Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1542747" data-attributes="member: 177">Right.  Now, what happens when we start allowing action against things that don't represent a quantifiable loss?  You think this nation is litigious now, wait until you've set a precedent that says you don't need to have a loss to legally call someone out onto the carpet. Not quite.  The value of the finished product is partially dependant on the value of the materials.  And there may be synergy involved - between intellectual content and physical manifestation.  Plus, there's an added complication...Yes, but that information has not be taken away from the seller!  The book and it's data are still preent, and may still be sold.This is why we must be careful in dealing with electronic media.  In standard theft, the thief denies the owner the ability to sell a product - the product is physically no longer persent, and cannot be given to a paying customer.  Also note that the damage a traditional thief can do is limited by how many items he or she can physically carry away.With electronic copies, the thief leaves behind the thing that was to be sold.  He does not fully deny the seller the ability to sell it.  But, note that while he only made one copy at the time of the theft, he has the ability to deny the original owner more than one sale, if he desires.  This is why we must deal with theft of information differently.  Sometimes the theft represents no loss.  Sometimes is represents a very large loss.  Yes.  I don't deny that.  The question, though is what harm was done in the theft.  That whole, "make the punishment fit the crime" thing comes into play. Yes.  When did you become of the opinion that our legal systems didn't involve a whole lot of negotiating?  Sure, if you like we can go back to the days where a thief had his hand cut off, no matter what was stolen.  But somehow I don't see that as a movement forward in our social development.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's fine.  I was not trying to slap a simple label of right and wrong on it.  Copyright is about protecting the income of those who spend precous time and effort to create new ideas and new combinations of ideas.  In order to properly protect them, we have to know more than "right/wrong".  We need to know how much loss they incur.  Note that I never said that the lack of clear economic loss made the thing right.  But our justice system is not fully digital.  It is at least partially analog.  We use how much damage is done to another to determine how wrong an act was.  Yes, but that's aside from the point I was making at that time. But the issue I was addressing was more akin to askig: what loss did WotC feel from those folks who photocopied old modules after the modules went out of print, but before the pdf project started?Okay.  So you don't seem to be a moral relativist.  Unfortunately for you, our legal system is at least partially relativist.  Until that changes, you'll be somewhat unsatisfied with it.  To consider that any further, though, would be roaming into politics, and I'm not gonna do it.</blockquote>

Verification