When did theft become okay and even acceptable?

[sanction9]

Well, from my perspective, as someone who's been online for 30 years now, it sure seems like online theft, mainly via illegal file sharing, in general is way down from what it used to be. I could be wrong, since I don't have any statistics offhand to support that conclusion, but I sure notice a lot less of it these days. Maybe it's partly down to Google not indexing the "bad" sites as much, thanks in large part to the gazillion DMCA notices they get every year (millions of them bogus).

 

[sbjsbj]

I think you overreact.

Any of you, who used an avatar which was an image you found on the internet, committed a copyright infringement. Unless you all created your avatars yourself, or the pictures are taken by your camera (or family etc.), all of you were thieves in the past or are right now.

Or do you have the permission of the owners to use those images as avatars? You are using something which you don't own. Just like JoyFreak did. In his defense, he at least modified it so it can be passed as fair use maybe. But your avatars can't.

What about that? I don't see any topics about that. I don't see anyone pointing the finger towards themselves.

That is called hypocrisy.

 

[Anton Chigurh]

I think you overreact.

Any of you, who used an avatar which was an image you found on the internet, committed a copyright infringement. Unless you all created your avatars yourself, or the pictures are taken by your camera (or family etc.), all of you were thieves in the past or are right now.

Or do you have the permission of the owners to use those images as avatars? You are using something which you don't own. Just like JoyFreak did.

What about that? I don't see any topics about that. I don't see anyone pointing the finger towards themselves.

That is called hypocrisy.

You're equating something so trivial as using public domain images as avatars, to STEALING someone's paid custom style. Plus, he claimed it was his own work initially, or, allowed people to believe that. Ripping styles does not equal avatar use! That is called "silly."

Thanks for the chuckle though.

 

[sbjsbj]

How do you know that those images are public domain? Are you really telling me that all of the avatars here on this site are from public domain? THAT is a chuckle.

Doesn't The Sandman use Vegeta from Dragon Ball?

And how do you know that none of those stuff was not created by paid artists? Is that a pokemon on Solidus avatar? I believe whatever Japanese TV station PAID some artists to create that anime. And you have no permission to use those images as some Japanese TV company paid to have that.
Now what?
This can be applied to all images on the internet.
Images from movies, images from photographers who work for newspapers, artists, etc. etc. etc.

(PS: Sorry Solidus, I just took you as an example).

So who decides what is trivial and what not? There is no trivial thing in theft. Either you stole it or not. And you do by using that avatar (unless you made it or it is public domain etc.)

So you can copyright infringe however you want but then call on others?

 

[sbjsbj]

To enhance this absurdity, which is an overreaction as I said, I don't believe the movie No Country for Old Men is in the public domain.
Thus you using that image as avatar is theft Anton Chigurh . You have no rights using that. Whatever film studio paid MILLIONS of dollars to get that iconic character developed and shot. You are copyright infringing it right now.
Just saying.

So, let's quit witch hunting please.

PS: Good movie, but it is sooo slow paced, which made me crazy watching it.

 

[PoetJC]

I do absolutely see the irony and the hypocrisy in a lot of comments here. It's why I addressed the issue in my own posts.
If I were to speak on that - I'd be called all sorts of ridiculous. So ... Interesting comments and points of contention sbjsbj
I mean ... A theft is a theft is a theft. Is as simple a concept that you can get. But a lot of people who also would say a sin is a sin is a sin would chastise others for their apparent sins - while not at all addressing their own. So I can appreciate (perhaps more than I should) the thought process you've shared here today LOL

J.

 

[sbjsbj]

No problem. Just to make it clear, I do copyright infringement every day, all day long, all year long. So I am not an angel myself. But I don't point my fingers towards others because of that.

There are two sayings which come to my mind.

One from the bible (I believe):

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And one a Turkish proverb:

The person who is giving me lectures in my religion - if only he would be a Muslim himself at least...

 

[Anton Chigurh]

Thus you using that image as avatar is theft

Actually, it isn't. That particular image IS public domain. But let's not quibble.

The fact that you are making an equivalency between trivial usage of images PD or not as avatars on message boards and intentionally stealing paid styles with malicious intent pretty much answers the thread title question. Because to boil down your argument in much less verbose and much more succinct language, all theft is okay because "mom, the other kids do it tooooo."

And we all should just simply look the other way, because heck, we've ALL stolen something, sometime.

When did theft become okay and even acceptable? Because "mom, the other kids do it toooo."

 

[Anton Chigurh]

I do absolutely see the irony and the hypocrisy in a lot of comments here. It's why I addressed the issue in my own posts.
If I were to speak on that - I'd be called all sorts of ridiculous. So ... Interesting comments and points of contention sbjsbj
I mean ... A theft is a theft is a theft. Is as simple a concept that you can get. But a lot of people who also would say a sin is a sin is a sin would chastise others for their apparent sins - while not at all addressing their own. So I can appreciate (perhaps more than I should) the thought process you've shared here today LOL

And in this way we can rationalize.... Anything!

 

[MagicalAzareal]

I like your thought process here, sbjsbj

Perhaps, the best way to look at it is how much harm it causes to the producer of the content?

If a large number of people follow the mindset of not paying for their content, then the designer might find it harder to make a living, but at the same time, if someone wasn't going to pay for it either way, then no money is lost.

You would also have to consider that merely seeing someone get away with a crime can somewhat incentivize others to commit the same crime, normalizing it in a way, and that can have an indirect effect on their livelihood.

 

[sbjsbj]

Actually, it isn't. That particular image IS public domain. But let's not quibble.

I'm genuinely interested, how is this possible? If that image is from the movie, and the movie is not in the public domain, how is that public domain? Can I see the source of it?

The fact that you are making an equivalency between trivial usage of images PD or not as avatars on message boards and intentionally stealing paid styles with malicious intent pretty much answers the thread title question.

Again, you are no judge. What trivial is and what not, you are not in a position to decide on those things. So what for you looks like trivial, might be not as trivial for the copyright holder. And if you just use that excuse, well the next guy can think ripping off a theme is trivial, because he didn't steal a car or something. And so on.

AND I was not making an equivalency. You are using a strawman here. Putting something in my mouth and acting upon it like I said it.
Obviously every crime is different and the courts have a system for it to determine what crime gets how punished. And all crimes get treated individually, so none of them is equivalent.
But what the minimum ground for all of them is, once you are caught stealing, it is theft. No matter how you look at it. The level of theft might be different, the stakes higher or expensive, but once you stole sth, you can be labeled as a thief. You can call me a thief if youwant, I am using avatars, too for example.

And then, that guy didn't just steal, he modified it and put it to use. And using your logic here, that is so trivial thing to do. A forum with 0 impact has a theme copied from someone else? So water is wet?

And technically speaking, I and you were using the term "theft" and "stealing", but copying is not stealing. Stealing is, when you take something away from someone without his permission and that thing is not there anymore. Like when I steal your car. However copying a piece of code is not theft, it is duplicating code. Different things on a philosophical level.

Because to boil down your argument in much less verbose and much more succinct language, all theft is okay because "mom, the other kids do it tooooo."

Again, strawman nr.2. Never said such a thing.
I actually confessed being a thief myself. Where did I say it is okay?
However, my point was that you shouldn't point the finger towards others, if you are in dirt yourself. That makes you a hypocrite, that is what all I am saying.
So you are not on the moral highground here, you are just the same, but in a different dirt.

And we all should just simply look the other way, because heck, we've ALL stolen something, sometime.

Nah, another strawman. The guy already got 2 threads filled on XF getting bullied and now this. I am not saying look away, it is just there is a line where you cross it and it becomes into bullying and harassing people. You are not allowed to do that. The worst thing him stealing that theme is, that financially he gains sth. from it or the owner loses money.
You or anyone bullying that guy till death gets into the psyche of the person and in this particular case, it is enough at one point. That's much worse as you deal with the heatlh of a person. I didn't see the same backlash for 2 famous pedophile on XF either. The topic just got closed on XF. That is extremely disturbing in my eyes but well, lets pick on the dude who copied a theme. We were talking about trivial, right?

When did theft become okay and even acceptable? Because "mom, the other kids do it toooo."

Again, well, in the day of internet and PCs and softwares, it is a philosophical question if copying bits and bytes can be called theft.
I find it highly unethical to create a piece of code or art which you can perpetually sell forever and ever. I find it highly unbalanced compared to work which you can't duplicate. But this is for another discussion, don't want to go into that now.

All in all, just don't exaggerate it that much.

 

[sbjsbj]

I like your thought process here, sbjsbj

Perhaps, the best way to look at it is how much harm it causes to the producer of the content?

If a large number of people follow the mindset of not paying for their content, then the designer might find it harder to make a living, but at the same time, if someone wasn't going to pay for it either way, then no money is lost.

You would also have to consider that merely seeing someone get away with a crime can somewhat incentivize others to commit the same crime, normalizing it in a way, and that can have an indirect effect.

Thx, well, copyright in the age of internet is a very complex topic. I hold a controversial opinion about it, I am actually pro piracy for example but this thing is a philosophical stance than anything and it has to be discussed and talked very precisely to not lose any details on this matter.

 

[MagicalAzareal]

2 famous pedophile on XF

That case makes my head hurt, something which should have been clear cut became a circus act. So much fact and speculation pulled out of thin air.

 

[Anton Chigurh]

If that image is from the movie

It's not. No such image ever appeared in the movie. It's an artists conception of what might have been seen immediately after the car wreck.

What trivial is and what not, you are not in a position to decide on those things

The internet community is the judge, and most people in the community agree avatar use is trivial, ripping a style while claiming you made it, is not. Add to that, the actror in question after being caught, claimed it had permission before using it. Which, it didn't.

AND I was not making an equivalency.

Sure you were. You even had a reply agreeing.

The guy already got 2 threads filled on XF getting bullied and now this

Nobody's been "bullied" then or now. In fact, I have never mentioned the person in question. Others have, so there's an assumption. Personally I expected the mentions of the name to be removed from the thread.

I didn't see the same backlash for 2 famous pedophile on XF either. The topic just got closed on XF.

So did the others, removed from public view. But not here.

he modified it and put it to use.

VERY slightly. Almost like painting the stolen car a different color.

All in all, just don't exaggerate it that much.

Sticking to the facts isn't exaggerating. It's exaggerating when the perp claims it had prior permission. It's exaggerating when the perp allows others to believe it's his original work. It's exaggerating to claim that trivial common use of avatars is comparable to stealing someone's paid custom style.

Stealing is, when you take something away from someone without his permission and that thing is not there anymore.

So... In your world using nulled software isn't theft.

I am actually pro piracy

Obviously. Therefore not at all objective on theft.

It's lowlife scum to rip someone's paid, custom style. There are few who would disagree with that. There are also very few who would consider use of images as avatars, theft. It's a copout, it's a deflection, and it's simply rationalization.

You or anyone bullying that guy till death gets into the psyche of the person and in this particular case, it is enough at one point.

Even though there was no "bullying," the perp could have made it all go away with one post, admitting what he did and apologizing. He could have owned it and moved on. Instead what did he do? Continued to deny it and later even claimed he had permission before ripping the style. And reporting posts here, claiming he was being libeled and slandered. C'mon now.

He stole the style, modified it only slightly, and used it as his public default on a site in direct competition to the victim's. Allowed it to be represented as his own original work, then when busted denied, lied, tried to rationalize it much as you are, kicked and screamed, cried to the mods, anything other than manning up and admitting what he did. THEN, later on here, claiming he had prior permission to use the style.

And you come back in defense of the scum, with avatars and nonsensical platitudes.

 

[sanction9]

The internet community is the judge, and most people in the community agree avatar use is trivial, ripping a style while claiming you made it, is not. Add to that, the actror in question after being caught, claimed it had permission before using it. Which, it didn't.

No offense, but since when do rational people think that a majority of some vague "internet community" gets to decide what is right and wrong? Ultimately the only real "judge" anyone should care about is the law. Most people aren't going to care whether or not some other anonymous or unknown persons on the internet think they're bad people, but they will care if and when the law comes after them. While I think it's reasonable that we judge some things to be worse offenses than others, sbjsbj's points are also good ones. There are people out there who think that "appropriating" a copyrighted image for an avatar or meme is just as bad as you think it is to swipe someone's style. Believe me, I've encountered more than one such person online! Like most things in life, it's all relative. What you think is a big deal isn't going to be a big deal to some others, and what you think is not a big deal will be to some others.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Some good points all around in here. I'd just like to add a few points of clarity:

Objective vs relative

• Theft of another's property is objectively criminal, regardless of one's personal view.
• The degree to which someone may be culpable in a theft can be relative, based on their knowledge or understanding of the act.

On crime

• Copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence (exception: when it involves real financial gain or loss).
• Theft of property (real or digital) is.

Again, well, in the day of internet and PCs and softwares, it is a philosophical question if copying bits and bytes can be called theft.
I find it highly unethical to create a piece of code or art which you can perpetually sell forever and ever. I find it highly unbalanced compared to work which you can't duplicate. But this is for another discussion, don't want to go into that now.

It isn't a philosophical question. Taking or copying someone's work without payment or permission is theft.
Creating code or art which one can sell over and over isn't unethical -- unless you believe that book publishers, music publishers, and every company that manufactures products are behaving unethically. One would have to have a very "creative" definition of the term to accept that.

______​

I agree that the arguments around what is and isn't stealing can get a bit murky when we're dealing with digital works, simply because it can be difficult to determine the damages caused by the act. In many cases it can be difficult, as sbjsbj points out, just who the bad guy is.

I happen to like driving/racing sims and that is an area rife with this sort of problem. There are whole forums full of battles between creators over a particular car mod, with one claiming another illegally used his/her models, or textures, etc. But did the injured party get permission or purchase the licence to make a mod based on that car manufacturer's design. Almost never. So it becomes a case of someone calling the police to report the theft of the bicycle he stole last week.

In the case of something like forum themes, it's equally difficult. Someone can take a copy of the actual theme and use it as their own, which is objectively theft. Someone can also create a theme that looks and works exactly like the original theme. Is it theft or a derivative work? It can be very hard to tell the difference.

 

[sbjsbj]

So... In your world using nulled software isn't theft.

It isn't. It is copyright infringement though.

Even though there was no "bullying," the perp could have made it all go away with one post, admitting what he did and apologizing. He could have owned it and moved on. Instead what did he do? Continued to deny it and later even claimed he had permission before ripping the style. And reporting posts here, claiming he was being libeled and slandered. C'mon now.

Look, my problem here is that at one point we need to move on. Chewing the same thing over and over is just bullying at one point. I am not saying the person we talk about acted perfectly, he did mistakes, but again, move on please.

It isn't a philosophical question. Taking or copying someone's work without payment or permission is theft.

It is a philosophical question. It is not theft, however, it is copyright infringement.
As said, technically speaking copying ≠ stealing.

Creating code or art which one can sell over and over isn't unethical -- unless you believe that book publishers, music publishers, and every company that manufactures products are behaving unethically. One would have to have a very "creative" definition of the term to accept that.

Yep, all do behave unethically, that is what I believe. But there is a distinction to make here.
For the past times, book publishing or music publishing was in the gray area. But at least you had a physical product in your hand.

Right now, I am solely talking about digital products, they create almost with 0 cost millions of copies. As said, just copying bits and bytes and reselling them. That I find highly unethical. Unethical because a normal worker has to go to work daily to earn a living and his work has an outcome, which you can't reproduce or copy. He physically has to be there to do the work whatever the work is. But copying bits and bytes isn't like that. You can create almost immediately unlimied of bytes and sell them forever and ever. I hope you understand the ethical problem here.

 

[Nev_Dull]

I understand what you are arguing, though I cannot agree with it. Have you factored into your argument the upfront costs of developing software? They are not so different from the costs of producing a physical product. It can take many months or years of paying staff and keeping the lights on, representing real costs in (at minimum) tens of thousands of (insert local currency here). No one could ever recoup those costs or realize a profit if they could only sell one of each software product. Remember too, companies have the cost of ongoing support for those software copies, often years after the initial sale.

I'm struggling to understand what about providing products people want and need for profit is unethical. Perhaps you may disagree with the amounts of revenue that some popular software can generate? I can understand that, though it is still far more ethical than taking someone else's work without paying for it.

 

[sbjsbj]

Have you factored into your argument the upfront costs of developing software?

I did of course. I am not argueing about that developers shouldn't get compensated, of course they should.

No one could ever recoup those costs or realize a profit if they could only sell one of each software product

Well, I believe the system in the society must change. Developers should be compensated and at the same time their software should be free for non-commercial use. If someone makes profit out of someone else's work, there I draw the line. As I said, it is a very complex topic which has so many details to consider when talking about this. To make a system for the society which both helps the developer and the people is damn hard.

Remember too, companies have the cost of ongoing support for those software copies, often years after the initial sale.

Sure.




This just proves my point. Specially considering that Microsoft Windows is probably the most pirated software in the world, since the age of internet. Yet they are in 2019 the biggest company in the world. As you see piracy didn't stop them from becoming Nr.1.
Another point for my view.

I'm struggling to understand what about providing products people want and need for profit is unethical. Perhaps you may disagree with the amounts of revenue that some popular software can generate? I can understand that, though it is still far more ethical than taking someone else's work without paying for it.

The unethical part is not the providing products or the need for profit.
The unethical part is how the system works in favor for digital products as they can be duplicated indefinitely without a cost. So the system which we live in is flawed, that has to change. Do you think it is a coincidence that the graph above shows that 7 of the top 10 companies are IT companies?
Imagine how the graph would be like for a top 100 or top 1000 list. There is something wrong in the system, when 1 thing dominates anything else. And in my opinion it is because those people sell duplicated bits and bytes. I am not saying they shouldn't profit but I just feel that information should be free. And bits are bytes are information. However at the same time one shouldn't make profit from someone else's information without a permission and the devs also must get compensated etc. So very problematic thing. But I don't want to dive in this topic further. This is off-topic and I don't have the time to write detailed arguements about each aspect. Because I am sure you will question some of the stuff I said and I don't have the time to respond, sorry.

 

[Nev_Dull]

I understand. However I would be interested in a more in-depth discussion on this, when you have the time. I think there are some serious flaws in what you've just said, but I'd love to have you lay out your philosophy more completely.