| reply to BF69
Re: Wow
Kind of like saying a guy who robbed a convenience store with a knife is somehow less of criminal than someone that used a gun.
I would say that still is a bit extreme. I would say it's not stealing at all but classify it as copying without permission(may be treated the same in terms of penalties). Since you are not taking anything, you are actually just not paying for I would call fair usage rights since it's all virtual content.
The tough part is how to equate damages. If you copied a song but would never would have purchased if stealing/copying was impossible then in reality the artist would never see any profit regardless. If you would buy the song if you couldn't copy it then the stealing label is easier to attach since the artist is loosing the sale. I know it's impossible to prove which case the person actually fits into, and that's one reason why this is a tough but interesting issue.
The thing that I found really ridiculous is the incredibly over inflated damages the record industry is seeking. Technically the only damage if stealing was proved is the loss of the sale for fair usage rights of the content. I agree that some penalty has to be added for committing a crime(assume a clear definition of what constitutes stealing "usage rights" is created) and also legal costs. With that added up it should still be a fraction of what they are actually daring to ask.
This is how I see the issue as of this post.
cheers |
