On 4/26/01 1:02 AM, "Jerry & Jodi Jakeway" <jjakeway@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As a photographer, I consider copyright violation as THEFT......the taking
> of MY income! It's a simple concept, not hard to figure out.
I didn't mean to downplay the seriousness of copyright violation, I was
simply pointing out that for theft to occur, you need to take a material
good from someone. Making an unauthorised copy of something doesn't fall
into that category.
For theft of income to occur, it would have to be stealing your actual
income from you (ie, taking money from your wallet or bank account). Again,
an unauthorised copy doesn't fall into this category. It's a denial of
potential income.
Now if they used that copy to make money, I do believe that the copyright
law does give you the right to that money.
Again, I'm not trying to downplay this, I'm just pointing out that there's a
real misconception that unauthorised copying = theft.
I don't have a problem with copyright law in it's original intent, to
protect individual creators. However, I think that many large organizations
(MPAA, RIAA, Software Industry) has manipulated the copyright law to there
(great) benefit, often at the expense of individual creators.
--
Andrew "Frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|