Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
semantics.
It's against the law, it's amoral, it's wrong.
End of story.
|
But it's still not theft :P Semantics are important. When you say it's against the law, amoral and wrong, I may disagree but I understand you. When you say it's theft it makes people ignore what you really mean and explaing why it's not. Why have the same explanations in response in every thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Wrong. I have not authorized you to have my property or do anything with it, I have lost my rights. You can't say I have not been harmed. It is not your right to posses my property without my permission.
|
Again, the individual files do not belong to you. You own the copyright. So long as you still own the copyright, you have lost no property. |
Perhaps "taking without permission" needs a different analogy.
During rape, rape victims temporarily lose the ability of free movement, and things are done without their permission. Of course, after it's done, there might be no physical damage requiring any costs, no physical loss, and the victim has free control of movement again. But does that mean there's no harm done, and it was simply an act of sharing?
If one does believe in "intellectual property", of course. I guess it's enough for the copyright owner to believe to feel harmed - beliefs do tend to hurt people.