Note, in the following I am not making a case one way or the other regarding the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement or promoting or not DRM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
...I mean, hell, I can't afford a Rolls-Royce, so, what, I should just go take one, because "I'd never pay for it, anyway?"...
|
The correct comparison with copyright infringement is that you made a copy of the Rolls-Royce, not stole ("converted" in some jurisdictions) one. If you stole one your argument would be with the owner of the vehicle and the law enforcement, if you made a copy of one any argument would be with Rolls-Royce. To take a Rolls-Royce is theft, to make a copy of one is not theft.
As I alluded to before, the application of the term "theft" for copyright infringement is an emotionally charged one and is used mostly by those with some personal axe to grind and by exaggeration seeking sympathy for their case. In my view, by making such erroneous comparisons, they weaken their case.
John