Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sloth
What I have in mind as fraud is not mere free downloading, but copying for the purpose of resale.

Well, what we were talking about was free downloading, which I said was analogous to stealing. You replied by saying, no, it's not analagous to stealing, it's more analogous to fraud.

Granted, the scenario you subsequently laid out -- passing off another's copyrighted work as one's own -- is analogous to fraud. But we were talking about downloading.

Anyway, enough on the semantics stuff. We both know where the other is coming from here. If the word "stealing" is going to get in the way of discussion, I won't use it; I'm not that invested in the word.

The bottom line: You don't have to profit off my copyrighted work to be guilty of infringement.

what is your opinion of FR's unauthorized reproduction of news articles?

That it is wrong. I've argued vehemently against the practice, elsewhere in the forum.

43 posted on 02/26/2003 1:07:55 PM PST by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: wizzler
I'm pretty ambivalent about downloading. Technically, it is an infringement of copyright, but I suppose walking to your neighbor's house is technically trespassing until you are explicitly given permission. In neither case is any measurable harm rendered. It's about like someone playing you music over the phone, only better quality. I imagine electronics stores that show movies or broadcasts on their display model televisions are technically in violation, too, but so what?
50 posted on 02/26/2003 1:49:32 PM PST by Sloth (I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson