Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
There are two questions at play here:
1) Are intellectual and physical property rights morally different?
2) Is copyright infringement morally equivalent or equal to theft?
My problem with automatically equating copyright infringement with theft is that theft has two consequences: First the unauthorized user gains the use of the stolen property; and second the owner loses said use. This is not the case with copyright infringement.
If we're in school and I photocopy your history notes, you still have them and can still study for the test on Friday. If I steal your copy you no longer have them and you can't study for the test on Friday.
I see preventing you from benefiting from your labor as being morally worse than taking advantage of your labor for my own benefit; and therefore see copyright infringement as being less than theft.
|
I see your point, but I must respectfully disagree on a couple of points.
1. Generally borrowing something without permission would also be considered theft.
2. History notes are not creative works; they are a representation of the materials that were presented in class. That being said, you assume that said notes have no value beyond their intrinsic value in helping you pass a test. However, lets assume for the moment, that I am the best note taker in the class. Lots of other students have asked to copy my notes, and I being a good capitalist decide that I should profit from my labor, therefore I decide to sell the notes.
Now you steal my notes, thus depriving me of at least one sale, and potentially (if you also see the profit potential) many more. Thus you have in fact reduced (perhaps significantly) the monetary value of my notes. The end effect is the same as removing the money from my wallet.
--
Bill