| Kasz216 said: Except... we didn't. Your still wrong. Your argueing a point no one made. You didn't read what was said correctly. Khuutra said. "Theft is defined as the removal of someonne else's goods or services without compensation - you on't actually remove anyone's goods or services, or prevent them from being compensated. That's the difference between pirating and walking out of a restaurant without paying, or going into a movie theater without paying: no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense, which is why there's a legal difference."
You can actually read that in the actual link you posted.
|
Wow you really don't want to answer my question that I've put at the end of my posts 3 times. It's really not that hard of a question nor does it really ask for controversy. Just a simply question out of curiosity to compare opinions of the people to what U.S. law says.
And maybe if you had read that question, or at least taken time to think about it you would have seen how it was relevant. Wow it must be amazing to know that somebody's post serves to be viewed as a whole rather than in pieces. The reason I brought up the act, is to show that the government, or the law Kluutru and others have referred to, identifies the copying and/or distributing of copyrighted material whether for monetary gain or not is illegal. As you so graciously reposted:
"PREVENT THEM FROM BEING COMPENSATED . . . no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense"
But that's why I said it because legally, this is what the law says AGAINST. Wow what a shocker I brought up something relevant. The law is arguing that whether monetary gain or not from the one that copied or distributed the material, is depriving the said copyright holder of something. But I guess that is simply irrelevant.
