Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
But this is another argument. My point was that you was not deprived of the right so therefore it is wrong calling it theft. The copyright laws does not specify any value that has to be satisfied to consider you to have the right. Influencing possible but not ceratin income is usually not called theft.
|
I certainly haven't been arguing about whether or not it's "theft." Rather, I've been arguing about whether or not you should engage in such copying, no matter
what you call it.
I also laid out some circumstances under which it might not be unreasonable to treat copyright violation much like non-violent theft -- while noting that those circumstances
aren't what we have today.
Also, you ignored my next paragraph (beginning with "More importantly..."). The idea of a trade-off of temporary monopoly to encourage arts and science (by harnessing the power of greed... errr... desire for fair compensation [cough]) seems like a powerful one. The current implementation seems wedged, but could be fixed.
Xenophon