Quote:
|
Originally Posted by avantman42
I don't quite understand why you say that MikeB1972 is wrong. In his example, he really owns the hammer (he doesn't have a licence), and in your proposed idea, you'd really own the files, instead of having a licence.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
As I wrote in the same post you quoted from:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
I'm saying that if someone breaks into my shed, steals my gun and I do not report that to the police and then uses my gun to commit some crime, I have a responsibility.
If I know that someone robbed me of my files (physically or through unauthorized access), I only have to report that to the police. That discharges me if any of these filed gets illegally distributed. This does not seem unreasonable to me.
|
Of course if I report a "media theft" a week, the police could get a trifle suspicious... :-) |
MikeB1972 made two points. The second was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeB1972
And even worse, if someone breaks into my shed, steals my hammer, then robs the jewellery shop I am still responsible.
|
I accept that you've addressed that one with the above point about reporting the theft.
However, the point I was referring to was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeB1972
Sorry, are you saying that if I lend someone a hammer and they use it to rob a jewellery shop then I am responsible  |
You responded to that with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
No, I am saying that -in exchange for the freedom to really own my media files (NOT a license to them) and do whatever I want with them (including giving them to other people of my choosing)- I would accept to be partly responsible if I make a wrong choice and some of these people decide to illegally distribute my files.
|
Why is there a difference between MikeB1972 giving someone his hammer and them doing something bad with it, and you giving someone your files and them doing something bad with them?