"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a0cd0d9$1@news.povray.org...
> clipka wrote:

> > Well, I guess it's the *right to copy* (hence the name), which you can
*own*.

> Yes, but me violating your copyright doesn't mean you don't own the
> copyright, so it's not theft.

If I take your car unilterally while you are asleep, that doesn't mean you
don't own it anymore (legally, you are still the owner, if the police find
it in a ditch, for instance, it's you who it will be returned to), so it's
not theft. See how non-sensical that is? Yet, it follows your "reasoning".

You are confused by the fact that I cannot take away your legal rights
illegally. But that's besides the point - nobody said you can steal laws
themselves or theft has to be "stealing the law". When I steal your car, I'm
not taking away your ownership of the car, I'm taking away whatever that
ownership grants you (being able to drive it, among others). Likewise, when
I steal by illegally copying your work, I'm not taking away your copyright,
I'm taking away what that copyright grants you (being able to control how
your work is used). Copyright itself still stands, of course, but it's as
useless in practice as the title of the car that you no longer can drive. In
both cases, exercise of your granted rights are what are really taken away.

I tried to explain it in another response to you a couple of messages up (or
down).

Post a reply to this message