Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausrock
If someone "takes" a copy of that creation for their own use/enjoyment most "artists" wouldn't object too much, BUT when it's being "taken" for commercial reasons it's a whole different ball game and it does equate to theft..........maybe another way to put it is "deprivation of income".
|
It's not theft though. This isn't opinion, it's legal fact. Copyright infringement isn't theft or stealing or "piracy".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying copyright infringement is a good thing (nor am I saying it's bad). What's important are the facts. No lawyer will represent you if you claim theft, and no judge will take you seriously if you claim copyright infringement is "theft", because the law says it isn't.
Theft is when someone is deprived of something tangible. Nobody has been deprived of anything that the law would define as tangible in this instance. A claim has been made that a copy of something has been made and sold without the permission of the copyright holder, and the law is clear: that is a case of copyright infringement.
Too many people try to twist and distort things using emotive language and claims, but the law doesn't care for that kind of thing. The law clearly states this is not theft or "piracy", but copyright infringement.