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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1550396" data-attributes="member: 10201">Situation before theft:5 books on shelf.Situation after theft:4 books on shelf, one book in thief's hands.Situation before piracy:5 books on shelf.Situation after piracy:5 books on shelf, 1 book in pirate's hands.They are clearly not identical situations. And that's where this whole dillemma comes from. Our standard theft laws are predicated on the notion that the total quantity of goods is a constant, so if one person gains, another must lose. With IP, this isn't necessarily so. Something has happened, because the pirate has a copy. But something else hasn't happened, because the producer hasn't lost a copy. There is, quite literally, no loss: nothing is missing/gone. So the question then becomes, what does this mean? Is (1) the thief/pirate getting a copy without paying the part that is the crime, and it doesn't matter whether or not the producer has lost a copy? Or is it (2) the loss of the copy that is the real crime, and where that copy went is immaterial? Or is it (3) some combination/balance of the two? If (1), then piracy is just as bad as theft. And, arson is no crime because the arsonist hasn't gained anything from it.If (2), then piracy isn't a crime.If (3) (as i believe), then it's still unclear exactly what the balance is. I have trouble accepting that piracy is as severe of a crime as theft. But, at the same time, i have trouble accepting that it isn't a crime at all.</blockquote>

Verification