Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Personally I find it very funny that those who kept arguing about theft not being the right term(which I agree with by the way, in legal parlance theft is a different thing to copyright infringement) seem happy to accept bootlegging as accurate when it is no more accurate than theft.
So why the acceptence of the term? It is just as inaccurate as theft so that would suggest the problem they have with the term theft isn't so much about it being inaccurate as it is about something else altogether. What could it be?
|
"Bootlegging" doesn't have a specific LEGAL meaning; to accuse someone of bootlegging is not accusing them of a specific crime. (And because of that, is less likely to be slander or libel... certainly something to consider while the word "theft" is being thrown around so casually.) While it originally had to do with illegal alcohol production & distribution during prohibition, it was expanded to any kind of illegal production of goods. However, it never had a legal meaning--there are no laws against "bootlegging."
Quote:
|
If I may be so bold, I believe the reason people are happy with the term bootlegging is because it conjures up images of people doing something that, whilst technically illegal, is not really wrong or doing any harm. Much like the "bootleggers" who supplied alcohol to the masses during prohibition.
|
It has a strong parallel there: the distribution of forbidden ebook copies is, like alcohol during prohibition, a violation of contracts and legal norms created to enforce an artificial scarcity.
In the case of ebooks, unlike alcohol, I agree with at least some of the reasons for the artificial scarcity. But it's the same basic premise: laws created to require that only some people are allowed to make money for an action that anyone could do.