| Zucas said: 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. |
The fact that both are against the law does not make the two of them equivalent.
And yes, potential and actual losses are differentiated under the law, or at least it's ehading in that direction: that's the entire point of the article used to open this topic.
