On Thu, 14 May 2009 17:22:16 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> > material or immaterial, that you cannot own). When you violate that
>> > right of an owner, it's theft.
> 
>> No.  Violation of rights is not theft,
> 
> Unless the right happens to be ownership right. Then violation of that
> right is theft.

As Darren says, copyright != ownership.  It's the right to control who is 
permitted to legally copy a work.

>> violation of rights is a violation of rights.
> 
> Just as a fruit is a fruit and a vegetable is a vegetable. But "fruit is
> a fruit" 1) doesn't add any information 2) does not preclude the
> statement "apple is a fruit".
> 
> Violation of rights may be other things too, depending on what is
> violated. If the right to free speech is violated, that's censorship, if
> the right to life is violated, that's murder, if the right of ownership
> is violated, that's theft.

No, it's not "the right of ownership", it's taking some*thing* that isn't 
yours.  Like I said in my example, I own a car.  Someone takes the car 
without my permission, I no longer have access to the car.  That's theft.

>> Theft is very explicitly "the act of stealing;
> 
> What is theft? Stealing. What is stealing? Theft. Dictionaries are not
> useful to explain the why.

The why isn't important to the definition.  Stealing is taking 
some*thing* that isn't yours, as explained above.

>> the wrongful
> 
> It's not wrongful *unless* ownership is a right. Within a tribe where
> individuals cannot own things, for instance, there can be no legal or
> social definition of theft. "Wrongfullness" depends on whether the right
> to own is in the books (or customs) or not.

Never disputed ownership was a right, but ownership is not copyright.  
Holding the rights to copy a work is not the same as owning the work 
itself.

>> taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of
>> another; larceny."
> 
> Intellectual property is, well, property.

We can go back and forth saying "yes it is", "no it isn't" all day.

So no, it isn't, for the reasons I've explained.

>> The concept behind "intellectual property" is that an idea has value.
>> But ideas cannot be "stolen" because they are not physical.  The plans
>> that come from an idea can be stolen, duplicated, whatever.  But the
>> idea itself cannot be.
>>
>> This is why copyright/patent law has so many problems - the idea that
>> you can prevent someone from having the same idea you did even though
>> that conceptualization is completely independent is wrong IMHO.
> 
> You may of course disagree. But so long as the law states that people
> can own copyrights, patents or trademarsks, they are property.

As explained above, no, it isn't *property*, because it has no physical 
form.

> I might claim cars are not property, 

You would be wrong.

> since I believe they should not be
> owned. 

Ownership doesn't make cars property.  Physicality does.

> Well, in a different time, at a different place, maybe cars will
> indeed be not property. But with current laws, they are, and they sure
> can be stolen.

They can be stolen regardless, because they are physical objects that 
belong to someone.

>> > The rest is splitting hairs, and
>> > existance of other narrower terminology (i.e. software piracy)
>> > doesn't mean it's not theft. Otherwise, someone else can argue that
>> > carjacking is not theft either.
> 
>> No, you can't argue that, because a car is a physical object.  If I own
>> a car and someone takes it from me without my permission (by force or
>> not), then it's theft - because I don't still have the car.  End of
>> story.
> 
> I claim that you didn't own the car in the first place, it was improper
> of the law to grant you ownership. Thus it's not theft. Absurd? Well,
> you are making the same claim.

Straw man alert.

Jim

Post a reply to this message