Did you see what Anna's Archive did with Spotify? Seeding their torrents isn't exactly "breaking into a private network", but it is definitely at least showing support for the same kind of large scale data theft / DRM breaking. Which might put a target on your back, should the US govt want to make an example out of you.
> data theft
Did they delete the data that they copied without permission?
No need to be snarky, I know there's a difference of opinions about ownership when it comes to data. That's why I also wrote "DRM breaking" as an alternative term.
Would you say "hackers broke into the NHS and copied patient data without permission" or would you simply say they "stole" it?
> That's why I also wrote "DRM breaking" as an alternative term.
Except that there's nothing bad about breaking DRM, even when respecting copyright. If anything DRM interferes with how copyright is supposed to work by being an obstacle to fair use.
> Would you say "hackers broke into the NHS and copied patient data without permission" or would you simply say they "stole" it?
It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data, especially when breaking in to get to it. (Preemptive note, breaking DRM is not breaking in, it happens on your own devices.)
Did I say or imply that breaking DRM was bad? It is a neutral description of what was done.
> It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data.
Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing.
> Did I say or imply that breaking DRM was bad? It is a neutral description of what was done.
Well you said it's supposed to be an "alternative term". If it's valid to reword your statement as "seeding Anna's Archive is showing support for large scale DRM breaking", then everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever. Which I think is pretty different from your actual argument.
> Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing.
They didn't say that, they said a much simpler sentence applying to this specific context.
If you consider the context of my original comment (or just read what it says), you'll see that I wasn't implying that breaking DRM was necessarily morally bad, only that it'd make you a target for prosecution in the US. Which is clearly true, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v... and many others.
> everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever
The downside being, as I very clearly stated in my original comment, that you might face legal troubles for that, at least if your support entails breaking the law (which seeding torrents does).
Supporting a DRM breaker doesn't put you at risk.