Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
If you copy something you are not entitled to because of copyright, it's copyright infringement.
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
Not the same thing, and calling it theft is purely a propaganda term invented by the media industry.
It should also be noted that copyright laws usually have all sorts of exceptions for fair use such as satire, education, etc. Typically, keeping and even using a copy without permission is legally allowed under certain circumstances.
Just a word of caution. Even if you have a valid fair use claim they have to be adjudicated and the legal costs can get pricey. Worse if you’re found liable.
Check out Lawful Masses on YouTube for plenty of examples of copyright trolls using this as a bludgeon.
It's just a fear tactic. If enough people self represented themselves individually the companies would die. You can't draw blood from a stone... which the average consumer is basically close to. The recovery rate vs the lawsuit fees would destroy the entire legal system if people stood their ground.
Canada decided to have none of that. Downloading without keeping a copy (streaming) was basically thrown out as copyright infringement, the whole lost income idea was generally laughed at, and the final result was a maximum judgement of $500 for all non-commercial copyright infringement prior to the suit. Which basically would pay for about one hour of the plaintiff lawyer's fees. We don't get a lot of copyright suits like that in Canada any more.
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
There used to be an anti-piracy lobby group in Australia literally called "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft". I always had an issue with their name since they were really against copyright infringement, not "copyright theft" which is just a nonsense term like you said. It's been ruled several times by courts both in Australia and in the USA that it can't be called "theft" (e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/2013/12/02/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial/).
I like to think of it as something similar to watching a football match from the other side of the fence. People who paid the ticket, are loyal fans. People who didn’t pay, but still want to see the match, probably aren’t even part of the target audience. Some of them might be, but that’s a small number.
So, when the football company says that they’ve lost the sales of x number of tickets, they are actually saying that if those people had enough money and if they cared enough, they might have paid this amount of money.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
If you copy something you are not entitled to because of copyright, it's copyright infringement.
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
Not the same thing, and calling it theft is purely a propaganda term invented by the media industry.
It should also be noted that copyright laws usually have all sorts of exceptions for fair use such as satire, education, etc. Typically, keeping and even using a copy without permission is legally allowed under certain circumstances.
Just a word of caution. Even if you have a valid fair use claim they have to be adjudicated and the legal costs can get pricey. Worse if you’re found liable.
Check out Lawful Masses on YouTube for plenty of examples of copyright trolls using this as a bludgeon.
It's just a fear tactic. If enough people self represented themselves individually the companies would die. You can't draw blood from a stone... which the average consumer is basically close to. The recovery rate vs the lawsuit fees would destroy the entire legal system if people stood their ground.
Canada decided to have none of that. Downloading without keeping a copy (streaming) was basically thrown out as copyright infringement, the whole lost income idea was generally laughed at, and the final result was a maximum judgement of $500 for all non-commercial copyright infringement prior to the suit. Which basically would pay for about one hour of the plaintiff lawyer's fees. We don't get a lot of copyright suits like that in Canada any more.
There used to be an anti-piracy lobby group in Australia literally called "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft". I always had an issue with their name since they were really against copyright infringement, not "copyright theft" which is just a nonsense term like you said. It's been ruled several times by courts both in Australia and in the USA that it can't be called "theft" (e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/2013/12/02/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial/).
I like to think of it as something similar to watching a football match from the other side of the fence. People who paid the ticket, are loyal fans. People who didn’t pay, but still want to see the match, probably aren’t even part of the target audience. Some of them might be, but that’s a small number.
So, when the football company says that they’ve lost the sales of x number of tickets, they are actually saying that if those people had enough money and if they cared enough, they might have paid this amount of money.
Not a bad analogy. 👍