3 ms·
A more apt comparison is downloading an image that is still under Copyright (Mona Lisa is public domain, though photos of it may not be), getting a high quality
by 6stringmerc 9y ago
A more apt comparison is downloading an image that is still under Copyright (Mona Lisa is public domain, though photos of it may not be), getting a high quality print made at a local print shop, hanging it in your living room, and charging people $5 to come look at it.
In this example, there is a tangible personal gain from violating the intellectual property rights of somebody else.
It ain't theft, true, but it ain't a legal business model.
- wumbolad 9y agoExcept he wasn't charging them to see it. He had a huge neon sign in the background that he was being paid to have in his house, and they got to see the mona lisa for free. If they happened to see the neon beer sign as well, then awesome.
- paulcole 9y agooh ok, that's fine then.
- 6stringmerc 9y agoRight, intent matters, so if host-homeboy knows he can profit then he's in on the graft. Your logic reminds me of people who try to defend themselves in court without any legal background. The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.