Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> 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

The re-use of terms where a new term's coining is warranted has always driven me
crazy.  Usually the word with with the racier connotations leads people to avoid
the word to express the non-racy meaning.  E.g. Thong.

I also had a great example of a new term which did *not* need coining, but I
can't think of it right at the moment.

Charles

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0c391a$1@news.povray.org...
> 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

I don't think it's stupid at all, unless you consider "ownership" as a whole
stupid. You do own the copyright (or patent or trademark... etc ), whichever
way you look at it, so it's natural to speak of those things as "property".

"Property" vs "right" is a false dichotomy - they are not in the same class:
Ownership *is* a right, property is something that you own. Sure, one can
easily imagine utopic (or tribal) societies where private ownership doesn't
exist as a right at all. But in most modern societies, it exists as such
(though not unlimited, i.e. there are certain things, material or
immaterial, that you cannot own). When you violate that right of an owner,
it's theft. 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.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:43:08 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0c391a$1@news.povray.org...
>> 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
> 
> I don't think it's stupid at all, 

You're entitled to that view.  I wasn't calling the concept stupid, I was 
calling the name stupid.  Big difference.

> unless you consider "ownership" as a
> whole stupid. You do own the copyright (or patent or trademark... etc ),
> whichever way you look at it, so it's natural to speak of those things
> as "property".

I don't think so.  It's a right (ie, the right to control), not an object 
or thing.

> "Property" vs "right" is a false dichotomy - they are not in the same
> class: 

Precisely.  But in the above quoted section (up two), you conflate the 
two concepts.

> 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, violation of rights is a violation 
of rights.  Theft is very explicitly "the act of stealing; the wrongful 
taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of another; 
larceny."

From a legal definitions standpoint, larceny is "the crime of taking the 
goods of another person without permission (usually secretly), with the 
intent of keeping them."

In other words, if I steal a book from a bookstore, I have no intention 
of returning it.  The bookstore's inventory is -1 book.

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.

> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> When you violate that right of an owner, it's theft.

Can you back that assertion up? Because for the rest of the world, that just 
isn't true.  Or is this Prove By Repeated Assertion?

If a cop hits you over the head unnecessarily, is that 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

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0c8644$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:43:08 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a0c391a$1@news.povray.org...
> >> 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
> >
> > I don't think it's stupid at all,
>
> You're entitled to that view.  I wasn't calling the concept stupid, I was
> calling the name stupid.  Big difference.
>
> > unless you consider "ownership" as a
> > whole stupid. You do own the copyright (or patent or trademark... etc ),
> > whichever way you look at it, so it's natural to speak of those things
> > as "property".
>
> I don't think so.  It's a right (ie, the right to control), not an object
> or thing.
>
> > "Property" vs "right" is a false dichotomy - they are not in the same
> > class:
>
> Precisely.  But in the above quoted section (up two), you conflate the
> two concepts.
>
> > 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.

> 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.

> 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 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.

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

Intellectual property is, well, property.

> 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.

I might claim cars are not property, since I believe they should not be
owned. 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.

> > 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.

Physicality doesn't matter. It's not godgiven that all physical things, and
only physical things can be owned - in fact, both statements are false.
People make up the rules.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Unless the right happens to be ownership right. Then violation of that right
> is theft.

Copyright isn't an ownership right. It's a right to prevent others from copying.

Say I go to the store and buy a book whose copyright is owned by Fred. I 
then take that book home and make a copy. What does Fred own that I stole?

Fred still owns the copyright.  I still own the copy I bought.  Fred knows 
nothing about the new copy I just made, and indeed it may even be legal for 
me to have made that copy even if copyright is enforced as it is in the USA.

So what does Fred own that I stole by making the copy?


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

Law dictionaries are, if you're talking about legal terms.

> Intellectual property is, well, property.

Not really. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate word for it.

> You may of course disagree. But so long as the law states that people can
> own copyrights, patents or trademarsks, they are property.

Yep. They're property. But nobody is talking about stealing copyrights, 
trademarks, or patents.

> 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.

You're confusing the ownership of the copyright with the ownership of the 
individual copies of the protected work. You're arguing that since a 
copyright can be owned, making a copy of a protected work is theft. You're 
mistaken in that.

Now, you can continue to insist that were you right, copyright violation 
would be theft, but that's not really an interesting argument.

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.

The car may be a physical object, but ownership is nothing physical. Only
posession is.

So even ownership of a car is an artificial construct.

Interestingly, there's not much debate that this particular artificial construct
is valid, and that taking possession of a currently unposessed car (i.e. one
which momemtarily has no person in the driver's seat) without consent of the
owner is generally theft.

So why should the artificial construct of ownership be invalid just because the
owned thing is something immaterial?

Of course with immaterial things, the definition of theft depends on a
definition of "posession of something" in this context: If you defined it
negatively as "deying others the benefit of the thing" or the like, copying
would not be theft. However, if you define it positively along the lines of
"taking benefit of the thing", unlicensed copying typically does fit the bill
of theft very well.

Everything else is not a question of legality, but one of moral: Is it ok for
the owner of a thing to deny others posession if it can be posessed by multiple
persons simultaneously?

But this question is beyond the scope of law & order. It is instead in the scope
of the "making" of laws.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Intellectual property is, well, property.
> Not really. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate word for it.

Intellectual property is a subset of property.
Just as red oaks are a subset of oak trees, or prime numbers a subset of 
numbers.
But it's more specific, so there's a separate word for it.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> So even ownership of a car is an artificial construct.

Yep.

> Interestingly, there's not much debate that this particular artificial construct
> is valid, and that taking possession of a currently unposessed car (i.e. one
> which momemtarily has no person in the driver's seat) without consent of the
> owner is generally theft.

Yep.

> So why should the artificial construct of ownership be invalid just because the
> owned thing is something immaterial?

Because nobody is taking what the copyright holder owns.  I'm not sure why 
you think that's a difficult question.

What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away 
when I copy a CD?

> Of course with immaterial things, the definition of theft depends on a
> definition of "posession of something" in this context: If you defined it
> negatively as "deying others the benefit of the thing" or the like, copying
> would not be theft. However, if you define it positively along the lines of
> "taking benefit of the thing", unlicensed copying typically does fit the bill
> of theft very well.

So does trespassing.  That isn't theft either.

It's not *I* who defined theft as "denying others the benefit of the thing." 
It's the people who defined theft that defined it as "denying others the 
benefit of the thing."  At least in the USA.  You seem to think it's a 
matter of opinion how the laws are written. Good luck with that if you ever 
get caught doing something illegal. :-)

Does your country define theft differently?

> Everything else is not a question of legality,

We're talking about legality. We're not arguing that copying copyrighted 
information is good. We're arguing that it's not theft, and that trying to 
prevent people from doing that with the same mechanisms that prevent theft 
is doomed to fail.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > Unless the right happens to be ownership right. Then violation of that right
> > is theft.
>
> Copyright isn't an ownership right. It's a right to prevent others from copying.

Well, I guess it's the *right to copy* (hence the name), which you can *own*. If
you do own it, it is your exclusive right to decide who can execute and
therefore benefit from this right. Like it is your exclusive right to decide
who can drive and therefore benefit from a car that you own.


> Say I go to the store and buy a book whose copyright is owned by Fred. I
> then take that book home and make a copy. What does Fred own that I stole?

His privilege to decide who is entitled to make copies and who isn't.

(BTW, in Germany, AFAIK (IANAL) theft is actually not defined as "taking away
somehting from someone without their consent" or some such, but (roughly) along
the lines of "handling something in a way that is normally up to the owner to
decide, without their consent"; so for instance, immobilizing my neighbor's car
with a Denver Boot would be theft, even though I don't physically take the car
away - because under normal circumstances it is the owner's right to decide
whether to immobilize the car or not)


I guess the problem of understanding copyright is rooted in the conceptual
difference between ownership and posession. And that stealing from a copyright
owner is not stealing his work, but taking away from him the exclusive
privilege to decide what happens with it.


> > Intellectual property is, well, property.
>
> Not really. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate word for it.

That's not very logical. In the same manner you could argue that a sledge hammer
is not a hammer. But I guess we all agree that it is, and that it's just a
special kind.

Post a reply to this message