clipka wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Heh, wait - that's not the answer to my question. I didn't ask about copyright
> in particular there, just anything immaterial.

It depends on what kind of immaterial.  If you want to change the question 
and start saying rape is "theft of virginity" and trespassing is "theft of 
... whatever", then you're going to start sounding like the libertarians[1].

> Besides, I don't think it's a difficult question. I think it's quite an easy
> one, and absolutely rhethoric in nature, and expect the answer "it's no
> different".

The difference isn't whether it's material or not. The difference is whether 
I've affected you by doing what I did. Copyright isn't theft not because 
copyright is immaterial, but because I didn't take anything away from you 
that you had before, material or not.

> BTW, here's the catch again: Theft is not necessarily about physically taking
> something somebody else owns.

Well, sorry, but it is in the US. Maybe not in Germany.

All the more reason not to assert that copyright violation "is" theft. :-)

>> What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away
>> when I copy a CD?
> 
> That question is totally off the mark, and shows the problem: Ownership and
> possession are too often mixed up. The question should instead be, "What does
> the copyright holder own, as a SOMETHING HE OWNS, that I'm taking away when I
> copy a CD?" (emphasis added).

OK. What does a copyright holder own before I copy his CD that he doesn't 
own after 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.
> 
> I file this under "nitpicking", and won't even try to go into detail why
> trespassing doesn't really fit the bill.

Why not? I'm taking the benefit of the thing, while you still own it, and 
without your permission. I'm not nitpicking, any more than you're nitpicking 
by distinguishing possession and ownership.

>> Does your country define theft differently?
> Apparently, yes.

OK.

> But also note that if I copy something without consent of the copyright holder,
> I *am* denying him the benefit of *the copyright* - which is to decide who is
> allowed to copy and who isn't.

In the USA, the copyright holder doesn't get to decide who can make copies, 
nor what they can do with them once the copies are made.

>> 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.
> 
> Well, *you* are arguing to this end. I'm arguing that you're wrong :P

By "we" I meant the people here asserting that copyright violation isn't 
"theft".

> And I think that as soon as the difference between ownership and possession is
> sorted out, and likewise what exactly is taken away in a copyright
> infringement, it is compelling that it *is* theft after all.

I disagree. I don't think copyright violation is theft anymore than rape or 
trespass is theft.



[1] Libertarians tend to say individuals aren't allowed to initiate force 
against another person. But then they define things like copyright 
violations and trespass as "force", because they want to make it illegal.

-- 
   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