On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:02:53 -0000, Jasen Betts <jasen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>On 2006-04-19, John Fields <jfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:52:02 +0200, Zak <jute@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>John Fields wrote:
>>>>>> Theft is theft
>>>>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft.
>>>> Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws,
>>>> would there?
>>>If it was theft, there would be no desire for copyright laws.
>> That's ridiculous. It _is_ theft, and that's why the laws are in
>> place; to deal with the crime when it's committed.
>not by any legal definition ("dishonest apropriation of another's property
>with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime
>in the free world.
Don't hand me that "legal definition" crap, Jasen, you're not even
remotely close to being a lawyer.
1. Since, by the act of ifringement, any income which the owner of
the copyrighted work would have enjoyed had the work not been
infringed, will not be forthcoming, the effect is the same as if the
infringer stole that income from the author.
2. I think theft is looked upon as a crime universally.
>It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer
Professional Circuit Designer