If you go up to someone riding their bike and you steal their bike, that is stealing; if you stop someone on their bike in order to 3D scan it, so that you can then 3D print a new one, that is copying, and the bike owner still has their original bike.
And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.
This is like stating the chicken and the egg problem and then brushing it off as “I have a way to copy chickens indefinitely. I don’t need eggs.” without realizing that you needed not just eggs to even be able to make the first chicken to copy but also land, farms, farmers, food, and everything else that went into making the chicken you copied like an entitled, spoiled child.
And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.
Then why are companies who have clones made of their products still in business?
You’re only unintentionally (I think) proving my point, not yours.
Companies who make clones of things are still in business because people are paying for the clones. You’re not paying for the cloned movie you’re pirating.
Also, in your example and using your logic, someone would have to recreate the production of the content. If someone decided to remake a movie (and get actors, crew, production, marketing, etc.) and then decided to release that for free, not only would it not be stealing but it also wouldn’t be copyright infringement because it would be covered by fair use since its a recreation. Copyright infringement doesn’t apply simply to an idea of something. It applies to the manifestation of that idea.
I think you misunderstood my point. I’m not talking about the clone companies; I’m talking about the original company who designed the product that was cloned.
I don’t necessarilly agree with people making money off of unoriginal ideas, but that falls into the camp of copyright infringment instead of stealing since copyright law protects the intellectual property of the company who created the original design. Whether it is considered reverse engineering or not is a whole other legal argument, since reverse engineering is legal in the US.
Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.
Maybe? If you’re asking how the original companies stay in business when a clone comes along, the answer to that is that many times they don’t. And, as mentioned elsewhere (and maybe even here), if we’re talking about tangible goods, then, in most cases, there are clear differences between the clones and the non-clones. If enough people buy the items from the original maker, then they stay in business. There are plenty of examples where clones popped up in a market and forced the original creator out of business. We’re not talking about “clones” in the sense that they’re close enough. We’re talking about exact duplications. If someone can make an exact copy for less, then the original company would go out of business if no one paid for that product. I don’t know how you could view that as anything but theft.
Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.
No, you don’t need the second part. Stealing it would be stealing the design of the other company and selling it. Recreating something is not the same thing as stealing it, as I’ve already stated.
If you go up to someone riding their bike and you steal their bike, that is stealing; if you stop someone on their bike in order to 3D scan it, so that you can then 3D print a new one, that is copying, and the bike owner still has their original bike.
And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.
This is like stating the chicken and the egg problem and then brushing it off as “I have a way to copy chickens indefinitely. I don’t need eggs.” without realizing that you needed not just eggs to even be able to make the first chicken to copy but also land, farms, farmers, food, and everything else that went into making the chicken you copied like an entitled, spoiled child.
Then why are companies who have clones made of their products still in business?
You’re only unintentionally (I think) proving my point, not yours.
Companies who make clones of things are still in business because people are paying for the clones. You’re not paying for the cloned movie you’re pirating.
Also, in your example and using your logic, someone would have to recreate the production of the content. If someone decided to remake a movie (and get actors, crew, production, marketing, etc.) and then decided to release that for free, not only would it not be stealing but it also wouldn’t be copyright infringement because it would be covered by fair use since its a recreation. Copyright infringement doesn’t apply simply to an idea of something. It applies to the manifestation of that idea.
I think you misunderstood my point. I’m not talking about the clone companies; I’m talking about the original company who designed the product that was cloned.
I don’t necessarilly agree with people making money off of unoriginal ideas, but that falls into the camp of copyright infringment instead of stealing since copyright law protects the intellectual property of the company who created the original design. Whether it is considered reverse engineering or not is a whole other legal argument, since reverse engineering is legal in the US.
Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.
Maybe? If you’re asking how the original companies stay in business when a clone comes along, the answer to that is that many times they don’t. And, as mentioned elsewhere (and maybe even here), if we’re talking about tangible goods, then, in most cases, there are clear differences between the clones and the non-clones. If enough people buy the items from the original maker, then they stay in business. There are plenty of examples where clones popped up in a market and forced the original creator out of business. We’re not talking about “clones” in the sense that they’re close enough. We’re talking about exact duplications. If someone can make an exact copy for less, then the original company would go out of business if no one paid for that product. I don’t know how you could view that as anything but theft.
No, you don’t need the second part. Stealing it would be stealing the design of the other company and selling it. Recreating something is not the same thing as stealing it, as I’ve already stated.