The law disagrees with you virtually all over the world. What you call "theft" in the case of your example is called copyright infringement, and in the case of large scale infringement with a commercial motive it's called piracy. (Yet not within a UN or EU setting, due to actual seafaring pirates being mentioned in various treaties.)
These are facts I just presented to you, now please take into account that sensible people tend to discuss facts, and debate opinon; not the ohter way round because that would seem ehhwr, you probably get the point.
Besides the legal reality contradicting your statement, both ontological and metaphysical reality also contradicts you.
One of the characteristics or nature of "theft" is that the (previous) owner is being left empty handed... Due to the nature of a copy, this is clearly not the case.
Enough words spend on the ludicrous "theft" hollywood spindoktering "word". Let's be adults here.
Due to existing legislation, the so called rights holder has a reasonable expectation regarding the amount of income he can generate due to copyright legislation.
In almost every country, it's a legal principle to be able to draw certainty from the law.
This works out pretty well in almost every field of law yet it absolutely does not in the case of copyright legislation due to the fact that virtually everyone commits copyright infringement with incredible ease plus the fact that compelling people to comply with the law can basically only be properly executed post instating a surveilance/police state.
What we see here, is legislation dictating how we run our business, almost drafting complete businessmodels; followed by "promises" granted by this very same legislation not being uphold and potentially costing us a lot of money. This is a problem, and obviously undesireable.
Business should decide on their business models within the boundaries of the law. Not legislators. From this notion forward we might actually be capable of finding a solution that works for everyone.
Dropping words like "Theft", and criminalizing humanity while assaulting their associated rights and proclaiming that the current situation should be uphold is going to get us nowhere besides more of the same problems.
By now, 2016, it would no longer be strange to conclude that both friend & foe, citizen & creator, are done with that type of Sht and desire real solutions on the table a.s.a.p !
So please, i beg you. Next time in a similair situation; explain to people how potentially lost income plays a role in someone his daily life and how unfair this can be, add appropriate details, arguments, facts, whatever you like!
But please* cut the "theft" crap. Thank you in advance!
When you put your name on someone else's work, I am comfortable calling that theft. That is an issue completely separate from copyright. You're barking up the wrong tree.
You are totally right when you say it's not about copyright, especially if you are currently residing in the United States where the origin of copyrights are to be found in a really nice and sensibe constitutional clause.
In France however it's the moral rights of the author being what the copyright legislation is being centerd around, so there it would be about copyright.
In the UK copyright originates from allowing the Throne to commit censorship, so that's neither about moral rights nor about economical rights. It's about political rights.
Plagiarism however, is plagiarism.
Theft is Theft, and infringement is infringement.
All three totally different "things", that's the tree i'm barking up.
These are facts I just presented to you, now please take into account that sensible people tend to discuss facts, and debate opinon; not the ohter way round because that would seem ehhwr, you probably get the point.
Besides the legal reality contradicting your statement, both ontological and metaphysical reality also contradicts you. One of the characteristics or nature of "theft" is that the (previous) owner is being left empty handed... Due to the nature of a copy, this is clearly not the case.
Enough words spend on the ludicrous "theft" hollywood spindoktering "word". Let's be adults here.
Due to existing legislation, the so called rights holder has a reasonable expectation regarding the amount of income he can generate due to copyright legislation. In almost every country, it's a legal principle to be able to draw certainty from the law. This works out pretty well in almost every field of law yet it absolutely does not in the case of copyright legislation due to the fact that virtually everyone commits copyright infringement with incredible ease plus the fact that compelling people to comply with the law can basically only be properly executed post instating a surveilance/police state.
What we see here, is legislation dictating how we run our business, almost drafting complete businessmodels; followed by "promises" granted by this very same legislation not being uphold and potentially costing us a lot of money. This is a problem, and obviously undesireable. Business should decide on their business models within the boundaries of the law. Not legislators. From this notion forward we might actually be capable of finding a solution that works for everyone.
Dropping words like "Theft", and criminalizing humanity while assaulting their associated rights and proclaiming that the current situation should be uphold is going to get us nowhere besides more of the same problems. By now, 2016, it would no longer be strange to conclude that both friend & foe, citizen & creator, are done with that type of Sht and desire real solutions on the table a.s.a.p !
So please, i beg you. Next time in a similair situation; explain to people how potentially lost income plays a role in someone his daily life and how unfair this can be, add appropriate details, arguments, facts, whatever you like! But please* cut the "theft" crap. Thank you in advance!