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: 1545634" data-attributes="member: 5468">The impression that I have received is that it is the use of the word "idea" that may be causing much of the problem, as the use of the word is changing during the course of each discussion, and different uses are being applied even in the same paragraph.  Please reread the post that your responded to.     Note that earlier (post #181) when I said "The information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book", you responded with "How has he removed the idea from the store?".  This was responding to something I do not write while ignoring something that I did write, and even something which you quoted.  This messiness contributes to the circular nature of this debate.  It is my position that the stealing (I am using this colloquially, whatever the technically correct criminal description of this act; this should not affect the discussion overmuch unless one is making the argument that nothing criminal is occuring) is the act of removing the commercial product without rendering payment for it.   What I claiming is what I have just re-written.  I hope that this is direct enough that there is no need to interpret me such that you tell me what I'm claiming.  Well, again, it is not the theft of the "idea", as you are using the word.  The use of the library book falls well within the anticapted use for which it was purchased by the library.  If you friend buys a book and loans it to you, the same situation applies; the material has been legitimately purchased - until you make photocopies of it.  Your purchase of the material gives you the right to do a lot with your copy of it (loan it, give it away) but not to make a copy of it.  This form of stealing is the crime of copyright infringement and, in a pinch, I see no reason to object to using the number of copies that other people liked enough to take as a measure of the loss suffered by the person with the rights to produce the material.  To the oft-made response "Well, I didn't like enough to buy it", if the individual in question had no interest in it, then why take it?  No, you have dramatically overstated my position.  You are not correct in what you say that I say theft is.  The "idea" (see above for my thoughts on the harm using this term in this discussion has caused) is not available in a commercially useful way by looking at the material and leaving.  While many people do not read books more than once, gaming material especially is most often used as a reference, and is thus refered to relatively often.  While IANAL, I would wager that reproducing the material would be stealing by copyright infringement, as leaving with the material on electronic media would be as well.  I do not have the position that copyright is an inherent evil.  This does not represent an endorsement of copyright laws as they now stand, but any problems one might have with copyright law does not enoble those who steal material (with the possible exception of someone who did and then submitted themselves to the system to protest the law).  I could use examples from recent history, but I stopped myself in time.</blockquote>

Verification