Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
And the key in this is what is "something" and the rights that are associated with "something."
Some people feel that because it is easy to make a digital copy and there is no tangible object "other than a file" and the original still exists then hey, no harm done, copy away. The fact is that that file is property in the same sense as a paper book or video or cable bandwidth and if you don't have permission to take it .....
Just as in the subject and the o.p. the website did not have permission to do what they were doing with the property of the companies and have suffered the consequences.
|
There is no harm done when a COPY is made, now when something is done with that copy, there's something that can be debated but the mere act of creating the copy is neutral. I also object to the very idea that a collection of 1's and 0's can be property. Governments can assign rights over the 1's an 0's it can also arbitrarily take them away and the 1's and 0's won't disappear. Rights aren't owned, they're grated, they're licensed, they're revoked, they're transferred hell you can even say they're possessed but they're not owned. Things can be owned but abstract ideas like rights and permissions? You need a different vocabulary and a different set of rules.
Just as an airplane is not a car and thus we have pilots and drivers, the idea of a hammer and an actual hammer are not the same thing and cannot be described in the same terms. Can you honestly not understand the difference? If not, then just for once trust me when I say using the word infringement doesn't concede any argument about the morality or legality of an act.
Of course if your goal is just to anger and insult, keep using loaded words.