If you steal a loaf of bread, the store lost physical product. Something they could have sold, but now can't. Then you're actually hurting their bottom line. If I right click and save the signs 101 logo up in the top, and print myself a bumper sticker... Does the owner lose any money? ?They didn't actually have anything "Stolen" in that sense. I could even stretch it and go so far as to say they might make more, by my free advertising on my car.
I'm not saying using someone elses artwork is legal, or even ethical. I'm just saying theres a difference between stealing, and "Theft" of digital files.
I think that this is the problem that most people have. It's easier to wrap ones head around theft of a physical product, versus theft of a digital file.
Is there loss of revenue...in some instances yes.
Easier to be seen if they sell a product and then someone prints off a freebie for a "friend" (the exact same product that is sold by said company) and that's loss of revenue that the company would have ordinarily received had the person gone through the "proper" channels to get said product.
That's a fairly obvious sense of loss, sometimes it's not all that easy.
As far as "free advertising", that may or may not be a good thing. It depends on what it's associated with, if it is associated with something else.
If it's a logo that's going on something that is used for competitions or something like that, it could be perceived that that company is backing that person. If that person is a whackadoo (for whatever reason) that would be no bueno for those that sponsor that person (or thought to have sponsored that person, or even sponsored an event that would be perceived as questionable, perception is everything).
Now, of course, one or two freebies doesn't sound like a big deal. You start having people print off one or two freebies all over the place. Or creating product that could be had through "normal" channels.
What about the shops that pay their "pound of flesh" to produce those logos on goods for sale? That's dinging them too.
The copyright system is broken... It was made before digital days, and needs to be upgraded.
I do agree with that. There are quite a few things that need to be overhauled and modernized (some theories and notions, I think are still valid, but need to be applied in a modern context).
Unfortunately, those in power to be make changes, ironically, don't seem to be up with the times themselves and it's scary what legislation they are trying to push through versus what needs to be actually overhauled and improved upon. So I don't think anything is really going to change.
I usually try to contact the author and ask if it is ok. You'd be surprised at how many say feel free for personal use. Of course It's usually smaller, unknown companies I've asked... The bigger ones might have a different view on it.
Typically because the bigger companies are in a better position to leverage the value that their IPs carry. Smaller companies may even not value branding at all. How many on here have had clients do branding at the very end only to have a pathetic budget for branding/signage etc?
Now one can reject, hate, ignore, disagree with, or whatever else I hadn't though of, the laws that are on the books, but that doesn't necessarily make them go away or make the situation any less illegal. Even if the laws are outdated. Trust me, I don't agree with everything that's out there on the books, but I actually have more issue with just ignoring and doing what I want to do. But too each their own.
Good catch. I didn't realize it was the same person, but something seemed familiar.
