Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
"Copying is not theft"
Well, yes this is true but so what? It refutes a particular piece of anti-piracy rhetoric, where (usually big corporations) equate unauthorised copying with theft. But what it doesn't address is whether or not copyright - the law(s) under which copying can be legally restricted - is useful.
Actually I say it "refutes" the rhetoric but really what the "unauthorised copying is the same as theft" statement is saying is that there is harm associated with violating copyright. The fact that making a copy does not remove the original thing means that the statement may be technically false but it doesn't address the harm issue. It doesn't address the wider debate on whether copyright is a good thing per se and/or under what terms.
Which is a shame because that's the debate we need to have.
|
I don't even see why we have to concede this point. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Chattel property and intellectual property are two different things, no matter how much people would like to conflate them, especially in regard to digital media. There's no reason why the word theft can't describe both physical taking in regard to chattels and unauthorized and uncompensated distribution in regard to intellectual property.
Not calling a thief a thief concedes much of the argument up front, in my opinion, and why let the thieves dictate the terms?