Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:09 UTC
Legal Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people, the Obama administration has a dark side. Joe Biden and many others on staff come straight from the RIAA camp, and it shows. Today, the Obama administration disregarded every US law relating to theft and copyright by stating that piracy is "flat, unadulterated theft".
Thread beginning with comment 438975
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Indeed. Downloading is not violation of copyright, it's theft. Like when you steal a book from a bookshop.


Except, when you steal the book from the bookshop, the book is no longer there.

It's like making a copy of the book at the book shop - they can still sell the book (i.e. they never lost anything)

If the person making the copy of the book never intended to buy it in the first place, how was there something lost here?

If they turn around and sell the copy they made, that becomes slightly more nefarious, but you have to admit, the book was not stolen.

Theft and copyright infringement cannot be compared on equal levels.

Reply Parent Score: 4

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

"Indeed. Downloading is not violation of copyright, it's theft. Like when you steal a book from a bookshop.


Except, when you steal the book from the bookshop, the book is no longer there.

It's like making a copy of the book at the book shop - they can still sell the book (i.e. they never lost anything)
"

You confuse the medium (the book) with the content (the actual text of the book). Stealing a book is the same as downloading content because in both cases the content already exists elsewhere: when you download something, you download a copy of the original, when you steal a book, you steal a copy of the original.

If the person making the copy of the book never intended to buy it in the first place, how was there something lost here?

If they turn around and sell the copy they made, that becomes slightly more nefarious, but you have to admit, the book was not stolen.

Theft and copyright infringement cannot be compared on equal levels.


How about lost revenue?

Reply Parent Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"If the person making the copy of the book never intended to buy it in the first place, how was there something lost here?

If they turn around and sell the copy they made, that becomes slightly more nefarious, but you have to admit, the book was not stolen.

Theft and copyright infringement cannot be compared on equal levels.


How about lost revenue?
"

What if I walk into a library and make a copy of a book rather than checking it out to read it for a week... that's also copyright infringement, and no revenue is technically "lost". What if they check out/borrow the book, and make a copy out of convenience in the future to reference it (when they could just borrow it repeatedly any time they needed anyway)?

These are also illegal copyright infringement, but cannot be treated as theft/stealing (unless they keep the book they borrowed without the owners permission).

Your suggestion that revenue is lost when someone makes an unauthorized copy of a work is a weak argument in the first place - as there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place. That doesn't make it any less illegal, but there is no guarantee of revenue to the content owner to begin with - nobody is forced to purchase a book, and there are already plenty of ways to legally read a book without actually paying for it.

Reply Parent Score: 2