Warp wrote:
>   Copyright is the property of someone, and copying something without his
> permission is taking that property from him.
> 
>   It fits perfectly under the definition of theft.

I think if you stretched it, that might work if you were stealing his 
copyright. But you're not. You're "stealing" a copy of the copyrighted 
material. The copyright itself still rests with the original owner, which is 
why you can be sued for violating it.

Copyright infringement is no more "theft" than violating your software's 
license agreement is.  Which is not to say it's a good thing. It's just a 
different class of things.

If people insist on calling copyright violation "theft", it becomes very 
difficult to come up with a reasonable balance of privileges between the 
copyright holder and the licensee. Fair use makes no sense in the "copying 
is theft" area, nor does limited time copyrights, nor moral rights. Calling 
copyright "theft" is like calling prostitution "rape".

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message