Quote:
Originally Posted by ggareau
@EatingPie (I'm not going to quote because this is just meant in general)
Copyright is not useless. It gives the creator legal control over someone else making money off of their work. Copyright infringement for the purpose of resale or commercial gain is obviously theft and I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
|
I certainly agree that it's theft.
But as you can see from the above posts, at least one person thinks that theft of intellectual property for their own gain is okay.
Quote:
|
However, piracy is a different issue altogether (I'm referring to "downloading stuff off of the internet here, not bootlegging). There is no commercial gain. Trying to make the two issues the same (or even similar) by runaway analogies makes no sense. There is no "civic duty" involved. There is no clear-cut meaning of what "copying" really means in digital terms. There is no proof of harm, though there is some evidence of help.
|
Just to be clear, I did not bring this "civic duty" nonsense into the discussion. Nor am I making "runaway analogies." I have made
direct analogies and cited the law in place.
Your distinction between piracy and bootlegging in terms of what makes one right and the other wrong is artificial. You claim that only difference is that one makes money off someone else's work. However, in both cases, the author lost money. Just a question of how much money.
I disagree that there is no clearcut definition of copying. A full, complete, usable copy. That is what has always been discussed. And it's something which a router, packet, or inode does not provide you with. As if we didn't understand the term in the first place. Sheesh.
Quote:
|
The reason people are ignoring the gist of your statements regarding theft is that a) it's a runaway analogy, turning rhetoric into melodrama, and b) there are no clear-cut definitions regarding these things as you seem to think there are. You're making a moral statement about a legal article which does not apply to the issue at hand.
|
Show me exactly how and why my statements are "runaway analogy." Comparing theft to theft, crime to crime certainly are proper analogies, and nothing "runaway" about them at all, your qualifier is just rhetorical nonsense.
Show me, similarly, how a "copy" is not clearly defined, or understood in the context of my first post on the matter. Claiming a packet is a copy is just a smoke screen, a way to misdirect the discussion. (Ironic that
I am accused of "runaway analogies" and "melodrama" by the person who wanted to argue that packets are actual copies!) It was completely clear what I meant.
And exactly how does
the copyright law not apply to the issue at hand?
Sheesh. Seriously. Sheesh.
-Pie