Surely, if copyright infringement was actually "theft", according to the legal definition of "theft" then there would be some instance of someone, somewhere being convicted of "theft" for copyright infringement.
Calling it "theft" just to be inflammatory doesn't move us one step closer to finding any agreement, or even common ground.
Quote:
|
...but at the end of the day, you're taking something to which you are not entitled because you haven't paid for it.
|
But the question, at least in the case of OOP books, is whether or not you
should have to pay for it. It's not black and white. I mean, we're on page 12 of this thread, it's clearly not black and white.
Quote:
|
(thereby driving up the price of the second-hand books and encouraging a publisher to reprint those OOP books)
|
I remain unconvinced that this ever happens.