Slashdot Mirror
Korean Brothers Arrested For File-Sharing Site
HarlanC writes: "This story discusses the arrest of two Korean brothers who run a website [warning, page requires Korean language support] that allows peer-to-peer file sharing. Note that the Recording Industry Association of Korea reports local companies lost $154 million in sales in 2000 due to use of the program, even though sales increased to $31.5 million in total sales in 2000 from $29.2 million in 1999."
Theft is depriving me of the thing YOU stole, not the *potential* loss of value of something I already own.
Right. That's where I think the difference is between theft and copyright infringement.
People have already pointed out that "losses" due to *potential* sales not happening are completely bogus. You know this, I know this.
Also correct. In fact, I made that same argment here.
Just because somebody got something for less than *you* sell it for does not mean they would have paid for it had they not had the opportunity to get if for less. And it doesn't mean they "STOLE" the price difference from your pocket.
Agreed. If I, for some reason, download the new Backstreet Boys CD, I wouldn't classify that as stealing in a strict definition of the word because, without a gun to my head, I wouldn't have paid for it. But it's still morally wrong in my book. For whatever reason, I apparently want that CD. But I'm not willing to pay $15 for it. Am I willing to pay less? Maybe, but that's not an option at this point in time unless I want to take to XYZ file-sharing protocol and download it.
In summary, I agree that there are differences between physically stealing something (depriving someone of that object) and infringing on somebody's copyright. My question is, how do you propose we handle this intellectual property? How do we deal with the repercussions of lifting these copyrights? Who is going to produce music and movies and books if they aren't compensated in some way?
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
As opposed to bluediculous or greendiculous.
It's ridiculous, besides, if the elected officials weren't all bought and paid for already we wouldn't have the DMCA, would we?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Theft is something that after committed succesfully, leaves the original owner of the subject without it. Copying is not theft. It may be fraud (as in using false money or selling fake paintings) but unless you're giving them onward for others to use as they would use the original, it's not even fraud.
Copy as you will but don't pass it if you want to stay lawful, k?
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Woohoo! did I get first post??
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.