 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> 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.
Heh, wait - that's not the answer to my question. I didn't ask about copyright
in particular there, just anything immaterial.
Besides, I don't think it's a difficult question. I think it's quite an easy
one, and absolutely rhethoric in nature, and expect the answer "it's no
different".
BTW, here's the catch again: Theft is not necessarily about physically taking
something somebody else owns.
That's how it is in the US, and that's how it is in Germany.
> What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away
> when I copy a CD?
That question is totally off the mark, and shows the problem: Ownership and
possession are too often mixed up. The question should instead be, "What does
the copyright holder own, as a SOMETHING HE OWNS, that I'm taking away when I
copy a CD?" (emphasis added).
Or, to pose a different question to highlight the problem:
"What does a car owner own, as a possession(!), that I'm taking away when I
drive off with the car he parked?"
As he's not in *possession* of the car while he's away from it, the answer is
"nothing" - and still it's theft beyond doubt, because he still retains the
ownership.
> > 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.
I file this under "nitpicking", and won't even try to go into detail why
trespassing doesn't really fit the bill.
> 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. :-)
You obviously got me wrong here.
> Does your country define theft differently?
Apparently, yes.
But also note that if I copy something without consent of the copyright holder,
I *am* denying him the benefit of *the copyright* - which is to decide who is
allowed to copy and who isn't. Although this benefit, again, is immaterial in
nature, it is a benefit nonetheless, and may well be "converted" into a
"classic" monetary benefit; for instance, the copyright holder might want to
demand incredibly high license fees, which he may be unable to obtain if too
many people make unauthorized copies; or he may want to exercise his right to
prevent any copying at all, in favor of a similar work he expects to sell at a
better margin.
> 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.
Well, *you* are arguing to this end. I'm arguing that you're wrong :P
And I think that as soon as the difference between ownership and possession is
sorted out, and likewise what exactly is taken away in a copyright
infringement, it is compelling that it *is* theft after all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> you do own it, it is your exclusive right to decide who can execute and
> therefore benefit from this right.
No, that's not correct either.
>> 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.
I didn't steal his privilege. He still owns that privilege and he can still
sell that privilege to other people.
And, as I've said, copyright isn't the right to give people permission to
make copies. It's the right to stop people from making copies. You can own
the copyright and still not be allowed to make copies of what you own the
copyright on, let alone license others to do it.
> I guess the problem of understanding copyright is rooted in the conceptual
> difference between ownership and posession.
No, it's not.
> the lines of "handling something in a way that is normally up to the owner to
> decide, without their consent";
So, rape is a form of theft? That seems odd.
> 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.
Sure. It varies in different countries, as you say. But at least in the USA,
it's not theft. Nor is it *like* theft.
>>> 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.
I said "not really", not "not at all." Intellectual property, tangible
property, and real property are all three kinds of property. It makes no
more sense to say "I stole your copyright by making a copy" than it does to
say "I stole your house by walking through it without permission."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Heh, wait - that's not the answer to my question. I didn't ask about copyright
> in particular there, just anything immaterial.
It depends on what kind of immaterial. If you want to change the question
and start saying rape is "theft of virginity" and trespassing is "theft of
... whatever", then you're going to start sounding like the libertarians[1].
> Besides, I don't think it's a difficult question. I think it's quite an easy
> one, and absolutely rhethoric in nature, and expect the answer "it's no
> different".
The difference isn't whether it's material or not. The difference is whether
I've affected you by doing what I did. Copyright isn't theft not because
copyright is immaterial, but because I didn't take anything away from you
that you had before, material or not.
> BTW, here's the catch again: Theft is not necessarily about physically taking
> something somebody else owns.
Well, sorry, but it is in the US. Maybe not in Germany.
All the more reason not to assert that copyright violation "is" theft. :-)
>> What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away
>> when I copy a CD?
>
> That question is totally off the mark, and shows the problem: Ownership and
> possession are too often mixed up. The question should instead be, "What does
> the copyright holder own, as a SOMETHING HE OWNS, that I'm taking away when I
> copy a CD?" (emphasis added).
OK. What does a copyright holder own before I copy his CD that he doesn't
own after 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.
>
> I file this under "nitpicking", and won't even try to go into detail why
> trespassing doesn't really fit the bill.
Why not? I'm taking the benefit of the thing, while you still own it, and
without your permission. I'm not nitpicking, any more than you're nitpicking
by distinguishing possession and ownership.
>> Does your country define theft differently?
> Apparently, yes.
OK.
> But also note that if I copy something without consent of the copyright holder,
> I *am* denying him the benefit of *the copyright* - which is to decide who is
> allowed to copy and who isn't.
In the USA, the copyright holder doesn't get to decide who can make copies,
nor what they can do with them once the copies are made.
>> 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.
>
> Well, *you* are arguing to this end. I'm arguing that you're wrong :P
By "we" I meant the people here asserting that copyright violation isn't
"theft".
> And I think that as soon as the difference between ownership and possession is
> sorted out, and likewise what exactly is taken away in a copyright
> infringement, it is compelling that it *is* theft after all.
I disagree. I don't think copyright violation is theft anymore than rape or
trespass is theft.
[1] Libertarians tend to say individuals aren't allowed to initiate force
against another person. But then they define things like copyright
violations and trespass as "force", because they want to make it illegal.
--
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 5/14/2009 4:22 PM, somebody wrote:
>> Theft is very explicitly "the act of stealing;
>
> What is theft? Stealing. What is stealing? Theft. Dictionaries are not
> useful to explain the why.
Did you read my first post? Let me repeat:
"the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
Dictionaries are incredibly useful to explain why.
>> taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of another;
>> larceny."
>
> Intellectual property is, well, property.
Legally, IP is property. However, it has no physical substance and is,
well, rather abstract.
Can you own a number? According to current law you can, which is why my
repeating the hexadecimal number "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63
56 88 C0" is illegal breach of IP.
But it's just a number, and the idea of owning it is as absurd as your
owning the number "7", or Darren's owning the number Pi.
Don't get me wrong, IP is an incredibly useful concept, but the term is
misrepresentative.
> 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.
When have I ever said that IP owners do not actually own their IP? On
the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that, according to current law,
unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material (which is the idea
that started this whole conversation) is illegal.
Perhaps you should read things twice before you respond to them; as the
saying goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
to speak up and remove all doubt."
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/14/2009 7:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> BTW, here's the catch again: Theft is not necessarily about physically
>> taking
>> something somebody else owns.
>
> Well, sorry, but it is in the US. Maybe not in Germany.
>
> All the more reason not to assert that copyright violation "is" theft. :-)
You keep saying things like this, but IANAL, so I'd be interested in
hearing the actual legal definition :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Legally, IP is property. However, it has no physical substance and is,
> well, rather abstract.
Legally, real estate is also property. How do you steal it?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> You keep saying things like this, but IANAL, so I'd be interested in
> hearing the actual legal definition :)
Given that a legal definition was posted as the very first post in the
thread, you should probably scroll up a bit and read it.
--
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 wrote:
> Legally, real estate is also property. How do you steal it?
I don't know, but I've got a lovely bridge in Brooklyn for sale...
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/14/2009 9:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Legally, IP is property. However, it has no physical substance and is,
>> well, rather abstract.
>
> Legally, real estate is also property. How do you steal it?
I wasn't aware you could steal real estate due to the logistics
involved. You can, of course, illegally occupy it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/14/2009 9:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> You keep saying things like this, but IANAL, so I'd be interested in
>> hearing the actual legal definition :)
>
> Given that a legal definition was posted as the very first post in the
> thread, you should probably scroll up a bit and read it.
No, I'm the OP, and I grabbed dictionary definitions. However, common
definitions and legal definitions often differ[1]. Hence my request to
hear the legal definition.
[1] As an example, insanity is, I believe, legally defined as the state
of not being accountable for your own decisions and actions. This is
quite a different definition from the common one of, "Does crazy stuff" :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
