Comment Re:Can you rebut this? (Score 1) 245
Theft is a particular crime defined in various ways depending on the jurisdiction, but it is not copyright infringement. Various people on this thread have attempted to distinguish the two and things have been muddled.
Theft is taking something (tangible) away.
Copyright infringement is when you copy something where the government has given a monopoly right to sue those making copies.
Therefore, that statute as posted is inapplicable. I qualify this by saying I don't know how courts construe the terms in the statute; for all I know, theft is defined in New York courts in a broad sense including larceny and picking one's nose. This is an important part of who prevails in court that is often overlooked by amateurs.
Finally, consider that the RIAA has spent millions upon millions for ad campaigns trying to convince everyone in the world that copyright infringement is theft when, in fact and in law, it is not. Why have an ad campaign pointing out it's theft when it already is? Some reasons exist, but the reason in this case is because it is not theft.
Theft is taking something (tangible) away.
Copyright infringement is when you copy something where the government has given a monopoly right to sue those making copies.
Therefore, that statute as posted is inapplicable. I qualify this by saying I don't know how courts construe the terms in the statute; for all I know, theft is defined in New York courts in a broad sense including larceny and picking one's nose. This is an important part of who prevails in court that is often overlooked by amateurs.
Finally, consider that the RIAA has spent millions upon millions for ad campaigns trying to convince everyone in the world that copyright infringement is theft when, in fact and in law, it is not. Why have an ad campaign pointing out it's theft when it already is? Some reasons exist, but the reason in this case is because it is not theft.
