Debate the validity of the idea that copying an intangible, inexhaustible idea, signal, etc., is equivalent to theft.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Sentient Computer

Sentient Computer

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 19, 2025
Is copying ever thievin', stealin', takin' what's not yours, even though the only thing being taken is a monopoly and hypothetically lost sales?

Is banning, destroying, or confiscating anything a fair punishment for this?

How about a riff Chuck Berry didn't even write being used to justify claiming he was the true writer of several Beach Boys songs?

Is the taboo on plagiarism really the best reason to discourage people from cheating in school and encourage them to cite their sources...

unlike perhaps testing your knowledge in a specific way for the former, and making sure your info is traceable for the latter?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Suikafag and ToroidalBoat
Everything is debatable and how it effects you is mostly related to what status in society you have.
Since you are asking these questions it means you don't have a status or any valid position and are a slave to the system, meaning anything and everything you do can be made illegal at a whim of a pen.
 
  • Feels
  • Disagree
Reactions: Suikafag, Divine Power and XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG
Copying itself -- at least when there's no sale replaced -- is making more of something, not "stealing" intangible content itself. The thinking that copying is "theft" is something deviantART copyright fanatics believe (they like to rant or rave about "art theft"), and can also lead to insanity like "cultural appropriation" being a thing (that BS that intangible ways themselves can be "appropriated").

Oh and "plagiarism" -- when it really is such -- is lying about who made what, not "stealing" content itself. Still bad as it's lying.

(I put "plagiarism" in quotes because the etymology means "kidnapping" IIRC.)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Markass the Worst, Rapesputin, Suikafag and 1 other person
Sentient Computer said:
Is copying ever thievin', stealin', takin' what's not yours, even though the only thing being taken is a monopoly and hypothetically lost sales?
Click to expand...
It's certainly always a false equivalence. But that doesn't mean that intellectual property shouldn't be a thing and be respected to incentivize R&D and other pursuits, however the current model is ripe for abuse on every level, from patent trolls to unauthorized file copying, and nearly every regulation implemented since the widespread adoption of personal computing has been making things worse. Corporations may use the term "piracy" often, but the real pirates are IP lawyers, and few in the system have any incentive to change it. As far as the average person downloading anything off the internet is concerned, the following applies:
1562408355124.webp
 
  • Winner
Reactions: WitchfyndeGeneral
Combustion Engine said:
It's certainly always a false equivalence. But that doesn't mean that intellectual property shouldn't be a thing and be respected to incentivize R&D and other pursuits, however the current model is ripe for abuse on every level, from patent trolls to unauthorized file copying, and nearly every regulation implemented since the widespread adoption of personal computing has been making things worse. Corporations may use the term "piracy" often, but the real pirates are IP lawyers, and few in the system have any incentive to change it. As far as the average person downloading anything off the internet is concerned, the following applies:
View attachment 7684639
Click to expand...
I'd argue that sharing, appropriating (used neutrally), and otherwise spreading data/ideas/qualia/etc., is the opposite of theft. It is spreading access.

Censorship is theft. It is depriving access. The government is known to occasionally destroy "pirated" or "plagiarized" content. This can include wiping all data on every device you own and ordering Google, Meta, etc. to revoke your account and all data contained on it. That is theft. It is also theft of fan work with ORIGINAL components.

People who think unannounced or unauthorized appropriation is dishonest are ignorant of the fact that all styles, ideas, etc. are unoriginal if broken down. Many are either taught in cultures or direct reactions (aversions, transformations, etc.) to works taught in cultures.

It's like laws that make it a crime to film in your own home and upload it for money without letting the city know weeks in advance. They'll take your camera, wipe your footage, and say you need to LLLLLEARN A LLLLESSSON like the over educated law-loving assholes they are. Fuck professionalism. Laws are not sacred. They are an often functional evil.

I'd argue that literally speaking, "plagiarism" is a misnomer. It's a concept that comes from the poet Martial, who complained about his poetry being kidnapped. The concept isn't even a cultural universal, and was not as readily enforced by lower classes in Europe either. This is probably responsible for the divide of classical and folk music.
 
Last edited:
Combustion Engine said:
It's certainly always a false equivalence. But that doesn't mean that intellectual property shouldn't be a thing and be respected to incentivize R&D and other pursuits
Click to expand...
Copying isn't theft because nothing is taken, that should be the end of it
I'd like to single out what happens next. You concede the equivalence is false, yet still defend the legal apparatus built on that falsehood ("intellectual property"). Why? To "incentivize" behavior

That is the core problem. Essentially you're defending coercion not because someone's boundaries were violated, but because you want a specific outcome (more R&D, more movies, more whatever). But if violating someone's consent is fine as long as the outcome is good, then there is no limit. It means giving up on the principle of rights entirely and replacing it with managerial calculus. At that point, "property" is whatever the planner decides gets better results

And yet, every genuine property right comes from scarcity. The reason you can own a car is because two people can't drive the same car in different directions. Ownership solves physical conflict. But with ideas, there is no physical conflict to solve. If I hum a melody you wrote, you don't lose it. If I build a machine based on your patent, your machine still exists. You're not being deprived of anything except a monopoly granted by threat
So IP law doesn't protect property, it manufactures "property" and punishes anyone who uses their own physical property in a way that the man with the gun is convinced resembles someone else's idea. That's clearly prohibition and not protection

The irony that the entire system you're defending, the
Combustion Engine said:
but the real pirates are IP lawyers
Click to expand...
Combustion Engine said:
the current model is ripe for abuse on every level
Click to expand...
these things are not a bug. They're a logical consequence of trying to treat infinite, non-rivalrous things as if they were scarce. You don't fix that by somehow trimming the excess, you do it by ending the lie at the root
 
Copying is theft, Stealing is Theft and is punishable

1 (11).webp

  • Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
  • Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
  • Deuteronomy 5:19 Neither shalt thou steal.
  • Psalm 50:18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.
  • Psalm 62:10 Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them.
  • Proverbs 21:7 The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.
  • Ezekiel 22:29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

Screenshot_1.webp
 
  • Disagree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Rapesputin and Catgirl Tyranid
Theft is bad because it removes the object being stolen from its owner. As reproduction does not remove the object being stolen, it is perfectly fine, and thus not equivalent to theft
 
what if jesus was actually two people: a patent "thief" who "stole" things like aqueducts ("turning water into wine"), mass production (feeding people on a "few" big loaves of bread), aquaculture (bothering to feed the fish in the river), etc., from the Romans, only to be executed, before being impersonated by a time traveler and subsequently executed? perhaps the time traveler coincidentally had flash frozen microwave food ("fish"), thc-spiked kool aid ("water into wine") and modern inventions that would seem miraculous? i'm not crazy. i'm just a sacrilegious atheist.
 
Gog & Magog said:
What if I copy the name and logo of the Kiwi Farms for my own website and business?
Click to expand...
Using someone else's name or logo to impersonate their business isn't theft, and it still isn't about "stealing" an idea. Worst case it's fraud by misrepresenting yourself to third parties in a way that can violate contractual expectations or informed consent
If I use my property to lie to others (like, I dunno, falsely labeling a bottle "Kiwi Farms official product") then I'm not stealing an idea, I'm deceiving people about what they're getting. That's wrong for the same reason lying under contract is wrong, it has nothing to do with "owning" names or thoughts
Copying remains non-rivalrous. What makes fraud isn't the copying, it's the dishonesty
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gog & Magog
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back