This is what I don't get.
Regardless of how you dress it up, surely the point is that there's a infringment/crime/whatever being committed in the first place? How does deflecting the argument on a technicality make the original action acceptable?
It's like deflecting an accusation of shitting in someone's lunchbox with "actually, it's not my shit, it's my dog's! I just put it in there. You twunt. How dare you accuse *me* of shitting in it!"
Not squaring up for a fight, honest! It just fascinates me!
(
Thy Maker Has it really been that long?, Sat 3 Oct 2009, 9:42,
Reply)
Well, I think it's more to do with deprivement.
If I come to your house, and steal your telly - you've been deprived of a telly. If I download Lily's latest bop-fantastic from the Interwebz, nobody is actually deprived of anything. Those people who bought it, still have it. No actual thieving has occurred, just sweet digital information flowing through the pipes.
(, Sun 4 Oct 2009, 15:15, Reply)
It's a little bit tenuous..
...but here's a question. Quite a few posters on here have set up Cafepress shops selling t-shirts etc emblazened with their work. Do you think it's morally OK for people to dubiously download hi-res versions of that work and put it into their own t-shirts rather than rewarding the original creativity shown?
PS - leave my telly alone, dammit! :)
(
Thy Maker Has it really been that long?, Sun 4 Oct 2009, 23:53,
Reply)