• TheLurker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just want to point out to anyone who thinks this is a viable legal defence, It isn’t.

    You would be considered to be stealing from the rights holder. The rights holder authorises your use of their property when you pay the license fee. If you don’t pay the license fee you are considered to be stealing their property.

    Just to be clear, I agree with the sentiment of this post. Legally speaking though, this defence would be cut down in moments.

    • metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that I’m the US at least, it’s still not theft, but copyright infringement, which also means it doesn’t get handled in criminal court, but is instead handled as a civil lawsuit.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just want to point out to anyone who thinks this is a viable legal defence, It isn’t.

      Of course it isn’t. Copyright laws were written by the same kind of people who decided that corporations gets to “people.”

    • Aurix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of course it is no viable defense, but stealing is the wrong term, because stealing is used for the theft of physical goods missing somewhere else. This would be along illegal usage semantically, or as another comment pointed out copyright infringement.