Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rmeister0
I have to disagree with the idea that, just because both A and B are now in posession of item X that a theft has not occurred.
If A bought X from C and C got paid the royalties they are due, and then A copies X and gives it to B, and C does not get paid the royalties they are due, then yes: a theft has occurred.
|
This is the “depravation of sale” argument I referred to above. I think its flawed at the logical level and also it is based on pre-digital assumptions about property and ownership. The problems lead to the absurdity of the claim that B has stolen from C.
It might be helpful to think about these things the other way round. Imagine I have a magic bag, you put in one apple and two come out. I go to a fruit shop, buy an apple and duplicate it with my magic bag. I give you the apple. According to your logic that would make you a thief? That’s absurd isn’t it?
Even if we accept the deprivation of sale argument, it still only applies to some of the cases, specifically: It only works in cases where B would have purchased X from C had she not copied it from A. (Its like standing in queue at a CD store woithd a laptop to copy the cds of people queuing)
[QUOTE=rmeister0]The fact that nobody has been deprived of physical access to X is not the issue. The issue is that only C is allowed to redistribute X and thus gets to enjoy compensation for it, and in this scenario B is now enjoying the fruits of C's labor without C being compensated for it.[QUOTE]
You are right here, 100% . If C wants reward for effort C is entitled to that. My argument isn’t about that issue.
My argument is that Unauthorised copying is not theft.
At the moment i am make no claim other than that
best wishes
Mat Ripley