>> Unauthorised copy != theft
Again, I'm uncertain whether that is still true if we are on the receiving end here, and I mean the one owning content being copied.
Quote:
|
This is why knock-off brands are perfectly legal, and why clothing products have the shelf-life of skim milk.
|
I'm not entirely sure if you are right in equating the two, that clothing shelf-life are short because knock-off brands are perfectly legal, or to state that knock-off brands are perfectly legal.
Furthermore, I doubt knock-off brands are verbatim copies. I seriously doubt you can copy a levis verbatim and not face a law-suit. And as per my earlier post, if you do it for yourself on a one or two copy basis and not on a mass-produce basis, I doubt you will get intro legal trouble. However, just because you don't get sued does not make such actions legal.
The problem about software, music, video and ebooks (which is the case in this forum) is that digital copying does a verbatim copy at least in terms of content. It's an exact copy and it brings these products bordering into the donate-ware realm, where users get to use the products for free and donate at their own take. Again, that could be a good business model for some, and software like firefox itself is kinda like that, although we now know that the firefox foundation gets paid by google whenever someone does a search through the google search box built into FF.
But if software, music, video and ebook makers do not have a choice as to their desired business model, but are forced into a hybrid model because pirates choose to provide free distro service, is it still fair?