| >people taking this approach only hurts more reasonable arguments // Theft is a crime. Copyright infringement is [usually] a tort. Theft deprives an owner of their right to use their work. Copyright infringement is no detriment to an owner's ability to enjoy their work. Theft forms part of what most people would consider to be an obvious moral obligation not to deprive others of their property. Copyright is a right that extends unnaturally from ownership, being a democratically granted monopoly, and I warrant is by no means central to the majority of the people's understanding of common law. It is a very important distinction. To equate theft and tortuous infringement is quite insidious, copyright infringement is by no means similar to common thievery. The big players in media production have attempted to screw the populus out of their side of the copyright deal - the falling in to public ownership of works in good time. All legal changes in the last decade or two appear to have been to the benefit of the rich lobbyists representing media organisation and to the detriment of the public. In view of this failure to keep with the spirit of the contract that copyright establishes it's not surprising that the public should act as if big media had nullified the contract. |