Being unable to survive if you had to enter into mutually consensual agreements with your suppliers is a pretty good sign that you’re rent-seeking or stealing.
1) Infringement is not theft and is usually handled differently. The (poorly-named imho) NET act, which criminalized some non-commercial infringement, had to do so explicitly.
2) Sometimes exclusive/monopoly rights are not in the public interest, and compulsory licenses are desirable.
I don’t see what either of these points add to the conversation. I didn’t accuse them of theft, nor did I claim all exclusivity is always in the public interest.
Comments
1) Infringement is not theft and is usually handled differently. The (poorly-named imho) NET act, which criminalized some non-commercial infringement, had to do so explicitly.
2) Sometimes exclusive/monopoly rights are not in the public interest, and compulsory licenses are desirable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
I don’t see what either of these points add to the conversation. I didn’t accuse them of theft, nor did I claim all exclusivity is always in the public interest.
1) Clarifies "stealing" in "a pretty good sign you're rent-seeking or stealing" for cases of copyright infringement.
2) Supports "rent-seeking" by providing an example of legislative counterbalance.