Doug D 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (68) comment rss

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    To cut to the chase: I do in fact think it's time to massively decriminalize almost all of this activity and to change the parameters of the ecosystem. I agree, completely.

    Which is why I hope the TechDirt folks stop saying things like "it's not stealing" as if it were universally agreed-upon settled fact. Doing so creates disagreement on ideological grounds where there could have been agreement on pragmatic grounds.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    You're not correct because you missed the "by their action" piece. That's more like receiving stolen goods than like stealing. Billy is the one who's (arguably) a thief.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    How the law defines it is certainly relevant, and if the article title had said "technically, by a strict legal definition, according to US law" that'd have been different. But how the law defines it isn't *all* there is to the discussion.

    If one is talking about morality or about how the law *should* work, then how the law *currently* works can be a factor, but isn't the final word.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    I kept reading even though I knew the terms you tried to impose. But we're talking in a public forum -- it's extremely clear that you do not have the right to impose such terms, the notion is absurd, so I ignored that bit of silliness on your part.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Your MW definition of "steal" was "to take the property of another wrongfully".

    I pointed out that this was consistent with my definition of stealing because the MW definition of "take" does not involve depriving anyone of anything.

    You're the one who brought Merriam Webseter in as authoritative. Their definition of "steal" includes the word "take", and so depends on their definition of "take". Considered together, it's all consistent with my definition.

    And, I'm not sure why you consider it important to refer to me as "boy". It's true that I happen to have testicles attached to my body, but I don't see how that's of any consequence in this context. But if you enjoy doing that, you go right ahead sweetie.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Possibly! That depends on whether you were entitled to do so.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: It can be.

    I'm actually not trying to insist that everyone agree that it's stealing.

    I'm trying to point out that some people do consider it stealing, so saying "it isn't stealing" is going to create disagreement where it wasn't necessary to do so.

    I actually agree with most of what Techdirt has to say about copyright, but I do consider this sort of thing to be "stealing", so when they come out and say flatly that it isn't, it irritates me greatly, and I would argue it's also counter-productive -- it creates disagreement over what's essentially a trivial point in the mind of some people who would have otherwise agreed completely.

    I'd really like it if they'd either stop trying to talk about whether it's "stealing" or not, or to simply state "not everyone agrees that it's stealing" instead of flatly declaring "it's not stealing" as if that were simple fact.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    If you think nothing should be illegal unless someone is harmed, then yeah, it shouldn't be illegal.

    A lot of people don't think that way though. Is running a red light legal? Even if nobody is harmed?

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    "Right, and most people don't really care they just want to watch the show they forgot was on or their DVR didn't record. "

    I agree. That has little to do with whether it's right or not. You're basically saying (to my ears) that they don't care whether it's stealing or not. I agree that that's true. I also think it's often true of, for example, individual pennies. Are they wrong to steal? Sure, but most people are just not going to get worked up over someone taking 1? out of a tip jar.

    (Which is why the law, and society as a whole, should focus on pragmatic solutions, not absolute perfectly enforced write-and-wrong-based reasoning. It drives me a bit crazy that so many traffic violations are ignored, but I recognize that it's necessary for society to function, so I don't try to get it changed -- but they're still violations, even if they're ignored.)

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    I realize that you're making an attempt to be funny, but I'm going to respond as if you were serious.

    That's only true if I accept that you get to establish such entitlements unilaterally. Of course, I do not.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: It can be.

    Actually, I'm right, even by that definition! Look at the Merriam Webster definition of "take"!

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/take

    By the first definition, it does *not* require that the original "holder" be deprived of anything! It only requires "to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control", which copying *certainly* does.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Copying can be stealing, the same way picking something up with your hands can be stealing. Stealing is a higher-level, more abstract concept.

    In the context of copying a thing that you do not have entitlement to copy, copying is stealing.

    The difference between the "it can be" in my subject and the "it is" in some parts of the discussion is meant to be context.

    Of course making copies of something you created yourself from scratch is not stealing. Of course making copies of something you own as part of fair-use is not stealing. Of course making copies of something in the public domain is not stealing. But in the right context, copying is stealing.

    Of course picking up the sandwich that you made at home this morning is not stealing. Of course picking up your own phone to answer it is not stealing. Of course picking up your own wallet if you drop it is not stealing. But in the right context, using your hands to pick something up is stealing.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Who said it was stolen FROM the artist? I just said it was *stolen*, not that it was stolen *from* anyone.

    In fact, if you've read everything I wrote, you'd realize that while I consider it stealing, I also consider it victimless.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    I submit that this is a radical position, at odds with most of society.

    It's a pretty common view that they're not entitled to it, but it's not a big deal and should be overlooked. But I do not think it's all that common a view that they're actually entitled to it.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Where did people say we were talking about "the law", instead of about morality or abstract principles?

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Incidentally:

    "What I (and most people) care about is getting to the destination quickly and inexpensively."

    I get that. That's why I think our governments and societies should focus on *pragmatic* solutions to these sorts of problems, rather than absolute rights-based approaches.

    I mean, if I were to go 100% absolute-rights-based rather than pragmatic, I'd eventually insist that anyone who ever ran a red light end up in prison, even if nobody had been harmed.

    It's clearly *wrong*, those people are doing something *wrong*. But our society really has to be pragmatic about addressing it. The end goal for society *cannot* be for everyone to always act absolutely "in the right".

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Whether that download is stealing depends on criteria that *I* think are reasonably clear, at least at the extremes.

    Were you entitled?

    In your first example, you watched it, you did not *obtain* anything. After you're done watching, there's no copy anywhere that didn't exist before. The same is true of your second and third examples. Nothing was obtained, so the question of stealing doesn't make sense.

    In the fourth example, it's clear that you're entitled to make that copy, because of fair use for space-shifting and time-shifting.

    For the "download" case, that's where it may or may not be stealing depending on your entitlement. For a person who never visited the Daily Show web site, doesn't get cable or satellite, and has never been to a venue where it was being shown legitimately, it's clearly stealing. If the download is a side-effect of the DVR or using the Daily Show's own web site, it's clearly not stealing.

    There *is* (to my mind) a grey area in between, for example: if two people get Comedy Central from different providers (eg. Comcast vs. DirecTV), and one forgets to TiVo the show, and the other remembers, and burns it to a DVD and hands that to the other person, has any stealing occurred? I don't actually know enough to answer that question right now.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    You've basically got it right. I don't like people having things *that they're not entitled to have*, and think that's the true harm that comes from stealing. Exactly!

    (You may not agree. I don't expect you to. But we'll go farther if we each understand the other.)

    (And I *won't* agree with your "and almost every other person out there". That's to be determined. But I understand that it's what *you* think.)

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Because I'm trying to acknowledge -- in fact, draw attention to the fact -- that not everybody is defining the words the same way I and the dictionary I use do.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Doug D ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: It can be.

    You're absolutely right. That's why the subject of my message was "it can be" instead of "it always is".

Next >>