Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Well, I am reading it as they are saying that is is morally equivalent to theft and then also equivalent in the underlying reasons for why it is morally wrong. And then you have without discussion just assumed what you need to show and what I believe you cannot show to hold.
|
No, I have not been engaged in the discussion of whether it is
morally equivalent to theft.
I am merely stating that it is not
legally equivalent to theft. It is probably better understood in law as a breach of contract, or maybe, a tort. I dunno - haven't thought that through very deeply. Legally speaking, I know what it isn't, but I'm not sure what it is...
But now that you ask, no, on the whole, I not do think that copying a book is
morally equivalent to theft.
Now, copying a book certainly is
not theft itself. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to use the word "equivalent." Nor have I in any way deprived the owner of the original book of his right to enjoy the book. He still has it & can read it whenever he'd like. So I don't see how, with respect to the owner, there is any equivalency.
So the equivalent "theft" must be taking place with respect to the author. What is being stolen must be his right to sell me a copy of his book. But that right is not unlimited.
He doesn't have the right, for example, to make me buy a copy of the book rather than borrow or buy the original book and read it myself.
Nor, once I own a copy of the book, does he have the right to make me buy another copy if I want to read it more than once.
Nor does he have the right to keep me from photocopying the book in order to read the photocopy.
But what about this: suppose my brother and I go halves on buying a copy of a book. We both own the book. How can making a copy be theft if, as the half-owner of the book, I have the right to make a copy for my own use?
Or this: suppose I offer to pay the my brother half the cost of the book
after he bought it, then make my own copy to read? How can it make a difference when I "bought in" to the book?
I could go on & on with this. We all sort of think that the author has the right to the fruits of his labor, and that there ought to be a way to make sure he gets a fair deal, if only to keep the creativity coming. Yet when we try to express that right in
moral terms, it seems to evaporate.
So I don't think that there is any moral equivalency involved here at all. The whole thing is a matter of what the law says, or does not say.
And the law does
not say that copying is theft.