Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop
You are taking something that has a cost associated with it and are receiving it at no cost, using nefarious means. That is theft.
|
The same people who argue against "theft" will argue against "cost."
My position (which, honestly, I feel to be so self-evident that having to explain it is pointless, since anyone arguing against it surely knows they are wrong, and is merely rationalizing, or worse, actually believes that their personal whims and desires are always more important than community, society, or democracy...) is that we are a society of law, and we made laws enshrining a concept of "intellectual property" and gave people certain rights to control their intellectual property. Infringing on those rights is itself harm to that person and to society--that is the only "cost" that need be involved. Monetary cost is often a part of it, but is not at all required. Since we named the concept of intellectual property in analog to physical property, it is perfect reasonable and proper to maintain the convention, and name other aspects by the same analogy, like calling infringement of intellectual properly right "theft." It's not exactly the same as physical property rights, and the laws don't claim it is, and there is no reason it should be exactly the same, but that doesn't change anything or make it wrong to use the terms.
Now, one might (and I do) think the current state of some intellectual property law is unfair and should be changed, but that doesn't justify breaking the law, infringing on someone else's rights, or rationalizing, by changing the wording, that you are not doing anything wrong, anymore than an objection to someone having something you can't afford justifies you breaking the law and violating their physical property rights by stealing it, or an objection to their political position allows you to infringe on their right of free speech, or their right to vote.
We have effective and legal means of changing laws. At least in my country. It's not fast, it's not often easy, and it doesn't let every individual force his personal viewpoint on all of society, but it's a pretty darn good system, and rarely calls for acts of civil disobedience to get things done.
ApK