3 ms·
the damage would be roughly equivalent to what a filesharer does. Filesharers do no damage. Theft does damage, but filesharers create value.
by randallsquared 17y ago
the damage would be roughly equivalent to what a filesharer does.
Filesharers do no damage. Theft does damage, but filesharers create value.
- tptacek 17y agoThis assertion is repeated often by defenders of file sharing, but it's been uniformly rejected by the legal systems of --- from what I can tell --- most of western civilization. The RIAA makes over-the-top claims about the evils of file sharing, but district and appellate court judges in the US are not uniformly shills of the RIAA, and none of them adhere to your logic.
- randallsquared 17y agoI wasn't suggesting it was legal, or non-infringing, only that referring to it as doing damage is incorrect. Whether something is actually damaging doesn't have perfect correlation with whether you can get legal damages in court.
- tptacek 17y agoSince people are losing tort cases, I'm pretty sure the legitimacy of the word "damage" is a settled issue.
- randallsquared 17y agoThis is the case only if you believe the law defines fact. Since some law is contradictory, it's clear that there is room to disagree with law, in at least some cases. But maybe you only meant to imply that legal damages were being awarded, which I can agree with.