Warp wrote:
>   Copyright is the property of someone, and copying something without his
> permission is taking that property from him.
> 
>   It fits perfectly under the definition of theft.

I think if you stretched it, that might work if you were stealing his 
copyright. But you're not. You're "stealing" a copy of the copyrighted 
material. The copyright itself still rests with the original owner, which is 
why you can be sued for violating it.

Copyright infringement is no more "theft" than violating your software's 
license agreement is.  Which is not to say it's a good thing. It's just a 
different class of things.

If people insist on calling copyright violation "theft", it becomes very 
difficult to come up with a reasonable balance of privileges between the 
copyright holder and the licensee. Fair use makes no sense in the "copying 
is theft" area, nor does limited time copyrights, nor moral rights. Calling 
copyright "theft" is like calling prostitution "rape".

-- 
   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

On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:30:56 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Copyright is the property of someone, and copying something without
>   his
> permission is taking that property from him.

"Copyright" technically isn't property, it's a set of rules concerning 
the rights of the content owners.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

"The exclusive right given by law for a certain term of years to an 
author, composer, designer, etc. (or his assignee), to print, publish, 
and sell copies of his original work."

IOW, it's not property, it's a right.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.

  Then "copyright owner" is also wrong?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:13 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
> 
>   Then "copyright owner" is also wrong?

Not at all.  The "owner" is the one who holds the rights to determine who 
is permitted to make copies.

"property" (in this sense) is generally regarded to be something 
physical.  Rights aren't physical.  But it is possible to own both 
physical things (e.g. a desk) and things that do not have physical form 
(e.g. copyrights).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0b24a4$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:30:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
> >   Copyright is the property of someone, and copying something without
> >   his
> > permission is taking that property from him.
>
> "Copyright" technically isn't property, it's a set of rules concerning
> the rights of the content owners.
>
> From the Oxford English Dictionary:
>
> "The exclusive right given by law for a certain term of years to an
> author, composer, designer, etc. (or his assignee), to print, publish,
> and sell copies of his original work."
>
> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.

Why the term "intellectual property"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
>   Then "copyright owner" is also wrong?

That's why it's "copyright holder", AFAIK.

BTW, "'theft' doesn't fit, and 'copyright violation' is too unwieldy" pretty
much sounds to me like someone trying to make a Beeblebrox-type of argument.
Something like, "we don't have a proper name for it, so it can't be outlawed."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2009 1:52 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote in message
>> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
> Why the term "intellectual property"?

Because the very idea is so vague that they had to invent a new term for it.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2009 1:56 PM, clipka wrote:
> Something like, "we don't have a proper name for it, so it can't be outlawed."

My original point, of course, is subtly (yet importantly!) different 
from this.

More like, "We don't have a proper name for it, so we need a new name 
rather than bastardizing an existing one."

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> On 5/12/2009 4:12 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> "Copyright" means the *exclusive* right to make copies. That right is
>> diminished whenever someone else, without the copyright holder's
>> permission, makes a copy. Unless corrected, the owner's right is no
>> longer *exclusive*, and thus he no longer retains all of the rights and
>> privileges that he had, preceding the violation. He certainly loses some
>> of the perks, because profiting from the copy is one of these perks,
>> which is rightfully his.
>>
>> That's why it's called "copyright" and not "sellright," "takeright,"
>> "haveright," or other phrases.
> 
> You're right about the exclusive right no longer being exclusive, of 
> course, but such a right is really more of a privilege than in inherent 
> right and rather an abstract concept anyway.

*All* rights are abstract, in that there is no physical connection 
between any person and that to which he has a right.  This is one of the 
chief excuses used by some to violate them; for want of some cosmic 
umbilical cord connecting some man with his property, they claim that he 
"really" has no right to it, and feel entitled to take it for some 
noble-sounding purpose.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:38 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
> 
> Why the term "intellectual property"?

Marketing + Lawyering = occasionally stupid terminology

Jim

Post a reply to this message