Steal != Copy

I wait for a program that generates all the copyright content in existence. It will automatically not generate copyrighted and pubic domained content already.<p>The business model is automatically sending notices claiming copyright infringement. Youtube automatically sends you money. Collection societies give you a cut from their racket. Most of the money will initially go towards lawsuits where I can demand up to $100,000 (highest fine in the world in USA, even if it's non-commercial). All part of the good ol' effort against the piracy economic bogeyman.<p>Bonus: USA is known to steal works from public domain 'as part of being treaty obligations' and thus, since Mickey Mouse. Copyright will never expire.<p>I'm a pirate because intellectual property is flawed and the next piracy will be 3D printers. <a href="http://reprap.org/wiki/EndOfIntellectualProperty" rel="nofollow">http://reprap.org/wiki/EndOfIntellectualProperty</a><p>Look to China for how businesses is done in a country with no regard for IP. Microsoft sells cheaper software and better services. Copyright companies isolate China from rest of world under region restrictions, etc.

Kind of explains the “Good artist borrow, great artist steal.” saying but the examples given are terrible.<p>Smartphones did not steal wrist watches. A better example might be that Apple 'stole' the iPhone/smartphone idea from Palm or RIM.<p>And I wouldn't say iCloud is stolen from Dropbox. They fit two different purposes imo. iCloud doesn't do the folder sharing Dropbox does and doesn't have the file management capabilities power users need.

Suppose you had millions of copies of some object for sale. As the manufacture cost of the object tends to zero, the outcomes of copying tend to the outcomes of theft.

I was hoping the piece would truly stick to the title point: that stealing != copying. But after a page or so into it it became clear he was just another person trying to make a distinction between two degrees of copying.<p>Good rule of thumb: if someone steals something from you, you don't have it anymore. If someone copies something from you, you still have it.

Not to nitpick, but the logical inference in the title is backwards. What they want to say is "Copying is not necessarily Stealing", because "Stealing is not always Copying" is obvious because stealing can be done by other means. Sorry for geeking out.

I think the quote is "good artists borrow, great artists steal".

starts article with "creation-stealing", discusses "copying-stealing". divulges into apple vs others as usual