actually i dont mean consume the product withouth paying i meant variations of the product for example there is microsoft office i like it has a good text procesor but it is incompatible with my tablet so what can i do well i look for something similar and download offise fr (invented product) that runs exactly the same as microsoft office run in all systems and it is free but oh surprise microsoft dont like it and go to stampt it
in a real example: giana sisters was born because mario bros was a propiety of nintendo and there wasn't option to multiplats in that age so those programmers made a substitute for commodore 64 it was similar but not the same but nintendo didn't like it and it stamped it out
eh i think you are wrong, the fact that the old dinosaurs dont want to die to be replaced is something that is wrong if not we still would be in the dark ages (althought i feel we are heading to another one) when the church controlled all media but eventually it was replaced by the printing houses
a customer has to defend their rights when all industries collude to sell a subpar or even limited product at inflated prices that's why they want to stamp the internet to limit the alternatives it is buy our products as we want or go without it
and artists can sell directly but it is a minefield why because oh surprise copyright you can't create anything really original in this climate without a good lawyer so it is stiffling innovation
yeah but the problem is when they buy and gut great franshises like plant vs zombies dragon age simcity for the casual they dont check if those are released by EA
even discounting that EA has a monopoly in sport games
want to play with oficial players too bad you need to go with EA i have seen some good soccer games but the names god the names ruined the experience
both of your examples are wrong the first one is not thievery is spionage the second i ll grant it as thievery but not for the reason you think they are depriving one seat avalaibility
and thats why by definition is thievery.
well now intangibles cant be stolen lets go on the other side a mother has two children and one acuses the other of stealing his mother love the mother has not a finite quantity of love so the acusation of stealing falls flat and thats what happens to copyright infringement right now you dont have a finite quantity of ideas so the claim of stealing again falls flat
biased bad written and atagonistic so lets disregard it
*'Copyright "reformers" of course rarely like to talk about such unpleasant matters - and will steer the conversation away from economic consequences as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the they generally talk using Orwellian euphemisms - like "liberalising" or "rebalancing" copyright. It's rarely presented as an individual's ability to go to market being removed. This is what "copyright reform" looks like in practice.
this i will grant have a small point but the thing they shy away as any economic consequences of removing copyright are especulative
also one tend to speak of the negative in the hopes it will be fixed and i must say right now copyright law is broken and is in a need of a fix or replacement
we need a process lets say i live in a country where is ilegal to sell pictures of cats in unnatural poses then a company in usa sells lolcats pictures via internet should those usa companies be liable?
i think they shouldnt mix laws and to be able of prosecuting those cases it must be illegal in both countries