B Robson wrote:
> 
> 
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> 
>>
>> It's technically closer to tresspass, but the differences are too 
>> subtle for Kuri to understand, so I dumbed it down for him.
> 
> 
> Then you end up sounding dumb. Lying doesn't help understanding the topic.
> 
> 
>>
>> What practical difference do you see that is so damnably important, 
>> anyway? The infringer is unjustly enriched, and the infringee is 
>> unjustly deprived of income. 
> 
> 
> That last comment and Curt's analogy of stealing a watermelon suggests 
> that something has disappeared which is completely bogus. If I steal a 
> CD from a shop, the shop owner has lost that copy, the amount he paid 
> for it and the profit - he no longer owns it and cannot sell it. However 
> copying something does not subject the owner to a loss of title. The 
> entertainment industry often claims copying costs them bazillions of 
> dollars but that is a lie that you are helping to perpetuating, reading 
> the first chapter of any introductory microeconomics textbook will 
> explain why.

After I wrote all those posts yesterday, on my way to work, I figured 
somebody would bring this up.  It's true.  Last time a big piracy flame 
war happened I believe that KGII persuaded me that piracy is not theft.

And, I too believe that the music industry has reacted like a bunch of 
morons to the internet "threat", but I don't think that my opinion of 
their strategies are good reasons to choose to violate their copyrights.

-- 
Curt Fischer