clipka wrote:
> So even ownership of a car is an artificial construct.

Yep.

> Interestingly, there's not much debate that this particular artificial construct
> is valid, and that taking possession of a currently unposessed car (i.e. one
> which momemtarily has no person in the driver's seat) without consent of the
> owner is generally theft.

Yep.

> So why should the artificial construct of ownership be invalid just because the
> owned thing is something immaterial?

Because nobody is taking what the copyright holder owns.  I'm not sure why 
you think that's a difficult question.

What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away 
when I copy a CD?

> Of course with immaterial things, the definition of theft depends on a
> definition of "posession of something" in this context: If you defined it
> negatively as "deying others the benefit of the thing" or the like, copying
> would not be theft. However, if you define it positively along the lines of
> "taking benefit of the thing", unlicensed copying typically does fit the bill
> of theft very well.

So does trespassing.  That isn't theft either.

It's not *I* who defined theft as "denying others the benefit of the thing." 
It's the people who defined theft that defined it as "denying others the 
benefit of the thing."  At least in the USA.  You seem to think it's a 
matter of opinion how the laws are written. Good luck with that if you ever 
get caught doing something illegal. :-)

Does your country define theft differently?

> Everything else is not a question of legality,

We're talking about legality. We're not arguing that copying copyrighted 
information is good. We're arguing that it's not theft, and that trying to 
prevent people from doing that with the same mechanisms that prevent theft 
is doomed to fail.

-- 
   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