Khuutra said:
Zucas, I'm not sure you're cleear on what I'm arguing. I acknowledged in the first place that piracy is wrong and illegal, but not all illegality is equivalent and one act being illegal does not make it the same as another illegal act. More, the scene of piracy has changed immensely since 1997 - the provisions under these laws mgiht not even apply to torrenters, sinc distribution of the media happens without expectation of any compensation (including access to more media as a result of distribution) and thre's still a limit as to the absolute value of distributed works. You read that article, you know as well as I do that the law in 1997 was written in reference to bootleggers and people who try to falsely claim copyright. It represents an oversimplified view on what constitutes piracy (Youtube on the whole is guilty of infringement of copyright here, by sheer virtue of hosting videos of concerts), it doesn't apply to cases wherein ther is no expectation of compensation, and - oh yeah - it still doesn't equate piracy with theft. |
It's possible I might have misinterpreted what your intentions are. Entire point of my response was simply to show that the law doesn't see a difference between potential losses and actual losses when it comes to distributing copyrighted material for monetary gain or not: either way it is against the law (although for not monetary gain there are other little technicalities mainly for the reason of private distribution such as a gift of a burned CD to a friend which Kaz in all his silliness still doesn't seem to understand).
I really wasn't trying to make an argument that the law says copyright infringement is theft (which Kaz in all his close-mindedness refuses to understand) but more or less say that potential and actual losses aren't really differentiated under in the law. Although, I would say that the charges you get for copyright infringement are pretty strict when compared to theft, although not as strict as high-profile theft. So I just probably misunderstood what you said. But it was nice for me able to show what the actual law is before other people start discussing it with no knowledge. As I said earlier, shold be a rule that when summarizing uncommong knowledge, a source should be provided. Oh well but no you didn't miss much other than that, just Kaz on his own crusade to prove his random assertions.