(June 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:Multiple copies is the important thing I was trying to say. Making 10 copies on my PC and sharing 10 copies with my friends over BitTorrent is the same thing. An MP3 is a series of bits arranged on my hard drive to make an audio file, which is a recording of a song. A painting is paint applied to canvas. I can reproduce an Mp3 in a fraction of a second. If you could do that to the painting, I'd grab one, provided it fits my decor.(June 22, 2009 at 5:16 pm)Meatball Wrote: [quote=="Kyu"]A digital copy of a recording of a song is not the same as an original painting, and you know that.No I don't ... aside from multiple copies, I don't see the difference at all. Maybe you think it's OK to steal a little bit of the hypothetical painting then?
Copying an MP3 is not the same as "stealing a little bit of a painting". It's a completely different ballgame. The simplest way I can think of explaining it is this: copying an MP3 creates no 'loss' for the owner like taking a painting does. The owner is not "short" by one mp3 because I copied it, but if I take his painting, he can't sell that painting anymore. You can argue that they have lost potential revenue because I didn't purchase a legit copy, but they have not lost any product, nor any money. Perhaps it's better to say they have not gained anything.
In summary, copyright laws are absolutely ridiculous.
- Meatball
