You can insist all you like, but I'll say again: in the field of intellectual property, in which I have worked as a professional for many years, infringement of copyright is indeed viewed as _stealing_.
You can insist all you like, but I'll say again: in the field of intellectual property, in which I have worked as a professional for many years, infringement of copyright is
very frequently not viewed as stealing.
It is viewed as the actual offense it is -- without going for simple-minded name calling. The variety of violations possible with intellectual property is *not* limited to moral equivalents of theft, but much wider.
For example, you don't call your customer a thief -- because of a technicality involving terminal emulation and the counting of licenses. Likewise, you generally don't call your project partner a thief -- even if some confusion remains over code sharing.
You can. However if you do... there is high probability that your move is unwise, and your description inadequate.
Yes, but my claim is based on knowledge of the law and professional experience.
As I mentioned, my claim is based on the same sources -- and common sense.
Oh, do you work in intellectual property, too? Where do you work?
Software design and engineering for labeling, barcode, logistics and mobile data collection. Not an old fish... but I do have approximately 100 projects under my belt.
Most of them required either study of copyright issues... or negotiation of said issues with suppliers, partners and customers. Often to assemble a product/solution belonging to multiple companies and/or including GPL freeware mixed with commercial software.
I've already done so. No one can actually definitively prove a loss of income with regard to something like game sales, but you can indeed say there was a loss of license fee.
You did try, but your proof does not suffice.
As you mentioned... one cannot definitely prove anything regarding game sales (or future game sales). Historically, Warner never had any B5-related computer game sales.
In case of non-commercial freeware, a situation can exist where a potential licensee has no income or funds. In such conditions, a license *fee* cannot exist. This makes it a simple choice: allow or deny.
Even if business logic would say "allow", legalities (like the necessity of having all options open) often block a business decision and result in "deny".
In such situations, one solution does still exist: never ask. Instead acknowledge your weak legal basis, and promise to stop when requested. Risky -- yes. Illegal -- to be determined, neither by you or me.
Theoretically a license would be nice. Practically, as I mentioned, licensing something so small... is simply unfeasible.
On the opposite side of the balance... every person learning about B5... is a potential customer for Warner. Apply a certain factor, and you have a certain amount of real customers. Reckon in the products bought/licensed... and you have real profit.
It is only the owner's place to say whether or not such a distribution is a "positive thing." No one else has the right.
Illegality is determined by a qualified court, not by you or me. You can forever allege that IFH is theft... and I oppose, calling it commendable and beneficial contribution.
Where answers are uncertain... everyone has the right to guess (and by guessing, take a legal risk). Whether the owner disapproves and takes action... is the decision they get to make.
Sometimes, in fields where formality would result in denial, but silent acceptance has been demostrated to exist... this pathway *is* more feasible than asking.
Second of all, you'd have to prove that Warner knows about this game and is ignoring it, which is a mighty hard thing to prove.
You are asking me to ascertain what is not within my resources to ascertain. Not having infinite time, I insist that you carry the burden of proof.
As the party accusing someone of theft, I would say it remains *your* duty to prove actual wrong-doing -- not my duty to disprove it, by fetching for your examination something rather difficult to obtain.
IMHO, it is extremely unlikely that Warner has even heard of "I Found Her."
Very big leap of logic, although not absolutely impossible. A company consists of people. To assume that *nobody*, on any relevant position at Warner, has *any* interest in B5... is a big assumption to make. Because provided any interest in things related to B5, one would notice IFH fairly quickly.
US Copyright Law, the copyright departments of every producer of media of any kind, and probably every IP lawyer in the country (to say nothing of their paralegals and clerks) would disagree with you.
A massive majority of them would *not* consider it theft. Multiple would consider it a venture on very shaky ground, several consider it a copyright violation... but no reasonable person would consider it theft. Because it is not.
