Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
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."
Nothing you posted refuted that... at all. Once again, like I said... what is being counted as loss is "potential gain of sales or benefit" not a loss of limited resources without recompense.
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.
|
Actually... from your own link again.
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
It needs to be $1,000 or more to count as criminal copyright. So no, if you somehow break the copyright of something which has no value... you wouldn't be charged with Copyright infringement.
Additionally, you still aren't argueing against anything we've said.
Note where i said "Potential lost profit or benefit"
Either way.. the point you were trying to argue that nobody was argueing against is wrong under the law you provided.
|
Right and that serves what purpose? Almsot absolutely none to this current situation. But thanks for bringing it up and I'll make sure to have it when all of a sudden we have a product that has no value (in this scenario) and when 1 or more doesn't equate to $1,000. Hmm sounds pretty silly when you actually state what is said. Guess they included it as more of a technicality.
And no the point I was arguing is that under the law, there isn't a difference between whether or not monetary gain or not is occurring. Either way, the law considers you are deprving the owner of the copyright of something. Whether it is a potential loss, actual loss, compensation, product, consumers, lolipops, stubborn posting, etc. There is no difference under the law.
And I'm sorry if I'm being a little snarky, but dealing with such silliness at 4 in the morning is a little more than I can take.
|
