Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
"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."
|
Agreed.
The fact bootlegging doesn't have any legal meaning just goes to show that it is not any more accurate than the term theft though. We are, afterall, talking about "copyright infringement", which is illegal. Therefore to use a term that has no legal definition at all would certainly not be any more accurate than using a legal term that has a different meaning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
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.
|
Agreed again.
Whatever the reasons for it, as I said above, we are talking about a legal matter so to use a term with no legal definition is, by the fact of having no legal definition, not going to be accurate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
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.
|
The laws do not require that only some people are allowed to make money for an action that anyone could do.
Anyone at all can write a book and publish it as an ebook and seek to make money from it. That is not against the law.
What the law requires is that no one distributes this work against the authors wishes.
Cheers,
PKFFW