Comment by JumpCrisscross
Comment by JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago
No, for the same that stealing an item isn’t okay because there is more in the back.
Comment by JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago
No, for the same that stealing an item isn’t okay because there is more in the back.
Of course harm matters. Stealing a priceless original is worse, and punished harder, than stealing a commodity out of a corner store. That doesn’t mean the latter is fine.
> a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution!
And I’d say someone who premeditates a company wide shutdown, triggers it, and then doesn’t offer to help after its damage becomes clearly apparent crosses the line of criminal responsibility.
You can infinitely "steal" digital data. That's where the analogy breaks down.
Imaginary property is imaginary.
> Imaginary property is imaginary
Property, a social construct, is always imaginary. The ship on IP, from insider trading laws to copyright, has sailed. If the only argument against a potential crime is IP isn’t real, the person is probably wrong.
Stealing physical property deprives its original owner of it. The same can't be said of IP.
So what? That at most means they’re slightly different flavors of the abstraction we call “property”.
And owning property — even physical property — entails having the right to prevent other people from using it, even in ways that don’t deprive you of it. You can’t drive my car without permission, even if you bring it back in perfect condition and I wasn’t planning on using it that day.
Impact and harm is absolutely part of the criteria by which we judge crimes and penalties. Not sure where you're going with that.