:doh
Please, somebody, shoot me now, this idiocy needs to end. You either have to be trolling, or incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact in which case I recommend you look at the two crimes, look at several cases (Dowling v. U.S, Grokster, etc), and get back to us.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement - the violation of rights in this case to exclusive control over distribution/use of a work.
Theft is theft: taking of property with intent to deprive.
How the **** you could possibly think the two POSSIBLY be the same in a legal system that systematically distinguishes between two very distinct and logically different concepts shows you don't have one iota, don't give a flying **** about intellectual honesty and factual accuracy in my (misinformed maybe) opinion.
You can believe morally they are the same, but when it comes to FACTS as in what the LAW ACTUALLY says they are not the same. Period. No quantity of high horse can change that.
Except you forgot the part about actually labeling people correctly. Everybody has a problem with that.
I take it you are taking the "they are both crimes, so they are the same to me" type mentality? If not please do elaborate so I can actually respond to the point without missing the point you are making, as I may be fierce in defending my positions, but I want to make sure it is done by accurately getting the pov of the other side.
No, the constitution recognizes copyright/patents, not the abstract concept of IP that it has encompassed and confused the three. Anyways, you can't possibly be thick, so stop playing stupid and actually address the issue addressed in the post you responded. How is copyright lasting for over 100 years beneficial, or even in line with what the founding fathers intended? How do creators possibly benefit from such a long term, and how does the public benefit if the length of time before a work goes into and enriches the public domain is lengthened?
... elaborate please.
Ah, but the identity itself isn't being stolen, you are using the identity to steal money that somebody has. Not a good example, as you are using a misnomer/misconception about a term/crime to make your point, IMO of course.
Problem is, if you can clone property without depriving them of it, from what I have been arguing. If you copy something and make some new copy, without depriving the original owner, how can it be classified the same as stealing somebody's purse/wallet. If there are dubious legality behind instances of copying data so be it I am not arguing that they shouldn't be recognized, but it needs to be (and already is) a separate entity than shoplifting, stealing a purse/wallet, or other acts of real theft.
So those who give a crap review for a product and stop people from buying that product are theives too? After all, you are depriving them of their dues. :2wave:
Nobody is owed money just because they make a product. If I work, I get paid per hour/week/whatever, and if I do a crap job, I don't get paid. Software/music/movies should not be, and are not any different.
You can't take money away from somebody if they don't have it, and not making money != having it taken from you. Actually being ripped off is something that should be prosecuted, but I'm seeing an entitlement sentiment that would make those complaining about that alleged attitude in a pirate (even when the person in question hasn't at all been proven to be a pirate in the first place, no doubt) a hypocrite.