3 ms·

With all due respect, your view is biased to the point of delusion. Counterfeiting never was and never will be similar to robbery. Robbery results in someone b

With all due respect, your view is biased to the point of delusion. Counterfeiting never was and never will be similar to robbery. Robbery results in someone being deprived of their property. No one has been deprived of their property. In fact, as information, the victim in this case couldn't deprive Microsoft and OEMs of their property unless he deleted every single copy of the software. Furthermore, the "counterfeit" software is an exact replica of what is provided by OEMs. There was no harm done to society. I agree with others here: Any prison time is too long, let alone 15 months. Our society needs to take a long hard look at our laws because frankly, we're well on our way within the realm of the absurd.

ThoAppelsin 8y ago
> No one has been deprived of their property. On the contrary, money is a means to property, and Microsoft loses $3.5 (minus the production cost) for each copy Eric sells to his buyers, since otherwise Microsoft would be the one earning that money. The crime of theft, however, predates even this buying & selling. Software is a non-depleting product. It is like the fruits that immediately regrow when plucked off of its tree. Now, just because Microsoft doesn't lose any fruits when somebody plucks a fruit from their tree without permission, shouldn't make this person not guilty of their theft. Eric, I would say, has committed this crime of theft at the point of copying the software. Microsoft may not have been deprived of their property, but that is merely due to the fact that their miraculous tree was capable of immediate replenishment, not because a fruit from it was not stolen. Eric later benefited from his crime by selling it, which damaged Microsoft by saturating the demand for their product as a side-effect. In the end, it really is hard not to think counterfeiting as a form of stealing, when any form of counterfeiting most definitely devaluates the properties owned by the genuine owners. I am not an expert on law, economics, or business, but I would say counterfeiting in any form would most likely indirectly equal to stealing, and doesn't look like it at the first sight because the translation is too convoluted.
- syshum 8y ago
  Copyright Infringement is not theft, has never been theft, and can not be considered theft, that is why it called Infringement Further something the "deprives" someone of a sale is also not "theft" >>> I would say, has committed this crime of theft at the point of copying the software. and you would be laughed out of a court of law as he was not charged not could be charged with THEFT. >>> but that is merely due to the fact that their miraculous tree was capable of immediate replenishment, not because a fruit from it was not stolen. That is a stupid analogy, Software is not a "tree was capable of immediate replenishment", First, if you had such a tree, the the value of the fruit of that tree would deminish in proportion to the rate of reproduction, that is basic supply and demand. Copyright law grants someone a artificial monopoly which in turns up ends the basic economic realities. Further if a person was to take fruit from the tree that is still denying you that fruit, even if a new piece of fruit appears immediately. This is not what happens when you copy a file, you start with 1 file, make a copy now you have 2 files, the original is still present, still works etc. >>> I am not an expert on law, economics, or business, Clearly as such you should stop commenting
- icebraining 8y ago
  Microsoft loses $3.5 (minus the production cost) for each copy Eric sells to his buyers, since otherwise Microsoft would be the one earning that money Considering that Microsoft wasn't selling those disks before he came around, and isn't selling them now, how can they be losing money on the disks? If I managed to find someone to pay to get a copy of your post, would that mean you'd lose money?
  - ThoAppelsin 8y ago
    > If I managed to find someone to pay to get a copy of your post, would that mean you'd lose money? Indeed, I would be losing a non-negative amount (call it X) of money that I could have earned, if you were to commit that crime. You should rather ask me for my permission. I will then have my options to lend you my copyright either for free (X = 0), for $y (X = $y), or not allow you to do so at all. If you do it anyway, then my losses would be at least the amount you sell it for; I might have been planning to sell it for more when the demand rises. I am not sure if I am immediately granted such a copyright for my comments here, though.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      But you are already distributing your comments for $0! How can selling them for any amount be harmful to your future goal of selling them, compared to that? And the same applies to MS, who distributes the CD images for free on their site. PS: You are granted copyright over your comments, as per the Berne convention.

ThoAppelsin 8y ago

> No one has been deprived of their property. On the contrary, money is a means to property, and Microsoft loses $3.5 (minus the production cost) for each copy Eric sells to his buyers, since otherwise Microsoft would be the one earning that money. The crime of theft, however, predates even this buying & selling. Software is a non-depleting product. It is like the fruits that immediately regrow when plucked off of its tree. Now, just because Microsoft doesn't lose any fruits when somebody plucks a fruit from their tree without permission, shouldn't make this person not guilty of their theft. Eric, I would say, has committed this crime of theft at the point of copying the software. Microsoft may not have been deprived of their property, but that is merely due to the fact that their miraculous tree was capable of immediate replenishment, not because a fruit from it was not stolen. Eric later benefited from his crime by selling it, which damaged Microsoft by saturating the demand for their product as a side-effect. In the end, it really is hard not to think counterfeiting as a form of stealing, when any form of counterfeiting most definitely devaluates the properties owned by the genuine owners. I am not an expert on law, economics, or business, but I would say counterfeiting in any form would most likely indirectly equal to stealing, and doesn't look like it at the first sight because the translation is too convoluted.

syshum 8y ago
Copyright Infringement is not theft, has never been theft, and can not be considered theft, that is why it called Infringement Further something the "deprives" someone of a sale is also not "theft" >>> I would say, has committed this crime of theft at the point of copying the software. and you would be laughed out of a court of law as he was not charged not could be charged with THEFT. >>> but that is merely due to the fact that their miraculous tree was capable of immediate replenishment, not because a fruit from it was not stolen. That is a stupid analogy, Software is not a "tree was capable of immediate replenishment", First, if you had such a tree, the the value of the fruit of that tree would deminish in proportion to the rate of reproduction, that is basic supply and demand. Copyright law grants someone a artificial monopoly which in turns up ends the basic economic realities. Further if a person was to take fruit from the tree that is still denying you that fruit, even if a new piece of fruit appears immediately. This is not what happens when you copy a file, you start with 1 file, make a copy now you have 2 files, the original is still present, still works etc. >>> I am not an expert on law, economics, or business, Clearly as such you should stop commenting
icebraining 8y ago
Microsoft loses $3.5 (minus the production cost) for each copy Eric sells to his buyers, since otherwise Microsoft would be the one earning that money Considering that Microsoft wasn't selling those disks before he came around, and isn't selling them now, how can they be losing money on the disks? If I managed to find someone to pay to get a copy of your post, would that mean you'd lose money?
- ThoAppelsin 8y ago
  > If I managed to find someone to pay to get a copy of your post, would that mean you'd lose money? Indeed, I would be losing a non-negative amount (call it X) of money that I could have earned, if you were to commit that crime. You should rather ask me for my permission. I will then have my options to lend you my copyright either for free (X = 0), for $y (X = $y), or not allow you to do so at all. If you do it anyway, then my losses would be at least the amount you sell it for; I might have been planning to sell it for more when the demand rises. I am not sure if I am immediately granted such a copyright for my comments here, though.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    But you are already distributing your comments for $0! How can selling them for any amount be harmful to your future goal of selling them, compared to that? And the same applies to MS, who distributes the CD images for free on their site. PS: You are granted copyright over your comments, as per the Berne convention.