4 ms·
First off it errodes the reputation of the real product. Fakes are never as good, and the real company will have to deal with people trying to return fakes as w
by petee 5y ago
First off it errodes the reputation of the real product. Fakes are never as good, and the real company will have to deal with people trying to return fakes as well as bad reviews.
I'd also say it absolutely matters depending on the class of product -since they are saving money somewhere; so by logic if the outside looks the same, they skimped on the insides.
Electronics can kill you, makeup can contain toxic chemicals, toys with lead, or parts that break too easy and hurt the user...
Not the least, fake books are just theft from the author, who probably isn't getting the best deal from their publisher in the first place. So only a shitty person would be cool knowing their book was just a really good fake.
- the-dude 5y agoCopyright infringement is not theft.
- sokoloff 5y agoIf you write a book, offer it for sale, I copy the book, offer it for sale, and someone buys the book from me who would otherwise have bought from you, that seems to me that I’ve stolen income from you in 3 steps instead of one.
- hunter2_ 5y agoIf you design and sell a product without patenting it, and I copy the design and sell a competing product, have I stolen from you? The only difference between the two scenarios is that one involves copyright infringement. Theft means a possession was taken. Potential income is not a possession. There are various ways to describe the harm ("damages" comes to mind) but "theft" isn't among them.
- petee 5y agoWell if you did patent it, it's stolen. The equivalent for books is copyright laws, so if the work is protected copyright then yes, you've stolen. And theft is defined as stealing, which has "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" which applies fully here so... You can nit pick definitions all day, but you'll find most people would consider this theft, as you're depriving the artist of the rights to their creation. I really feel people who want to argue the other way are a stain on this earth, because you're so happy to defend it...it's just mental gymnastics to a pathetic argument
- hunter2_ 5y agoI don't mean to nit pick, but it's seems like the only way to iron this out. "Theft is defined as stealing" isn't right. Rather: theft is defined as stealing property (or services). Property means real possessions in this context, not intangibles like IP. A person can steal an idea (or market share) and it wouldn't make them a thief. The fact that a victim of copyright infringement may end up disadvantaged to the exact same extent as if they were a victim of theft does not magically equate the two, even if the two involve stealing.
- the-dude 5y agoIt is almost as if the efforts by the RIAA et al ( framing copying as stealing, would you steal a car? ) have worked. My comment is in the red.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoPatents in their current incarnation are theft. Lemme give an example of how I see this: I have some idea to do something in a certain way, and because of that I declare it forbidden to everyone else to do it the same way, except they pay me something to be allowed to do it that way. Wouldn't you think of something like F! How dare he/she/it/whatever?
- DanBC 5y ago> Theft means a possession was taken. Usually, but not always, which is why theft of electricity is a thing.
- hunter2_ 5y agoUnlike ideas and other intangibles that are subject to trivial copying, electricity falls into the realm of the physical world. Also, theft of services is an established type of theft along with theft of property.
- DanBC 5y agoWhat's being stolen in theft of electricity? The electrons or the holes?
- hunter2_ 5y agoService. This question "is a copy equivalent and trivial to create?" is a pretty good way to understand the line in the sand regarding what stuff is subject to copyright infringement versus theft. We have theft of property and theft of service. We do not have theft of trivially copyable stuff because we have copyright infringement instead for that case. Paintings, manuscripts, etc. are subject to theft because they are nonfungible. The content itself is subject to copyright because the copies are fungible.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 5y agoWords can be used as metaphor.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoDid it ever occur to you that some products are just generic, and the only thing the off-brands/off-labels skimped on is the marketing/advertisement, and maybe development costs? While meanwhile the brands themselves doing the same, because the marketing costs have to come from somewhere? Not to mention planned obsolescence...