Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: No Subject

From: peter <zenadsl6252@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 08:14:20 EET

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 20:03 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:23 -0800, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> >
> > But why do you consider it stealing?
> I just can't resist this. Please send me a copy of your latest
> song, novel, whatever. I'll post it on the internet with my name as
> author then we'll come back to this discussion of why Lee and I think
> that copyright infringement is stealing. Is this really that difficult
> to understand???

to be fair, you are now talking about plagiarism, which encompasses and
surpasses copyright infringement. falsely claiming to be the author
of someone elses work for some definable gain is not what Kjetil is
talking about.

Personally, i would define theft as when someone takes something from
the owner of that item so that the owner no longer has it.
as such, there is a quantifiable difference in the respective outcomes
of copyright infringement and theft. which is probably why they called
it copyright infringement and not simply theft.
in cases of copyright infringement, the owner loses the chance to gain.
in instances of theft, the owner is guaranteed a loss.

so imo, the distinction between the two terms is merited for
quantifiable reasons and stealing is on balance, more serious than
copyright infringement. (i'm not talking about counterfitting either)

i have a question for you though, would you take widespread copyright
infringement over pervasive DRM (and it's associated outcomes)?

it's a moot question, we're gonna get DRM. but it's not a trick
question. i'm genuinely interested to know your opinon on this as i see
no other way for unit based sales of media to thrive without DRM.
(assuming copyright infringement is such a serious problem that is)

Received on Sun Feb 26 20:18:58 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:18:58 EET