Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfCrash
No, it has both of those components. When you pirate a book, you deprive the author of the money that he/she deserves. ie, the money that the author has a right to own.
Just because people think it is prettier to say piracy is not theft because you are not taking a physical book, you are still taking money from the author. That is theft. You are depriving the author of something that he/she has a right to.
|
No money was taken from the author because they never had it in the first place. A potential transaction wasn't realized, but you can't call that theft. That's what all the push-back is about with your re-definition of the word. Maybe you don't think the phrase "copyright infringement" sounds severe enough, and want to replace it with the harsher word "theft", but that doesn't make it true.
There is no difference between copying and borrowing a physical book by your definition; they both deprive the author of a potential sale. Yet one is illegal and the other isn't. If your philosophy can't distinguish between these two situations, then it's broken.