"Are you seriously trying to say that stealing is OK because some people steal?" No, I am saying that re-creating is not stealing, but there are many situations when stealing is perfectly OK.... Be clear Red55, its only people like you who see no correlation between loaning a book and loaning a song over the internet. You are SOOOOOO confused.. Ahh, here is this ole line again.. "taking something that is not yours and depriving the creator of his income" totally ignoring the fact that sharing books deprives income, but just because it is "legal makes it OK" Whats your issue again? Your ignorance of reality is not my problem. And Red55, the speed limit is clear, yet you don follow it.
those are fair points. red will define morality in terms of legality, which is very stupid, and then when pushed define all decisions in terms of his preferred interest group of the moment, without any regard for the greater good. the right or wrongness of a particular policy is not defined this way.
It's simple math, junior. You have 1 book and you loan it to someone and there is still 1 book, right. The book is paid for, so no one is defrauded. Now, you have 1 CD and you don't loan it, you DUPLICATE it and give it to someone else. Now 2 master copies exist and they continue to replicate to people you never heard of until hundreds, thousands of un-paid-for copies exist as a result of your illegal duplication of a copyrighted product. Those copies are defrauding the creator of the music. It is legal for a good reason that I just explained. The book has been paid for and only a single copy exists. You can loan a CD too, you just can't duplicate it. How do you imagine that you know this? I've had 2 speeding tickets in 42 years of driving. Doing 35 in a 30 in Golden Meadow and doing 45 in a 35 in Woodworth, both speed traps towns with deceptive signage.
The number of speeding tickets in no way indicates all the times you go 1 MPH over the speeding limit. Anyway, a duplicate of a song/movie is not 2 master copies. A digital file can be manipulated many ways.... Regardless, loss if income is still being lost when you loan/share.. I could care less what the law says, however, if the law is your only argument, then you should stop using your line of "lost income". This has been the main point of the argument for quite some time. I and others have attacked this, yet your only response is that it is legal. You do the math.
It's not stealing because you are not robbing anything from that person. This is some fictitious bullshit made up by people. If I download something off the internet, it doesn't disappear forever and I have the only one.
But I had no intent to speed. Do you steal music unintentionally? In the analog days each copy was a generation removed and quality suffered. They literally could not be replicated decently after 4 or 5 generations. But duplicating digital media makes a duplicate master copy that can be replicated forever. If you cannot understand the difference between sharing and duplicating, I can't help you. It shows. Nonsense, deprivation of income and defrauding the creators are the reason behind the law and it is offered to help you understand why the law exists. if you ever create something and someone steals it from you, you will understand.
And you are totally ignoring the fact that the author gets paid when his book is sold, not when it is read. Tom Clancey got his money when I bought Hunt For Red October. I don't have to pay for it again if I choose to re-read my copy. By the same token, I can loan out the book to a friend, who reads it and gives it back. But if make a copy of the book, I've broken copyright law, because now a hard copy of the Tom's book exists for which he was not compensated. Its the same with music. If you duplicate it, you've created a copy that the musician wasn't paid for. The fact that technology has changed to make it easier to do this doesn't change the fundamental issue. Nor does the fact that the "copy" is now an electronic signal that I can't actually hold in my hand, like a CD for instance. You know, the definition is in the word.....copyright. The right to copy.
