Comment by sscaryterry
11 days ago
Since when is "theft" civil? Perhaps we don't consider this "theft", and as such, we feel this isn't criminal.
11 days ago
Since when is "theft" civil? Perhaps we don't consider this "theft", and as such, we feel this isn't criminal.
It's not theft, since something wasn't taken.
Laws are pretty narrow. Laws about theft aren't going to apply to philosophical positions about hypothetical lost ad views from cloning products.
Aren’t all the people getting in trouble for downloading music and movies from file sharing sites it bittorrent getting charged (or threat there of) with theft?
Or they all just civil matters?
It's all civil.
Because a picture is worth a thousand words... this is a friendly reminder that the FBI does not agree.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EYTEqHBCV5k/maxresdefault.jpg
That's always been a misleading banner. Notice that it never uses the phrase theft, and that it only talks about criminal copyright infringement, but doesn't actually tie that back to the copying of a single movie. It's basically FUD.
For a serious take on copyright versus theft, I would defer to the Supreme Court. I post this because it's both authoritative and well-written.
> Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Nothing tangible, something you created was taken though. There certainly are copyright laws, enforcement is the problem due to the laissez-faire attitude of many.
No, it wasn't taken. It was copied.