Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Actually, you would be violating the copyrights of the artist. Copyright infringement is the appropriate term here, not theft.
While copyright infringement is illegal (like I already said in the post you quoted), using the term "theft" only serves to make it harder to analyze the issue on its own merits. That's because it effectively asserts as fact that intellectual property is a valid concept which functions exactly the same as tangible property does. Since this is the very issue that is being debated, using this terminology is a simple logical fallacy.
Compare it to abortion. When talking about abortion, using the term "murder" instead of "abortion" already implies a conclusion, making it impossible to have a rational, unbiased debate about the issue at hand.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
Amendments to the 1976 Copyright Act
With the passage of the so-called
No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act),
US copyright law was changed to allow for the civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission that did not result in personal financial gain; historically, the criminal copyright law required infringement to be for financial gain. Among other things, the NET Act altered the definition of financial gain to include bartering and trading. In addition, under this US law, members of software piracy groups could also be prosecuted for participation in a criminal enterprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
The United States
No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a
federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.