It simply isn't the same as theft. In your example it is analogous to copying the key and trying to use it in your own door. If I steal something from you, you no longer have the item stolen. If I make a copy of something, you still have the item. Copyright law has a separate set of laws for a reason.
You also need to study the laws themselves. Copyright law was originally intended to protect the rights of "creators" and allow them to earn a living. As such, the term of a copyright was originally something in the order of 20 years from creation. This allowed the original creator to make money from his works whilst also stimulating the cultural growth of a society by putting works into the public domain within a reasonable time-frame. The works of Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart etc are freely available and have greatly enhanced our culture because of this. Now, the copyright term for most works is 70 years after the death of the rights holder (which can be a corporation and therefore never dies). Does that sound reasonable? Our future generations will not be able to freely enjoy the works of this one as we have prior.
Now lets look at the case of music downloading. How much would you pay per music track? iTunes has them for sale at around £1 each (approx $1.60). Is it therefore just for punitive damages of $675,000 be awarded for downloading 30 songs? That's $22,500 per song. Does that sound reasonable to you?
What about other copyright enforcement issues? How many of you have heard of PRS for Music? These are royalty collectors, collecting license fees for the public performance of music. Are you aware that you are required to purchase a license to play the radio at work (despite the radio station having already paid the very same fee for the public performance of music)? This kind of double dipping is rampant. Is it fair?
What about computer software and so called licensing? Is it fair that to use a piece of software you have to agree to the license, yet to do so you have to break the seal to read it and therefore lose your right to refund? Is it fair that those who legitimately purchase software have to deal with all the copy protection mechanisms whilst those that pirate it do not?
DVD's? Why should people who have legitimately purchased a DVD have to sit through the adverts telling them how bad piracy is whilst the pirates do not?
Yes, people who copy music, films and games are usually doing so in order to avoid paying for them. However, copyright holders aren't blameless in the situation. In this case, Microsoft has every right not to allow modded XBox's to use their networks. They own the networks after all. However, they have no right to deny anyone's ability to mod their own property, as they did in the case of Christopher Gillham. Would it be right for Tonykart (for instance) to dictate what sticker kit you could run on their karts, or what engine or tyres etc?
What the music, film and game industry has to understand is that the internet is one giant copying machine that, by design, cannot be broken. As such, they should be focusing their efforts on providing a better product utilising all the benefits of the technology of today. No other industry has this presumed right to income that these industries seem to have been granted.
You should also be concerned that these companies seem to have acquired the right to "snoop" on your network traffic without permission or a warrant of any sort.
Dave
|
|
Microsoft's ruined this guy's life by 'Chris34' (11 Nov 2009 @ 17:07)
