Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
And that is the issue. It's her responsibility to find out what it is she's buying. Failing to do so is not (IMHO) a justification for piracy.
|
Piracy is the common term for copyright infringement, correct? Has any copyright infringement actually taken place in reality? The copyright holder is going to get multiple incomes from the blogger, every broadcast provider is being paid for supplying the content whether she actually watches via their service or not. So where is the loss?
I think the blogger had done herself a disservice by mistakenly using the term piracy to get a point across. She may be in breach of her contract but she has paid for the digital content. All she is doing now is accessing that digital content via a different means. So I don't think you can argue that any copyright infringement has actually taken place.
So truly, where is the loss? Where is the actual copyright infringement in reality? Where is the moral wrong doing in relation to the
copyright holder?
Or are you just peeved that the copyright holder isn't going to profit from the mistake of the blogger?