I take the point of the linked article, but I offer this as a rebuttal:

Every time I sign a contract (in which I am effectively the "Party with less power TM") there's some sort of "maximum" clause, where if you ask the issuer they 'll say "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".

Upon which, if you say well just remove it then, they'll reply "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".

At which point, you'll say well just remove it then, and they'll reply "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".

Where you then go, "uh..." and they repeat "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".

Etc ad nauseam.

Clearly it is not just a formality, clearly it can happen, and even if it does not, that number is not exactly irrelevant and can be used for leverage. So yes, it's worth diverting attention to and calling it out when unreasonable, rather than rely on the assumption that it likely won't be used.

This is a fantastic read. The sentencing process has always been a black box in my mental model of the world, and this was enlightening.

The important thing to take away from it is that the DOJ deliberately misrepresents sentences in press releases, presumably for the deterrent factor. But you can just download the sentencing guidelines and follow the charts to get a likely range of actual months (it's interesting! I recommend it!) and they're virtually never anything like the DOJ's claim.

What are the sentences here likely to be?

I don't know, I didn't look. I read the indictment on PACER; it's probably on RECAP or whatever now. I could give you the offense statutes, I guess; you'd then have to look them up in the sentencing guidelines yourself. My point is, you should do that; the sentence range itself will be less illuminating than doing the work of seeing how it's reached.

Later

It's:

    18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
    18:1349.F ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD
    18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT STOLEN PROPERTY INTERSTATE

There's nothing wrong with copying credit card numbers, people used to do that all the time with the manual credit card machines. What is wrong is stealing money.

Really. So if I copy the credit cards out of a database and put them on Pastebin, I've done nothing blameworthy, so long as I myself don't try to buy anything with them? Do you have an argument against enforcing criminal copyright laws that would be persuasive to someone who doesn't believe that?

As long as nobody uses the credit card information to steal money then fine, otherwise you’re obviously doing something illegal (facilitating theft). To be honest though even then I think we should at this point require some sort of 2FA, maybe if doing such things (putting credit card numbers online) wasn’t illegal better protections would have to be implemented…

My credit cards in Sweden have a form of 2FA through 3-D Secure + BankID, if a purchase for some reason scores poorly on fraud detection (large amount, unusual purchase, etc.) it will trigger a 2FA request on my BankID that I have to approve.

Yes, the previous comment was clearly written and said the same thing. Hence my question.

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying; of course there would be consequences for doing the stupid straw man you’ve suggested, I just don’t believe unless you can prove harm (and piracy doesn’t cause anyone harm) you should be put in jail, let alone extradited.

That wasn't the argument made upthread. That argument was an appeal to the fundamental nature of data, that its nature is to be copied. That's true of all data, not just the data you want to see copied.

Yes, and there is credit card information leaked all the time correct? Making it illegal to copy credit card info has actually allowed banks to get away with an extremely insecure system of transferring money. Maybe it would be best if it were always legal to copy bits but the actual crimes were shown by the harms to other done.

I don’t think they’ve made it illegal to copy credit card info, since the manual machines are still in use by older folks and in some remote locations. This is in Canada and US, I’m not sure about banks in other places.

An exploit for a software security bug contains much more information, structure, and creativity than a 21 digit shared secret. If you're condemning the action of posting a simple number, then you must also condemn posting something more substantive with much wilder effects.

From the open society view that information wants to be copied, at this point the blame rests fully with the payment networks. Rather they just don't care, as they don't even pay for the sheer majority of fraud.

I'm not talking about exploits. I'm talking about credit card numbers.

If you want to put together a coherent world view that says it's fine to copy a thousand live credit card numbers to a public Pastebin page, that's fine. I'm not interested in litigating that with you.

What I'm interested in is whether you can then come up with an argument against enforcing copyright that doesn't produce that outcome, because I don't think very many people share the world view that it's just fine to traffic in unauthorized copies of other people's credit card numbers.

Yes, I brought up exploits. Because I'm pretty sure you are comfortable with full disclosure (as am I), and the ethics of pasting credit card numbers is closely related. After all, every pasted credit card number is a boring exploit for a bug that the card companies have dragged their feet on fixing for over two decades.

So I am left questioning the strength of your condemnation of copying credit card numbers. The activity is lame and thus easy to pick on, but that shouldn't matter if we're talking philosophically.

This does tie back to "the fundamental nature of data", in that full disclosure is based on open society principles of sharing data, even when it will end up harming some parties. The Internet is basically a democratic copying machine. The xxAA have been trying to put the genie back in the bottle the whole time, and force a regime of inescapable information control upon us. Regardless if you're still in favor of some copyright term for pragmatic reasons, you have to admit the overriding information environment in an open society is one of permissive distribution.

The credit card numbers is a really dumb analogy, we’re talking about piracy of software, audio and video. I can’t use a copy of a DVD to empty someone’s bank account (not that I should be able to steal from someone with security through obscurity either).

I agree that it's dumb, which is my point: the appeal to the fundamental nature of data doesn't tell us anything about the legitimacy of copyright enforcement.