Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Just to clarify, this is simply wrong. If you do not have the right to make that copy then the owner of the copyright is certainly harmed. You have taken something from the owner without their permission. This is theft as far as I'm concerned.
|
No, you simply do not understand that there is nothing wrong about a copy itself and you do have the right to make it, you may not have the right to read it or distribute it, to transform it to expand on it but no one is harmed in any way by its mere existence, it is possible there could be harm form what is DONE with the copy but there cannot be harm in the act of making the copy.
Think of your bank accounts, no one wants other people digging around in their personal banking. If a million copies of my banking data were on your hard drive i would not be harmed until you looked at it and did something with that information. If you printed it out and filled your basement with copies I would not be harmed unless someone looked at those copies and then did something with what they found but the copies themselves are neutral until they're used for something.
Making a copy isn't even infringement. Copyright is a really really bad name, distributionright while it doesn't roll off the tongue is more descriptive
because rights holders don't and never did have control over the making of copies only what a person could do with them. To think that copying alone could be controlled is absurd, a partial copy enters your brain when it interacts with your sense of sight sound or touch.