Copying Is Not Theft - Official Version

>The data was returned to us. It was my understanding that the data was copied[1]. You wouldn't "return" data unless it was encrypted or the originals were deleted. I am confused on this phrasing but maybe it is standard idk. This is bullish on Monero[2]. The January pump may have been from a hack as well[3]. Here is Shinyhunters website. Canvas was listed on it[4] and then removed[5]. [1] ▶ this video [2] link [3] link [4] link [5] link

Nonsense. Copying is not theft, this debate was solved 25+ years ago! Have you seen the "you wouldn't steal a car" ads? Or this video? ▶ this video

Copying is not theft - ▶ this video As much as I think that what these companies is doing has moral and legal issues, reframing copyright violations as "theft" will cut both ways and make the arguments for open culture more difficult.

> For many people, information and physical items are completely different entities. When you steal bottle of milk, the original owner loses access to it. When you copy information without permission, the original owner keeps the access to it. Relevant: Copying Is Not Theft ▶ this video Copying is not theft. Stealing a thing leaves one less left Copying it makes one thing more; that’s what copying’s for. Copying is not theft. If I copy yours you have it too One for me and one for you That’s what copies can do If I steal your bicycle you have to take the bus, but if I just copy it there’s one for each of us! Making more of a thing, that is what we call “copying” Sharing ideas with everyone That’s why copying is FUN!

Nice read, quite a well written essay. I like how two seemingly distinct subjects are organically knitted together to raise its arguments. What partly sounds like a (not so) hidden praise for creative commons remix culture may I add. [edit] Also : ▶ this video

Which dictionary defines taking as simply gaining or acquiring something? If you "take" something from someone else it generally means that they no longer have what you took. This is all really pretty simple: ▶ this video Also, (at least in the US) legally copyright infringement is distinct from stealing.

Copying is not theft. Stealing a thing leaves one less left Copying it makes one thing more; that’s what copying’s for. ( ▶ this video )

You made a copy. No theft occurred. I still have mine. I never will understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. I’m not entitled to anything else. ▶ this video

I'm super sympathetic that someone is not paying for you for the time you spent making the content (me, also a content creator) But, just a suggestion, you need to find a better way to put your message. As long as you call it theft / stealing you're going to get lots of push back because copying a movie is not the same as stealing/theft so instead of making your point you'll mostly get arguments about definitions. ▶ this video

It’s been more than a decade since I had the opportunity to plug this educative video in an internet conversation: ▶ this video

I'm totally on board with copying is not theft ▶ this video Except that it is something. I go to my tax accountant, have them calculate my taxes, then, when they send me the filled out paperwork I make a copy, send back the originals, and say "No thanks. Didn't really need this". What would we call that? Theft of time? Theft of labor? Breach of contract? (I didn't sign a contract). Breach of implied contract? Does any of this apply to movies/music? It feels similar except there's more than 1 person making a copy and they didn't "pre-order". Do those differences matter? It still feels like taking the product of someone's labor without compensating them for it, same as the tax accountant example.

Oh no, you are now required to watch this damned cartoon: ▶ this video (A one minute ELI5 explanation about the difference between physical and intellectual property.)

Except that when you copy something you don't steal an existing copy. If the person were not going to buy something because they couldn't afford it, they're not a lost sale. This means there's no monetary loss for the company selling the software, it might even be beneificial as free marketing. ▶ this video

It seems that this "manufacturing counterfeits" is literally just copying Windows CDs: > Lundgren made 28,000 of the discs and shipped them to a broker, who planned to sell them to computer refurbishing shops for about 25 cents each, so they could provide them to used-computer buyers. > Microsoft’s lawyers valued the discs at $25 each and said they represent $700,000 in potential sales. Firstly I think it's a harsh sentence (because copying isn't theft[0]), but secondly can anyone tell me why on earth he didn't just burn some Debian discs? (Perhaps with LXDE if it's really old computers.) [0]: ▶ this video

I can't believe people are still equating copyright infringement with physical theft. Didn't that tired old argument die a long time ago ? If not, why not ? One more time, boys and girls: ▶ this video

> I am not familiar enough to say he did or didn't steal company property, but I would certainly not say that " there is no market for stolen code ". He hasn't stolen anything (since the source code is still on GS' computers), he just copied it illegaly. Using the word "stealing" for this is plain propaganda. > ▶ this video [Copying Is Not Theft]

Agree with you, except on the use of "steal". You steal when the owner lose the original. What happens in BitTorrent/FTP is copy. More about in copy is not theft video: ▶ this video

Agreed. Imho this argument that copying is not stealing does a real disservice to the cause. No, you're not stealing a thing when you copy it, but you are stealing the utility that it confers, be it entertainment, knowledge or whatever, that you would otherwise have had to pay for. You're taking value and not compensating for it, aka theft. This is so transparent and obvious a flaw in the assertion that no trained lawyer (aka lawmakers) will suffer it, and the non-torrenting general public will remain mostly unconvinced. And when the ultimate goal is to force the content industry to open up, to switch from a business model based on artificial scarcity to one based on abundance, this argument is only going to do more harm than good. I think it would be much more productive to instead focus on the fact that the fundamental problem is that articifical-scarcity-creating, rent-seeking cartels like Hollywood and the music industry have no place in our emerging culture of digital abundance. That their attempt to maintain control of a resource, limit supply, and charge rents for access is increasingly only possible with government force. Further, as Steve Blank observes [1], we've seen this same thing play out over and over throughout history, any time a new technology made content more easily distributable, the content cartels vigorously opposed it, until finally losing, being forced to adapt, and eventually making more money than previously. There is a win-win-win way forward, that

When this video* was published, I thought the idea it tells was too obvious and well known, but time proved me wrong it seems. Please watch it. (*) ▶ this video