I would love to see what actual academics in this field have to say about course material for children that equates copyright infringement with theft. I imagine it wouldn’t be good.
Having a few comments on record about this issue might help steer schools away from adopting it.
Yeah this is a definition of “theft” that doesn’t really work at all with the commonly used one.
Like, if you download a torrent, it was uploaded by someone else, willingly. If they bought a DVD and handed it to a friend, that friend wouldn’t be stealing the DVD. But now, if they upload the file to the internet for other people to watch, this class is calling that theft.
Its the kind of “theft” that leaves no victims. The alleged “victim” isn’t the person from whom the content was downloaded, no, it’s the third party who originally sold that person the product in the first place.
The whole concept isn’t logically consistent, but the corporations wrote the laws and get to decide how they are enforced and what they mean so it doesn’t matter that the law makes no sense and is punishing people for “crimes” that are, at their very core, victimless.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
I would love to see what actual academics in this field have to say about course material for children that equates copyright infringement with theft. I imagine it wouldn’t be good.
Having a few comments on record about this issue might help steer schools away from adopting it.
Plus by “theft” they mean not paying a subscription to use what you already bought.
Yeah this is a definition of “theft” that doesn’t really work at all with the commonly used one.
Like, if you download a torrent, it was uploaded by someone else, willingly. If they bought a DVD and handed it to a friend, that friend wouldn’t be stealing the DVD. But now, if they upload the file to the internet for other people to watch, this class is calling that theft.
Its the kind of “theft” that leaves no victims. The alleged “victim” isn’t the person from whom the content was downloaded, no, it’s the third party who originally sold that person the product in the first place.
The whole concept isn’t logically consistent, but the corporations wrote the laws and get to decide how they are enforced and what they mean so it doesn’t matter that the law makes no sense and is punishing people for “crimes” that are, at their very core, victimless.