He should be banned FOREVER. Because “revenge porn” is serious fucking shit. You know how I know? I was forced to resign from my job FOREVER because someone stole and distributed my picture.
And oh no waaaaaah, some privileged asshole is banned from a forum on the internet. Waaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
It’s interesting that you find that more concerning than the actual revenge porn aspect of this whole thing. Interesting but not surprising that a man doesn’t seem to take this very seriously.
Yep, you’re victim blaming.
You think trespass is a better analogy? Or voyeurism? Since when does voyeurism involve breaking into something? Since when does trespass involve the removal or copying of information? Espionage comes closer, but espionage is traditionally a state act and the goal is almost never to publish the stolen information.
Simply saying it’s not theft because the thing taken is digital doesn’t make it not theft, either. Lots of things in the digital age don’t have perfect non-digital analogies. I think that both theft and copying are good analogies to what has happened here. I mean, I get the impression that if someone broke into JLaw’s house and took the SD card from her camera, you would consider it theft. But if they downloaded those exact same pics from her camera onto their SD card, it wouldn’t be theft. This seems like a somewhat arbitrary, formalistic distinction.
Last 20 years? IP protection is in the constitution. Charles Dickens had pretty firm ideas about it being theft, and he was hardly the first to think along these lines.
I’m not making a legal reference here, Andy, but, once it’s gone, it’s gone. It’s a theft.
I said that it’s copying, not removal. Switching the terms by invoking the fiction of “digital” theft is precisely the opposite of what I’m doing.
And again, calling it theft and attempting to bandwagon onto the anti-piracy panic demeans the crime involved, as if it were no worse than a downloaded video or textbook. It’s demeaning to the situation.
Does “gone” not mean gone anymore?
Let’s be clear: we’re not talking about an infringement on the right of the celebrity to sell their selfies. We’re talking about trespass and voyeurism, not theft. Stop derailing the issue.
I’m not. Their privacy is gone after the act. That’s not hard to understand.
I’d ask you to do the same. You’re getting a very flinty look from me right now.
The more this phrase is thrown around in situations where it’s not applicable the more its impact diminishes. My point is that ultimately no person is going to safeguard or care about one’s own data more than that person themselves. Be responsible. Do you lock your doors? Why? Surely you could just leave them open since no one should take anything, right?
And I’m saying it’s both. First it was removed from her control, then it was copied: there’s no switching of terms.
Now, it may be a problem that we largely have to rely on copyright law to enforce both of these violations, but I don’t see why that means we should deny that there has also been a theft as well as the copying.
Who here is saying this is a theft, and that this theft is no worse than a downloaded video? teapot, maybe, but not me, and not anyone who is arguing with you.
Many jurisdictions no longer use the term “rape,” but use “sexual assault” instead. Is this demeaning to rape victims since there are many different acts are classified sexual assault, not all of which are as severe as rape? Is it demeaning to have a wide variety of crimes referred to as battery, ranging from those with no injuries to those with severe injuries? Is it demeaning that the word “theft” applies both to those who take bread and those who take objects of tremendous sentimental value?
Again, these are terrible analogies. Voyeurism doesn’t involve breaking locks, peering behind closed doors, and disseminating private information. Trespass doesn’t involve taking things and publishing them for global consumption.
First, let me say I think this semantic discussion of whether it’s “theft” is somewhat distracting from the central issue, which is that accessing someone’s private photos and distributing them without their permission is wrong. And when it’s a case of revenge porn or whatever one wants to call it, it’s vile and should be considered as you suggested; as sexual harassment, a violation of a person’s rights, and a crime.
To the issue of whether it’s “theft” or not, I think you’re thinking of it too narrowly - it’s not the property that’s being stolen, since as you point out, in the digital world the original remains in the possession of the owner even when the file has been copied. But what has been stolen is the person’s right to determine when and how that picture is distributed. It’s not depriving the owner of the property, but of the use of that property that makes it a theft.
Oh how surprising! A man doesn’t understand the implications of victim blaming.
Do you lock your doors.
WOMEN ARE NOT HOUSES. We are not objects to be stolen or taken advantage of because we “didn’t lock ourselves up properly.”
This is a sexist analogy and it needs to stop being used. Speak about us as HUMAN BEINGS, not objects.
We are not going to agree. Your situation is not this situation. Dumping everything into a topic is sweet if you want to get nowhere. I prefer to talk about the specifics of the topic and not be shouted down as all the things I’ve been called in this thread. Attack the people who did or are doing this, not me. I am a good guy and would never do any of the things that have happened to you or these celebs, but when I dare mention the fact that this could have been avoided I’m suddenly one of them? These posts are what I think, so if the people in this thread think that public shaming is a way to change discourse then I am proof that you are wrong.
Infringement of copyright and trespass is not theft. It’s infringement of rights and trespass. That’s one of the central legal questions of the last couple decades which is being repeatedly ignored.
I don’t disagree, but diminishing the crime further by calling it “theft”, an even less apt analogy, is even worse.
Yup. It’s a new form of sexual crime and internet-broadcast-enabled harassment. No argument here from me. My argument is with the brainless use of IP-infringement language. This both elevates IP infringement above its moral significance and diminishes the moral significance of this new class of sex crimes.
Mod note: We need to get back on topic. Stop the name calling, now.
Can we stop the cheapening of the term “sexual assault” too please
Uh, my situation is nearly exactly like this situation. Did you read the link I provided?
If you have to reassure people that you are a good guy … there is a problem.
It must be admitted that your mischaracterised arguments don’t hold a lot of water.
No. As someone who was violated in very nearly the exact same way, and who has also been raped: It is sexual assault. I was violated. It is sexual assault. I’d say someone who has been through this (ME!) probably has a better understanding of this topic than you do. So please stop hand-waving and dismissing the severity of my assault. It is a violation. Full stop.
I mean, what’s the response to this? Infringement of rights and trespass is not what happened to them. None of these words/terms completely describe what happened, but a number of people think that “theft” is a better analogy than “trespass” or “infringement of rights.” And if you think that “theft” diminishes the crime, what exactly do you think “trespass” and “infringement of rights” does? Does JLaw feel so much more validated knowing her property has been trespassed upon, as opposed to stolen?
“Theft” does not primarily have an IP-related meaning. You are the one imbuing it with that meaning by continually denying there is a conceptual difference between the theft and copying aspects of what has happened here.
