Quote:
Originally Posted by stustaff
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kennyc
The reason you are not getting it is that you are limiting you definition of what theft is. You are limiting it to only a physical item. I think it applies to much beyond that, theft of service, theft of intellectual PROPERTY, theft of ideas/concepts etc. In this new digital world where virtually everything is now stored in files on computers we need to change the way we think about property and the intellectual property(there's that word again) laws need to change to account for the brave new world. (there are many other aspects of intellectual property laws that should change as well such as the length, who can hold those rights (corporations should not) etc. etc.)
Anyway I'm going to bow out of that part of the discussion because it's just following the same path all of those threads do. If there are additional information on comics and copyright as per the o.p. I'm still interested in discussing it...
Enjoy!
|
Actually thats a better way of explaining it I'm more clear on what you mean now and I do see where you are coming from. but for me the word theft could never be used as you mean it! purely due to confusion! Theft for me means taking something from someone and the act of theft means it denies the owner access thats how i know its theft or has been stolen.
If I make a copy of something then the original owner is not denied use of the item, it may still be illegal if i didnt have permission but to me it is not theft anynore than borrowing that book from someone would be. |
The problem here is a misuse of the word "property". Ideas can't be property. Any idea released upon the world from the mind of its author immediately belongs to the whole society. It's as it should be, because the author is a part of society, creation of the society. The author is using concepts society taught, words in language used by society, builds story on values important to the society. The work extends the culture of the society.
In most countries, the author gets a temporary monopoly to copy the creation, granted by the state. That's called copyright. This in theory enabled the author to gain money for the contribution to culture, and encourages to create more. However, unlike people in business of exploiting copyright law tell you ( by coining nonsense terms like 'intellectual property' ), it has nothing to do with ownership or property.
I know, most of my rants say the same thing, over and over. So today I'll link something new and interesting - viewpoint of Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) on copyright law and content value:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_ad...content_value/