Copyright infringement is equivalent to theft in the context of the statement I was making: getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means. It is, of course, not equivalent to theft in other contexts (e.g. from the perspective of the person whose copyright is infringed).
> getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means.
You have to remove "by illegal means" from your statement, because you're claiming how copyright infringment is theft, and being illegal doesn't make it theft. It's illegal because it's claimed to be theft.
So your statement becomes "getting something you would normally have to pay for for free." Is this theft? If you could get something for free that you would normally have to pay for, wouldn't most people do it? What is the compelling reason not to?
> You have to remove "by illegal means" from your statement, because you're claiming how copyright infringment is theft, and being illegal doesn't make it theft. It's illegal because it's claimed to be theft.
You can't drop the "by illegal means" part from my statement, on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft, because my statement isn't predicated on it being theft, it's predicated on it being illegal behavior. Which it is, on a basis wholly distinct from theft.
"Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc.
The point is that it's not a very defensible position to say "give me more product at lower prices or I will subvert the law to obtain it for free."
> You can't drop the "by illegal means" part from my statement, on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft, because my statement isn't predicated on it being theft, it's predicated on it being illegal behavior. Which it is, on a basis wholly distinct from theft.
But your statement was being used to show how copyright infringement was equivalent to theft. I think I understand what you're saying now though, is it that copyright infringement and theft are equivalent because they both are illegal and they both acquire something? If so, I would still have to disagree by saying that theft has the important distinction of removing original ownership.
> "Getting something you would normally have to pay for for free by illegal means" encompasses a wide range of non-theft illegal means: by use of threat (extortion), by use of trick (fraud), etc.
It also encompasses a wider range of non-theft legal means: finding deals, being resourceful, doing favors, etc.
Good lord can we quit having this same argument every single time a story on HN is posted related to copyright infringement?
When someone says theft in relation to digital music, movies, etc they mean copyright infringement. Do we really need to have these repetitive and anal retentive trips down the rabbit hole every time this topic comes up?
