WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 8360928

(no title)

eddiedunn | 11 years ago

Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car.

At most, you could argue that the producer loses an opportunity for a sale, but I think you would have a difficult time proving that. It is far more likely that the potential consumer would just refrain from procuring the item if it were not available for free (as a copy).

discuss

order

unclebucknasty|11 years ago

>Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car.

That really is a horrible rationalization. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item? No, she simply loses all value that would have otherwise accrued to her, if not for people deciding that her right to be compensated for her creation was trumped by their right to enjoy her creation at no cost or inconvenience to themselves.

So she loses the right to capture value from the thing she owns/created, while others derive value from it (whether for personal use or resale). Please tell me again. How is that not stealing? And, from where does the consumer derive that entitlement?

unprepare|11 years ago

It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have.

you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property.

the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase.

I fail to see a material loss. Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew]

by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer - do you agree with this or do you have some way to reconcile this?