| ▲ | hattmall 34 minutes ago | |
Words are subjective. The person is saying that it is theft and if the law doesn't define it as such then the law should change. The implication is that taking from the public domain is theft if you then make it unavailable by destructive processes which render the public unable to access that which was previously available. | ||
| ▲ | lmz 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
The physical copy was in private ownership before, otherwise how can they sell it to Amazon? | ||
| ▲ | sebastiennight 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> The implication is that taking from the public domain is theft if you then make it unavailable by destructive processes which render the public unable to access that which was previously available. That is also my understanding of the claim, and I would intuitively agree with it. | ||