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 439301
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

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 the library charges for renting books? then revenue is certainly 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)?


It's still theft: the next time you reference the book, you wouldn't have paid the price to read it.

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.


I am sorry, I don't understand your above quote. What do you mean by "there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place"? if a library lends books, and charges for them, then borrowing the book and copying it denies the library revenue, which is clearly theft. If a library lends books, but doesn't charge for them, then it means the author and the library has made a deal that suits both, so copying the book is not theft: neither the author or the library expect to make any revenue after this deal anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

What do you mean by "there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place"?


What I mean is that a book is not necessary to live life - so nobody is required to buy them in the first place.

There is no guarantee that they would have purchased it anyway, even if they did not get it for free illegally.

Thus, claiming that every copied book is a lost sale is wrong - and equating the creation of an illegal copy as theft is also wrong by derivation. Furthermore, since making a copy does not remove the original item from the store, the store owner hasn't actually lost something as a result.

I realize people are pissed that copyright infringement is rampant, and very likely costing people lost revenue - but you can't outright merge the two concepts together and call them one crime... that's simply not the reality of the situation.

Edited 2010-09-03 21:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

What I mean is that a book is not necessary to live life - so nobody is required to buy them in the first place.


Nothing is necessary to live life, except water and food.

There is no guarantee that they would have purchased it anyway, even if they did not get it for free illegally.


The law does not recognize ifs. Since they got the book, they obviously needed it, so if they were legal they would have purchased it.

Thus, claiming that every copied book is a lost sale is wrong


Bah, the argument is extremely weak. It's only an excuse made up by us the illegal downloaders to justify our actions.

and equating the creation of an illegal copy as theft is also wrong by derivation.


The theft is not the material stolen, it's the lost revenue. That's where the theft is.

Furthermore, since making a copy does not remove the original item from the store, the store owner hasn't actually lost something as a result.


Lost revenue.

I realize people are pissed that copyright infringement is rampant, and very likely costing people lost revenue - but you can't outright merge the two concepts together and call them one crime... that's simply not the reality of the situation.


You don't need to merge the two concepts, since it's one concept in reality: one person removes from another person something of value.

Reply Parent Score: 2