Copying answers isn't bad because you are infringing on someones "right" to have control over their answers.
It is bad because you are commiting academic fraud and seeking a qualification you have not earned. You are claiming anothers achievement as your own.
Me reading a pirated book does not mean I claim to be the author.
I guess the elephant in the room is that you're not paying the authors for what they created; in this sense it's like "stealing". Someone spends time and resources making something and you use that something without compensating that someone. I agree it's not exactly like stealing (that's why we invented a different word for it), bt ut's still something that is unfair to the book author(s).
I think it's worthwhile to be precise when we argue. Saying it's not stealing isn't necessarily saying it's harmless or that it's not illegal. It's just not the same sort of action.
Eg, if you steal a book from a shelf, then it's gone. The shop can no longer sell it to anyone else, and needs to obtain a replacement. The customer that really need it may not be able to get it now.
But if a 10 year old from a dirt poor family with $100 to their name downloads a whole library of technical literature worth $10M, it's a very different situation. I think it's very arguable that there was no scenario in which the authors would have gotten paid, and that no real harm has been done in this particular case.
> I think it's very arguable that there was no scenario in which the authors would have gotten paid
Just to be sure: do you think that if people can't afford something that's not physically tangible they should be entitled (or at least permitted) to have it free of charge, because they wouldn't buy it anyway? I wouldn't buy (and probably wouldn't afford) a 30-day stay at the most luxurious spa in my country, should I insist that they let me enter anyway?
> no cost is imposed on the producer of the software, because somebody torrenting an installer doesn't cost the company any money.
Lost profit is still lost money. If you run a bar and I falsely tell everyone that your beer is poisoned (and everyone believes me) I'm not costing you any money, but you're still bankrupt at the end of the year.
> When pirating stuff a kid might grab an university book on biology out of curiosity to see how it compares to their high school lessons, but pretty much nobody actually buys books for reasons like that.
You sure that's the only plausible case? Here's another scenario: you need a programming book for your career, but you don't like spending $30 for it and you just pirate it. You would probably have bought it if you couldn't pirate it, but obviously pirating it costs less at nearly no risk; why should you spend $30?
I think this scenario is much more plausible than poor 10-year old kids downloading biology books for fun. But even if it wasn't, piracy enables both scenarios without distinction. Even if it was 80-20, that 20% of not-bought books would have ben bought if piracy didn't exist.
> The alternative reality is that it either doesn't happen or they check it out at a library instead, and again the publisher doesn't get any money.
I'm pretty sure public libraries pay for the books they have, directly or indirectly (with taxpayers' money)
> Lost profit is still lost money. If you run a bar and I falsely tell everyone that your beer is poisoned (and everyone believes me) I'm not costing you any money, but you're still bankrupt at the end of the year.
Yes, but you can't lose a profit you could never have had.
> I think this scenario is much more plausible than poor 10-year old kids downloading biology books for fun. But even if it wasn't, piracy enables both scenarios without distinction. Even if it was 80-20, that 20% of not-bought books would have ben bought if piracy didn't exist.
I'm not arguing that piracy is completely harmless. I'm arguing that it works differently from theft. We can't consider every potential loss as a real one.
Eg, mass torrenting of stuff can get to the point where on paper, if all of that was legally paid for, it'd cost more than the country's entire GDP. That's obviously ridiculous.
> I wouldn't buy (and probably wouldn't afford) a 30-day stay at the most luxurious spa in my country, should I insist that they let me enter anyway?
That's tangible. You consume space, resources, people time, water, energy, etc. People have to clean after you.
For comparison, take the scenario of a 10 year old from a poor family pirating Solidworks, which costs $5000-ish a license. The family doesn't have $5000 in their bank account.
So there exist two possible outcomes of this situation:
A. Kid pirates Solidworks. Company makes $0.
B. Kid doesn't pirate Solidworks. Company makes $0, because it's impossible for them to buy it.
That's precisely why many such companies have huge educational discounts, and offer software for free to students sometimes, and sometimes ignore piracy in some areas. If you could eliminate piracy by non-engineering companies you wouldn't make much of a difference, because pretty much no hobbyist out there spends $5000 on software they might use just a bit. Rather than buying it, they'll make do with alternatives instead.
> Kid doesn't pirate Solidworks. Company makes $0, because it's impossible for them to buy it.
I have this impression that "poor kid" vs "incredibly expensive software" is used as a strawman here, since we're talking of $30 books that anyone who's not incredibly poor can buy just by saving for a couple of months and anyone who's that poor can probably access using a public library anyway, versus the enormous amount of people that could afford those books, but see no incentive paying since they can pirate them for free without even going out of their house.
Obviously I'm using an exaggerated and artificial example to illustrate my point. Which is that it doesn't really work like actual theft. First, no cost is imposed on the producer of the software, because somebody torrenting an installer doesn't cost the company any money. And second, there are plenty situations where they never going to make any money no matter what.
Eg, back when I was 12 I did pirate software, and I didn't have the money to buy it if I wanted to. There was just no scenario under which those companies could have gotten paid. The alternative would be I'd just get my hands on something else, or mess around with the stuff I already had.
This even goes for things like $30 books. I grabbed a whole bunch of stuff just to take a look at what's it like. When pirating stuff a kid might grab an university book on biology out of curiosity to see how it compares to their high school lessons, but pretty much nobody actually buys books for reasons like that. The alternative reality is that it either doesn't happen or they check it out at a library instead, and again the publisher doesn't get any money.
There is an artist's gallery in my town. The artist sells lots of pieces (or tries to; no idea how successful). If I go and look at each piece, really take it in and absorb it fully and internalize it, but buy nothing, have I done the thing that's not exactly like stealing?
If I download a PDF and read it and then delete it as soon as I am done, have I done the thing that is not exactly like stealing?
If I go to a library and read that same book in its entirety without checking it out ... doesn't seem much different than reading and then deleting a PDF.
Stealing someone else's book definitely seems wrong, but reading it while you are visiting their house seems fine?
I am not claiming to know the right (ethical, moral, whatever) action here. I just have a super huge problem calling it "piracy" or "stealing" or whatever. Figuring out a way to support creators is hugely important, but criminalizing the mere viewing or hearing of art/music/words/etc seems extremely wrong.
Anyway, I've been thinking about all this since at least Napster and I still have no idea really.
My perspective: go with what the person who created it agreed to. They’ve set their life up around certain assumptions, and if I don’t like them I will forgo their work.
For example, that person whose works are in the gallery has built their business on a balance of exposure - letting anyone who walks in look at things - and the fact that people who buy art are willing to pay a fair amount to own a physical object for display. Looking without buying is expressly part of their business model.
Book publishing is different, with the author assuming they’ll get payments from readers - much smaller than that artists but many of them. Since I don’t have any ownership rights over their work, I don’t attempt to change the terms.
There is an artist's gallery in your town. The artist charges $10 on entry to see the pieces, that's how he/she makes a living. You enter from a backdoor that someone left open to avoid paying, and you additionally help anyone who wants to enter for free by showing them the backdoor. You know that what you're doing is illegal, but you don't care because the building where the gallery is hosted doesn't have anyone to check the backdoor at night, so you're extremely unlikely to get caught.
It's not exactly stealing, but it's still a) illegal b) selfish c) damaging to the artist
You cannot really "steal" military secrets by photograping them either, but it's still a threat to national safety. You cannot really "steal" trade secrets by photocopying documents, but it's still an incalculable damage to the company you target if you do. You cannot really "steal" someone's privacy, but if you look at their private correspondence or their electoral card you're still infringing on their right.
Does it really matter if you can call an action "stealing" or not? An action could still be damaging even if it's not technically "stealing".
If you gave credit to the source of the answers... then most teachers would just not give you the marks for the bits you copied.
The cheating here is faking attribution - claiming yourself as a source of something you didn't originate, not copying - a legally and morally distinct thing to copyright infringement.
Indeed, part of the point of copyright infringement is that you do know (and reveal to your clients) who made the thing you're copying, which is why it has value.
I'm obviously talking about ebooks downloaded from commercial platforms like KDP Amazon, and distributed for free on Z-library without permission from the author.
Comparing this to your comment is whataboutism. Comments on hacker news are free to read. If you want to be payed for your writing, use a platform that support this.
However, you do have an automatic copyright on everything you write and I would need your permission (eventually by paying you a fee) to republish it in a book or somewhere else. Fair use is an exception to that, but the amount of text we can reuse without permission is limited. These are rules.
