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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Harry" data-source="post: 1543037" data-attributes="member: 5468">First, just because the loss is difficult to assign a dollar value to does not mean that we cannot see that loss has occured.  Secondly, it is possible to call someone to account for a indeterminate loss, the trial (ideally) also serving to generate a value based upon an idea of the damage done and the settlement as a punative act against the offending party.  Also note that I said "immediate, easily quantifiable", not "not quantifiable".  But it is not entirely dependant on the material; the file has some non-zero value, so it's removal is a form of stealing.  The information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book has been removed from the store.  The thief removed what the store had for sale without paying for it.  The punishment might be changed in context, but the action seems straightforward.  I completely disagree that the theft can represent no loss, unless you posit a case where the material is downloaded and immediately erased.  What the smeg page are you on?  You are completely missing my point.  In the context of the anecdote, the 'just negotiating' comment was to say that the claim of "My stealing isn't really stealing because I'm goin' after the 'Man'", or "My stealing isn't really stealing because there's no 'economic loss'" is no more moral than any other type of theft of a luxury item.  The woman in the story who would prostitute herself for a million dollars is no different in quality from someone who would do it for twenty, if there is a difference in degree.  I don't see a difference in quality between different types of stealing.  To move to a point of "I call no harm, so no punishment", I feel , is a weak rationalization.     We do not have a system where the punishment is to be set as equal to the immediately demonstrable monetary value.  There are bins: petty theft, grand theft, copyright infringement, etc.  The file-share person might argue about which bin they should be in, but they "pat on the back and a lollypop" bin isn't one of the choices.  If one person steals a copy of a book that sells out, and another steals a copy of a book where the rest just sit on the shelves have still committed the same crime.  If one person makes a download available, and that happens to noticeably damage the sales of a product, and another person makes a download available that they argue have had no effect on sales, it's still the same action.  The system does allow for adding consequences if the consequences from the criminal action are excessively large, but no the other way to let the first shoplifter from the last paragraph off.</blockquote>

Verification