Piracy is not theft unless we are redefining the meaning of the word 'theft'.
Is is theft to photograph an original painting so you can view it on your computer? No painting is missing and the painter is not out of pocket. Therefore No offense has taken place.
Copyright is a freak of modern commercial society. It should be culled down to a sensible definition. (By sensible I mean a level that everyday people would agree with).
Can anyone own copyright on an idea? I don't believe so. Ideas can emerge simultaniously in different minds and have done so in science. We don't know anywhere enough about the 'mind' to understand how ideas come about or whether minds are linked on an unconscious level.
Our society is rooted in crass materialism and consumerism and this is the wicked basis for the need to copyright and 'own' ideas.
There is a company still attempting to copyright (and therefore 'own') the human genome! WTF!
WHERE PIRACY = THEFT:
I believe piracy can only be defined as a sort of theft if someone has LOST OUT by the act of duplicating an idea or software.
In practice this means if I WOULD LIKELY HAVE purchased the book or software then by duplicating it without paying a fee I am depriving (= theft) the originator of the book or software of a sale.
The social problem with not linking piracy with theft is that it undermines those writers (of books and software) who are trying to make a living from their endevours and thus diminishes all such efforts - and we really need such diversity if we don't want to only read Stephen King or run Microsoft.
So maybe it is a societal problem rather than simply a legal one? The best way around this dilemma is to pay for those books and apps we find useful or enjoyable, even though we have 'pirated' them for free already. This would be the morally correct thing to do, would it not?
At least, when dealing with small companies and writers (because Microsoft over-charges for its buggy software and that is obscene IMHO).
Is is theft to photograph an original painting so you can view it on your computer? No painting is missing and the painter is not out of pocket. Therefore No offense has taken place.
Copyright is a freak of modern commercial society. It should be culled down to a sensible definition. (By sensible I mean a level that everyday people would agree with).
Can anyone own copyright on an idea? I don't believe so. Ideas can emerge simultaniously in different minds and have done so in science. We don't know anywhere enough about the 'mind' to understand how ideas come about or whether minds are linked on an unconscious level.
Our society is rooted in crass materialism and consumerism and this is the wicked basis for the need to copyright and 'own' ideas.
There is a company still attempting to copyright (and therefore 'own') the human genome! WTF!
WHERE PIRACY = THEFT:
I believe piracy can only be defined as a sort of theft if someone has LOST OUT by the act of duplicating an idea or software.
In practice this means if I WOULD LIKELY HAVE purchased the book or software then by duplicating it without paying a fee I am depriving (= theft) the originator of the book or software of a sale.
The social problem with not linking piracy with theft is that it undermines those writers (of books and software) who are trying to make a living from their endevours and thus diminishes all such efforts - and we really need such diversity if we don't want to only read Stephen King or run Microsoft.
So maybe it is a societal problem rather than simply a legal one? The best way around this dilemma is to pay for those books and apps we find useful or enjoyable, even though we have 'pirated' them for free already. This would be the morally correct thing to do, would it not?
At least, when dealing with small companies and writers (because Microsoft over-charges for its buggy software and that is obscene IMHO).