top | item 38580979 (no title) stcg | 2 years ago Let's say Alice took a photograph and sends a copy of it to Bob.Are you then saying that when Bob sends another copy to Charlie, Bob is taking something? What is Bob taking? discuss order hn newest photonerd|2 years ago Charlie certainly was (he took a copy from Bob).Bob is the distributor in this context however. In most Berne convention states he broke copyright law (technically, but nothing would happen)Together Bob & Charlie gained or acquired a picture produced by Alice’s work effort that was unauthorized.That’s stealing. Is it a big deal? Probably not. Still stealing. kthejoker2|2 years ago So close and then the stealing part slipped back in.We have a separate term already for the right to copy something - copyright.We have a term for copying something without that right- copyright infringement.Not theft. Copyright infringement. Nursie|2 years ago Alice still has it, so it’s not stealing as commonly understood.I’d say the opposite - it could still be a huge deal to Alice, but it doesn’t meet the definition of stealing or theft. jdright|2 years ago as you said, he broke copyright law. that is copyright infringement, it is not theft.
photonerd|2 years ago Charlie certainly was (he took a copy from Bob).Bob is the distributor in this context however. In most Berne convention states he broke copyright law (technically, but nothing would happen)Together Bob & Charlie gained or acquired a picture produced by Alice’s work effort that was unauthorized.That’s stealing. Is it a big deal? Probably not. Still stealing. kthejoker2|2 years ago So close and then the stealing part slipped back in.We have a separate term already for the right to copy something - copyright.We have a term for copying something without that right- copyright infringement.Not theft. Copyright infringement. Nursie|2 years ago Alice still has it, so it’s not stealing as commonly understood.I’d say the opposite - it could still be a huge deal to Alice, but it doesn’t meet the definition of stealing or theft. jdright|2 years ago as you said, he broke copyright law. that is copyright infringement, it is not theft.
kthejoker2|2 years ago So close and then the stealing part slipped back in.We have a separate term already for the right to copy something - copyright.We have a term for copying something without that right- copyright infringement.Not theft. Copyright infringement.
Nursie|2 years ago Alice still has it, so it’s not stealing as commonly understood.I’d say the opposite - it could still be a huge deal to Alice, but it doesn’t meet the definition of stealing or theft.
jdright|2 years ago as you said, he broke copyright law. that is copyright infringement, it is not theft.
photonerd|2 years ago
Bob is the distributor in this context however. In most Berne convention states he broke copyright law (technically, but nothing would happen)
Together Bob & Charlie gained or acquired a picture produced by Alice’s work effort that was unauthorized.
That’s stealing. Is it a big deal? Probably not. Still stealing.
kthejoker2|2 years ago
We have a separate term already for the right to copy something - copyright.
We have a term for copying something without that right- copyright infringement.
Not theft. Copyright infringement.
Nursie|2 years ago
I’d say the opposite - it could still be a huge deal to Alice, but it doesn’t meet the definition of stealing or theft.
jdright|2 years ago