somebody wrote:
> "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".

No it doesn't. I'm pointing out that you're conflating copyright with the 
product that is copyrighted.  You own the copyright. You don't own the copy 
of the book that I made.

Once again, tell me what I took of yours that you no longer have when I 
violate your copyright.  As long as you keep changing the question in order 
to avoid answering it, you're going to continue to not "get it". However, I 
suspect that's your intent.

> 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".

I'm not confused by that.

> 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).

No! You're taking away *the car*. It's gone. It's not incidental that I 
can't drive it. It doesn't matter if it's a rock I can't do anything with or 
a car I can drive. You've taken it away.

When I violate copyright, I don't take anything away.

> Likewise, when
> I steal by illegally copying your work, I'm not taking away your copyright,

Right!

> I'm taking away what that copyright grants you (being able to control how
> your work is used). 

Wrong. You still have the ability to control that. You sue me for damages. 
That's why you still have the copyright.

> 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.

Not true. If it were useless in practice, then nothing would stop me from 
making copies. The precise use is to punish me if I make copies without your 
permission, unless it is fair use.

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

I understood what you're saying. I'm disagreeing with your analysis.

Not every "taking away" is theft. Calling copyright violation "theft" covers 
up the real live differences between IP and tangible property.  Calling 
copyright violation "theft" is as bad an idea as calling trespassing 
"theft", for exactly the same reason: it's a different kind of property.

I understand that copyright violation harms the copyright holder. That 
doesn't make it theft.

-- 
   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