14 ms·

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

cwillu 10mo ago
Found the villain.
- patanegra 10mo ago
  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?
lazyfanatic42 10mo ago
Copying isn't theft.
- patanegra 10mo ago
  Well, 'theft' is more of an artistic licence. It's a breach of intellectual property rights owner.
- prasadjoglekar 10mo ago
  Down the rabbit hole we go.
- JohnLocke4 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    > 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 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft
    - kube-system 10mo ago
      "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.
      - Telaneo 10mo ago
        > 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.
        kube-system 10mo ago
        English is how people use English words. You can not like it, but that is simply your opinion.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  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?
  - hamdingers 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      It isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.
      - Telaneo 10mo ago
        Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.
        kube-system 10mo ago
        It does not qualify as the legal offence of "theft" in many courtrooms. It may be theft in colloquial English.
        Telaneo 10mo ago
        A pretty big part of theft is the victim no longer having whatever is stolen. When I steal your car, phone, bike or milk, you no longer have it, and no longer enjoy the benefit of it. I'm fairly certain that's the part of theft most people have a problem with. If I zap your car and produce a perfect duplicate, and drive that duplicate away, leaving your car as if nothing had ever happened, other than minutiae like the VINs and licence plates being identical, I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with that. Nobody is going to call that theft. If you still believe that's theft, then I cannot understand where you're coming from. This does not hold true for copyright infringement. When I copy Die Hard 3: The Expendables' Return of the Jedi, the original owner/copyright holder still has it. As they still have it, I have not deprived them of their work or good, and calling it theft makes about as much sense as me making a copy of the milk in your fridge and taking that copy.

cwillu 10mo ago

Found the villain.

patanegra 10mo ago
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?

lazyfanatic42 10mo ago

Copying isn't theft.

patanegra 10mo ago
Well, 'theft' is more of an artistic licence. It's a breach of intellectual property rights owner.
prasadjoglekar 10mo ago
Down the rabbit hole we go.
JohnLocke4 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  > 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 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft
  - kube-system 10mo ago
    "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.
    - Telaneo 10mo ago
      > 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.
      - kube-system 10mo ago
        English is how people use English words. You can not like it, but that is simply your opinion.
Aurornis 10mo ago
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?
- hamdingers 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    It isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.
    - Telaneo 10mo ago
      Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.
      - kube-system 10mo ago
        It does not qualify as the legal offence of "theft" in many courtrooms. It may be theft in colloquial English.
        Telaneo 10mo ago
        A pretty big part of theft is the victim no longer having whatever is stolen. When I steal your car, phone, bike or milk, you no longer have it, and no longer enjoy the benefit of it. I'm fairly certain that's the part of theft most people have a problem with. If I zap your car and produce a perfect duplicate, and drive that duplicate away, leaving your car as if nothing had ever happened, other than minutiae like the VINs and licence plates being identical, I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with that. Nobody is going to call that theft. If you still believe that's theft, then I cannot understand where you're coming from. This does not hold true for copyright infringement. When I copy Die Hard 3: The Expendables' Return of the Jedi, the original owner/copyright holder still has it. As they still have it, I have not deprived them of their work or good, and calling it theft makes about as much sense as me making a copy of the milk in your fridge and taking that copy.