!! durr!!"

[clarry]

> If I make copies of your personal data (credit card info, address, name, SSN) and pass it around the Internet, is it a victim-less crime? I'm merely making copies of bits onto a webpage (the other effects shouldn't matter..according to your logic).

There is a big difference between personally identifying information and copyrighted works. Same goes for passwords or password hashes and so on. Yes, I believe there are specific kinds of data people should be allowed to keep private, and secret. That is why I don't broadcast my credit card info, address, name, SSN or passwords on Hacker News (even though I've told enough about my life so that a very competent hacker could no doubt figure me out!). I also don't put the said information on a CD and sell it to the public.

> The real victims are the people put out of work due to rampant piracy

I do not believe this is actually happening. Piracy might be happening but the reason that such people would be put out of work (if they ever are) is that people don't want to pay (or donate or whatever). Piracy isn't the reason, piracy is the symptom.

[vacri]

In the end, it's not about 'making copies'. You're obtaining entertainment without paying the required fee to the entertainer (vast majority of torrented stuff is entertainment). You're using a service without the required recompense. You can perhaps argue that semantically sharing is better likened to 'fare evasion' on public transport, but they're semantically similar crimes: taking something which you're meant to pay for for free.

[clarry]

> In the end, it's not about 'making copies'.

Yes it is, it very much is.

> You're obtaining entertainment

Right. Obtaining copies of recorded entertainment.

> You're using a service

I might be using the "service" provided by the peers who willingly and voluntarily partake in creating copies, with or without requiring a fee. There is no "entertainer" performing a show. He's not serving me. He's not fulfilling any requests I've made; we have no contract. He doesn't even have a computer serving data for me. He's not involved. He could be sitting on a beach sipping beer. People making copies of someone's past performance doesn't make that someone actively serve you.

> You can perhaps argue that semantically sharing is better likened to 'fare evasion' on public transport

Public transport and fare evasion are interesting subjects. But making copies of something is not at all alike. When you sit in a bus going somewhere, there is a very real service happening that very moment. Someone's probably sitting in the front, driving the bus, trying to get you and the rest of the people to their destination safely and on time. By providing that service, the driver (and other people involved) spend their time providing that service. They also spend fuel. Mechanical deterioration of the vehicle takes place. You occupy space in their vehicle!

If, right now, I made a billion copies of someone's song, the artist won't lose a single second of his life. He won't lose a single penny. His guitar doesn't detoriate, he doesn't get tired, he doesn't get hungry. Most likely he wouldn't even know what's happening. He is not performing a service.

[heinrich5991]

Just noticing: The bus would also drive there if you wouldn't enter it, and assuming the bus isn't full, you're not even costing the public transport company anything.

[clarry]

Yep. That is what makes fare evasion on public transport an interesting subject.

[mcintyre1994]

I'm not making any judgement on whether it should be legal/illegal etc. but I think saying it's a victimless crime at worst is potentially incorrect.

In the worst case, it's absolutely possible that you share something with someone, A, which A would have bought and then they don't buy it. In the worst case they don't in the future buy anything from the author/creator etc. In the worst case I'd consider that author/creator a victim in this case, they would have been paid whatever amount A would have paid but now haven't been.

I'm not arguing that's often the case (I don't think it is) but to absolutely rule it out feels like too much of a simplification. There can be a legitimate victim, it almost certainly isn't the person suing you and in most cases there probably isn't - but there can be I think.

[zanny]

It is not much of a market argument to say "there is this legal framework to artificially restrict information transfer, and if people don't obey it someone might not make revenue from nothing".

Most of the IP abolitionists (myself included) would just argue you should be doing free market information creation, and charging for scarce resources and not erecting some artificial framework mess to destroy a potentially enlightening capability of the information age. If you want to make a movie, seek funding to make the movie. If you want to write software, seek those who want software and ask them to give you money to make it, etc.

That is really inevitably the only way this ends, because IP is incompatible with the modern forms information can take. The ease, rate, and speed of transfer marginal expenses have collapsed to zero, so treating it as a scarce good is only systemically harming society with artificial scarcity.

[mcintyre1994]

I agree with you. I think it's inevitable that it will go that way, the current system is impractical in the modern world. I agree that artificial scarcity is of no benefit to society. The only thing I disagree with is that there's no possible way for piracy to have a legitimate victim, that feels like too much of a simplification to accept.

[runeks]

> In the worst case, it's absolutely possible that you share something with someone, A, which A would have bought and then they don't buy it. In the worst case they don't in the future buy anything from the author/creator etc. In the worst case I'd consider that author/creator a victim in this case, they would have been paid whatever amount A would have paid but now haven't been.

The thing is, what you're describing as a "victim" wouldn't be considered a victim in any other case.

If I set up a muffin stand and sell you muffins, you might choose to buy my muffins, and not the ones from the bakery across the street. But no one would call the bakery a victim, and call my actions, that lead to a decline in the income of the bakery, a criminal or even immoral act. Hell, I might even be using the bakery's generation-old recipe, and thus be profiting from information created/discovered by the bakery (akin to a digital copy of a movie created by a studio).

[mcintyre1994]

I disagree with your comparison, and I'd argue that there's no comparison to physical retail that really works. If there were we'd probably have sane laws anyway imo.

Making muffins costs you time and money, copying a digital file doesn't (ignoring an upload limit or something). Selling is different to giving away (and a stand giving away muffins is no more comparable for the above reason). Both apply even if you use their recipe.

It goes the other way too. The bakery have to put employee time and ingredients into making every muffin while of course the film company doesn't into every digital copy. For the record I'd never consider a film company a victim of piracy.

Again I don't think the laws are sensible, I don't think the way things work right now is going to continue, it's completely infeasible in the modern world. But I don't think that comparison is a reasonable one to make.