I have not made an argument that something only has monetary value if it exists in a physical form. The monetary value is irrelevant for the purposes of the law. The relevant issue which I am pointing out is that it is theft if a physical object and copyright infringement if it is a digital object.
I am not disputing that it is illegal, only that you are calling it something it is not. I suspect that you have heard those with vested interests calling it theft and it has stuck. Again, I suggest this is the case because it is a 'hearts and minds' issue. They are trying to win public support by portraying the suspected copyright infringers as badly as possible.
I don't think your assumption that people who download something for free won't go and buy it is not a good one to make. Even on this program I think they pointed out that 'pirates' end up spending more than non-pirates. I think that people should be rewarded for their work. However, I do not support the demonization of people and attempts to treat them unlawfully all to serve the interests of one group. I hope I have demonstrated this in my correspondence with the 'lynch mob' here lol.
FWB wrote: Then it clearly needs a change, because if that doesn't cover the loss of money there's something wrong with it.Well, that's one of the issues I have reservations about. When someone makes an accusation then they should be able to prove it. There is no convincing evidence to show that it is the fact that people pirated something which is the cause of the loss in each case. They would actually have to prove this instead of relying on out of court settlements. How do you prove that someone would have gone out and bought a CD for example if they weren't able to copy it? Couldn't it also be the case that they wouldn't have bought it at all?
FWB wrote: Can you quote the Copyright Act then please.Of course:
ploder 243 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 9 years ago