2 ms·
> If you just steal it instead, you're signaling the producer that you do want their product; you'd like to think that the proper response would be to make a pr
by neumann 12y ago
> If you just steal it instead, you're signaling the producer that you do want their product; you'd like to think that the proper response would be to make a product that entices you to buy instead of steal, but unless almost everyone is stealing, it's probably cheaper to lobby for the DMCA. Which is what happened.
RIAA/MPAA and other interested parties who experience their content being copyrighted must be at least happy that people think of it as stealing. I still think of stealing as a very to describe someone taking something that belongs to someone else, and depriving the victim of the object in the process. Downloading is copyright infringement, which, also happens to be illegal, but it is not stealing.
- gnoway 12y agoIt may be called infringement, but the process and outcome is really the same as theft. These companies have something they own, they have the right to control how it's distributed, they intend to distribute it to you under specific terms involving the exchange of currency, and instead of going along with that or choosing not to consume it, you're just stealing it. I'm clearly not a legal scholar but I am not sure infringement is really the term for this anyway - I tend to think that applies more when you copy something and then begin to pass it off as yours for redistribution or whatever. I think where people get hung up on this is that it's hard to say what a copy of an idea is worth. It's so trivial to copy a movie that it's easy to say it's worth nothing. But I don't think the value of something controls whether it can be stolen, only the severity of the theft.