3 ms·
Why are you talking about this case that case nothing to do with the topic at hand? The comment you’re replying to gives a very clear and narrow analogy, and yo
by blks 5mo ago
Why are you talking about this case that case nothing to do with the topic at hand? The comment you’re replying to gives a very clear and narrow analogy, and you’re talking about something else.
- AnthonyMouse 5mo agoHow is it something else? It's the same analogy. The problem with it is that the harm from the alleged theft doesn't require any use of the original material in order to happen, since that "harm" is competition rather than expropriation. The attempt to distinguish them is through copying, but that's the part that isn't depriving anyone of anything.
- blks 5mo agoThe main point here is _using_ copyrighted materials to create a commercial product, that you then sell, that may be used as alternative or substitute for the original materials. You’re missing that point and talking about two independent projects competing.
- AnthonyMouse 5mo agoBecause the competition is the only source of alleged harm, but people can do that even if they don't copy anything. There isn't actually a property right to the customers. You can lose sales to someone else whether they copied anything or not.
- blks 5mo agoSo what that you can loose sales even without crimes being committed? This somehow makes it okay to profit off someone’s work and ignore licenses?