Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenM
This is a bad example. A better example would be the person who takes a picture of an expensive picture hanging in an art store, because they cannot afford to buy the original. By taking a picture, the original is still available to the owner to be sold to someone who can afford it, and wants to pay the price to own it. Piracy is not theft. If I steal your bicycle, you cannot use it. If I make an exact matter replica of your bicycle, you can still ride yours, and I can ride the copy I made. You are out nothing. This is the basic difference between theft and copyright infringement.
Sorry for the mini-rant. This sort of false equivalency irritates me.
|
See
VydorScope's post for an explanation of the delusion that it is not theft. I generally refer to your explanation, which I have seen before, as a "Robin Hood complex": claiming to be taking from the rich to give to the poor - always carrying the implication that the author is rich (don't I wish!) and that the perpetrator is poor. And the perpetrator gets that lovely fuzzy - self-delusional - feeling that they've not damaged anyone along the way, always careful not to think too hard about it all in case they realise their mistake.