2 ms·
Don't be so simplistic, that's like saying that stealing a car isn't theft because it is just driving and anyway you are just moving it somewhere else. The econ
by epo 16y ago
Don't be so simplistic, that's like saying that stealing a car isn't theft because it is just driving and anyway you are just moving it somewhere else. The economic consequences of copying are a deprival of revenue, that is tantamount to theft and 'theft' is a good word to describe it.
What really ticks me off about thieves is how they try to quibble over definitions as though that changed the consequences. Making an unauthorised copy of something that is supplied for money IS theft.
- hxa7241 16y agoThat is sheer propagandist nonsense. You do recognise the basic unassailable physical difference between copying something and removing it, don't you? The differences of economics follow from the differences in physical fact. Consider this quote from Landes and Posner -- one of the primary orthodox authorities on the matter: "Copyright protection -- the right of the copyright's owner to prevent others from making copies -- trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law." Is that how physical goods, and theft, are understood? No. To say there is a tradeoff is to say both are good: that is, copying is good. Read it: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html -- and learn something.