"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0dc4f4$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:36:31 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > OK, since couple people here have the same difficulty, let me type it
> > slower this time so it can be understood:
> >
> > You own a car.
> >
> > I take it away without your permission.
> >
> > Is it theft?
> >
> > Let's follow your reasoning above:
> >
> > You say no. Because, you claim, the fact that you can come after me (or
> > that the police will return the car to you if I am apprehended) means
> > you still own the car. And since you still own the car, it's not been
> > stolen, there's no theft.
> >
> > Do you seriously not see the fallacy?

> The removal of the car constitutes theft because the physical object is
> no longer there and the owner can no longer exercise their rights as the
> owner.

Ah, I see. That argument hit a dead end, so we are back to square one with
the arbitrary "non-physical" defense.

> Copying *content* does not constitute theft because there is no physical
> object that has been removed.

I don't know if you are aware, but you are talking about two different
things here: Removal and physicality, and one doesn't necessarily imply the
other. Let's first try to clarify this. Consider, for instance that

I have a personal file on my drive (maybe addresses, passwords, phone
numbers.. etc, or it can also be the sourcecode of my application that I
sell - in any case, something that's clearly of value to me and that I do
not wish to share with others). If you copy that file for your use without
my permission, would you consider it theft if

1a) ... you keep the original on my disk?

1b) ... delete the original?

For the second part, imagine that I have a physical binder with printed
sheets of the same content. Would you consider it theft to

2a) ... use a digital camera to take snapshots of all pages?

2b) ... simply walk away with it?

If you consider 2b theft, would you downgrade it to something else (what?)
if you later learn that

2b1) ... I have an exact backup copy of the binder somewhere else?

Please provide simple, straight answers, so we can engage in a meaningful
discussion for the next step.

I am aware this is not necessarily about copyright specifically but about
intellectual property in general. It's s such by design, because I want to
clarify the criteria of "removal" and "physicality" that you use for the
general case first.

> The copyright holder CAN continue to
> exercise their rights as the copyright holder.

Since their very right was being in control over copying of the *content*,
over which they lost control (with respect to one party at least) how can
they be said to be exercising their right?

Post a reply to this message