 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4a0cb7e8@news.povray.org...
> What does the copyright holder own,
Copyright.
> as a possession, that I'm taking away
> when I copy a CD?
You are taking away his right to control (of how / by who / under what
conditions... etc) his work can be copied. That is, you are taking away
*whatever priviledges* were granted to him *in* the copyright. Note that
it's not the same thing as taking away the copyright. Just as a murderer
does not take away the "right to life", but what is specified in that right,
that is, life. It's a fallacy to assume nothing is taken away since
copyright is still stands. Laws and contracts don't of course disappear when
broken, they will continue to stand. "Right to life" does not vanish when
someone murders another, it's the "life" that vanishes. I'm guessing that
the "violating copyright does not take away anything" camp here fail to make
that fundamental distinction.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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".
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". 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). Likewise, when
I steal by illegally copying your work, I'm not taking away your copyright,
I'm taking away what that copyright grants you (being able to control how
your work is used). 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. In
both cases, exercise of your granted rights are what are really taken away.
I tried to explain it in another response to you a couple of messages up (or
down).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0c8644$1@news.povray.org...
>> taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of another;
>> larceny."
>
> Intellectual property is, well, property.
Intellectual property is a misnomer.
"Authors and inventors exercise specific rights, and the "property" referred
to in "intellectual property" is the rights, not the intellectual work. A
patent can be bought and sold, but the invention that it covers is not
owned at all. This is one of many reasons that some believe the term
intellectual property to be misleading."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> 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.
You could be stealing her virginity!
(seriously, that definition indeed sounds odd)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:17:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Then you don't really hold the copyright. In the case of book
authorship, for example, copyright is assigned to the publisher while the
book is considered in print. When a book goes out of print, the contract
between the author and publisher determines what happens to the copyright.
With my first book, New Riders Publishing held the copyright - I didn't.
I couldn't legally make copies of the book or use the material in other
works.
When the book was declared out of print, I got a letter from the
publisher stating that the copyright rights were being transferred to me
and my co-author, in accordance with our contract.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 May 2009 23:28:18 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> 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.
I would think that acquisition of the deed to the property through
illegal means would constitute theft of the parcel.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0cb7e8@news.povray.org...
>
>> What does the copyright holder own,
>
> Copyright.
>
>> as a possession, that I'm taking away
>> when I copy a CD?
>
> You are taking away his right to control (of how / by who / under what
> conditions... etc) his work can be copied. That is, you are taking away
> *whatever priviledges* were granted to him *in* the copyright.
So if I copy a CD, I take away his right to control how his work can be
copied, and then everyone can start copying, because he doesn't have the
right to control it anymore? What the hell?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 May 2009 23:31:01 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> insanity is, I believe, legally defined as the state of not being
> accountable for your own decisions and actions.
Nope, it's:
"mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish
fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or
is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior."
More available at dictionary.law.com if you're interested.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0d8dea$1@news.povray.org...
> As Darren says, copyright != ownership.
Ownership of *what*? One can certainly own the copyright, patent, trademark,
banana, boat... etc. Boat != ownership, people own boats.
> It's the right to control who is permitted to legally copy a work.
And that right *belongs* to ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:56:27 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0d8dea$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> As Darren says, copyright != ownership.
>
> Ownership of *what*? One can certainly own the copyright, patent,
> trademark, banana, boat... etc. Boat != ownership, people own boats.
>
>> It's the right to control who is permitted to legally copy a work.
>
> And that right *belongs* to ...
Rights belong to the owner, but the legal term for violating the rights
is not "theft". It's "infringement":
"2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights
(protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing,
graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially
without contracting for payment of a royalty."
(First definition has to do with trespassing)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:17:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Then you don't really hold the copyright.
Yes, you do. Copyright allows you to prevent others from making copies, just
like patents prevent others from making machines. But if there are multiple
copyrights on something, it may be possible that none of the copyright
holders can make copies.
If I take copyrighted proprietary software and link it with copyrighted
GPL'ed software, who can give me permission to distribute the result?
> In the case of book
> authorship, for example, copyright is assigned to the publisher while the
> book is considered in print. When a book goes out of print, the contract
> between the author and publisher determines what happens to the copyright.
Yes. In that case, only one entity has copyright on the work, in which case
the rights are exclusive. However, there's nothing that prevents multiple
people from having copyrights on the work. It's possible for (for example)
the director or studio to have a copyright on the film, and the musicians to
have a copyright on the soundtrack. This sort of thing held up numerous
releases when rental DVDs first started getting popular, because nobody had
pre-negotiated with the band for DVD rights.
> When the book was declared out of print, I got a letter from the
> publisher stating that the copyright rights were being transferred to me
> and my co-author, in accordance with our contract.
It's not impossible for exactly one entity to hold a copyright. It's just
not necessary. Copyright doesn't give you permission to copy things. It
gives you permission to prevent others from copying things. A license gives
you permission to make copies, not copyright.
Just like patents. If the device uses three different patented technologies,
any one of those patent holders can refuse to license you their patent.
IANAL, but I did study this stuff in school.
--
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:
> 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.
That's kind of my point. Is illegally occupying my land "theft"? According
to the "copying is theft" definitions, it would seem it is.
(And yes, it's actually possible to steal land, in a way that leaves the
victim unable to recover it. Sucks, doesn't 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:
> 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.
The definitions you posted substantially match the legal definitions I
learned in school before the whole DMCA/Sony Bono act, etc. IANAL.
There has to be property, someone has to convert it without the owner's
permission and with intent not to return it.
There are plenty of free legal dictionaries online, too.
--
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:
> >> 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.
If his decisions are moot because they aren't respected, instead of the
privilege to make said decisions he now holds a worthless piece of shit.
So you *did* take away that privilege from him.
> > 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.
I said, "something along the lines of..."; I'm not sure about the actual
wording, and in what way it doesn't make rape a form of theft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
>> news:4a0cb7e8@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> What does the copyright holder own,
>> Copyright.
>>
>>> as a possession, that I'm taking away
>>> when I copy a CD?
>> You are taking away his right to control (of how / by who / under what
>> conditions... etc) his work can be copied. That is, you are taking away
>> *whatever priviledges* were granted to him *in* the copyright.
>
> So if I copy a CD, I take away his right to control how his work can be
> copied, and then everyone can start copying, because he doesn't have the
> right to control it anymore? What the hell?
And of course, since you've taken that right to control away, he can't come
after you legally for making copies, because he doesn't control it any more.
Yes?
--
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 Fri, 15 May 2009 12:01:18 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:56:27 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> news:4a0d8dea$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> As Darren says, copyright != ownership.
>>
>> Ownership of *what*? One can certainly own the copyright, patent,
>> trademark, banana, boat... etc. Boat != ownership, people own boats.
>>
>>> It's the right to control who is permitted to legally copy a work.
>>
>> And that right *belongs* to ...
>
> Rights belong to the owner, but the legal term for violating the rights
> is not "theft". It's "infringement":
>
> "2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights
> (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing,
> graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially
> without contracting for payment of a royalty."
>
> (First definition has to do with trespassing)
Compare to the legal definition of "theft":
"the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and
fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or
consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including
potential sale)."
As you've said, you can't steal rights. But "Intellectual Property" is a
collection of rights - copyright, industrial design rights, etc. You can
infringe rights, but you can't steal them (not in the same sense that you
can steal a car - you could arguably use fraud to transfer the rights to
you, but copying something like a music CD doesn't transfer the artist's/
label's rights to you, it infringes on their rights.)
Where the record labels, MPAA, etc get into "stealing" is not the
stealing of the work, but they contend that every time someone infringes
their copyright, they are denied profits (ie, the profits are stolen).
In order for that argument to hold water, you have to assume that
everyone who infringes the copyright of the rights holder would have paid
for the product, otherwise there's no theft of profits (since there would
have been no purchase made without the infringement).
Going after casual downloaders assumes that all of those downloaders
would have paid for the content. Many wouldn't have, for any number of
reasons. So while copyright infringement occurs in those cases, theft
does not - and wouldn't be unless the companies could prove that the
infringer would have purchased the content if they had not been able to
copy it.
Then there's also the question of downloading content that you have paid
for. For example, if one downloads an AVI file of a TV program that you
have paid for (say, for example, because you subscribe to cable TV), is
there infringement or the loss of profits that would constitute theft?
Suppose one has the legal right to record a program (and that was
established in the famous Sony case back when VCRs first came out), so I
set up a recording on my DVR and the recording is interrupted by a power
outage, or is truncated because the DVR records all but the last of 5
minutes of the program due to a programming change that isn't reflected
in the schedule?
Or suppose one purchases an LP that contains a song and they want to
listen to it in my car. They've already paid for the content. They
could record the playback of the LP (and indeed many people did that when
cassette players were put in car stereos). Or they could download the
song (since someone else has already done the work of ripping it). Or
they could ask a friend with the right equipment if they would record it
for them.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:13:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> If I take copyrighted proprietary software and link it with copyrighted
> GPL'ed software, who can give me permission to distribute the result?
Clearly nobody, because linking proprietary software with GPL'ed software
(that is not licensed under a dual license) violates the terms of the GPL.
>> In the case of book
>> authorship, for example, copyright is assigned to the publisher while
>> the book is considered in print. When a book goes out of print, the
>> contract between the author and publisher determines what happens to
>> the copyright.
>
> Yes. In that case, only one entity has copyright on the work, in which
> case the rights are exclusive.
Copyright by definition is an exclusive right, though.
> However, there's nothing that prevents
> multiple people from having copyrights on the work. It's possible for
> (for example) the director or studio to have a copyright on the film,
> and the musicians to have a copyright on the soundtrack.
The director/studio has a compilation copyright in cases where they've
sought permission of the copyright holder for the music they've included
(assuming it's not covered under fair use, but that's another discussion).
> This sort of
> thing held up numerous releases when rental DVDs first started getting
> popular, because nobody had pre-negotiated with the band for DVD rights.
Right, but at the same point the work is not released to the public
because the rights are not properly licensed.
>> When the book was declared out of print, I got a letter from the
>> publisher stating that the copyright rights were being transferred to
>> me and my co-author, in accordance with our contract.
>
> It's not impossible for exactly one entity to hold a copyright. It's
> just not necessary. Copyright doesn't give you permission to copy
> things. It gives you permission to prevent others from copying things. A
> license gives you permission to make copies, not copyright.
Legally, copyright is "the exclusive right of the author or creator of a
literary or artistic property (such as a book, movie or musical
composition) to print, copy, sell, license, distribute, transform to
another medium, translate, record or perform or otherwise use (or not
use) and to give it to another by will."
> Just like patents. If the device uses three different patented
> technologies, any one of those patent holders can refuse to license you
> their patent.
Right, in which case you cannot produce the device.
> IANAL, but I did study this stuff in school.
I'm not either, and didn't study it in school, but I've followed the
debate with great interest and have studied it a bit on my own.
Clearly, though, the laws aren't clear, which is why there's such a
debate about it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:01:22 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Heh, well, as I recall he (?) did make the point in an earlier discussion
that he's never changed his mind about things as a result of a discussion
held on the Internet, and he wasn't about to start now. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 12:19:29 -0400, clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>
> If his decisions are moot because they aren't respected, instead of the
> privilege to make said decisions he now holds a worthless piece of shit.
>
> So you *did* take away that privilege from him.
No, you just infringed his right to do so. Infringement is legally not
the same as theft.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:13:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> If I take copyrighted proprietary software and link it with copyrighted
>> GPL'ed software, who can give me permission to distribute the result?
>
> Clearly nobody, because linking proprietary software with GPL'ed software
> (that is not licensed under a dual license) violates the terms of the GPL.
That's exactly my point. Even the owner of the copyrights can't publish the
result.
> Copyright by definition is an exclusive right, though.
I don't believe that's the case, once you start getting into work that is
composed of multiple copyrightable elements. However, IANAL, so you might be
right.
I can have a compilation copyright on a collection of individually
copyrighted stories, if you want to talk about prose, yes?
> The director/studio has a compilation copyright in cases where they've
> sought permission of the copyright holder for the music they've included
> (assuming it's not covered under fair use, but that's another discussion).
Right. But without the license, they can't make copies even tho they hold
the compilation copyright.
>> This sort of
>> thing held up numerous releases when rental DVDs first started getting
>> popular, because nobody had pre-negotiated with the band for DVD rights.
>
> Right, but at the same point the work is not released to the public
> because the rights are not properly licensed.
That's my point. You have multiple entities with copyright on the work. It's
not the case that anyone with a copyright on the work may make copies. It's
the case that anyone with a copyright on the work may *prevent* copies.
> Legally, copyright is "the exclusive right of the author or creator of a
> literary or artistic property (such as a book, movie or musical
> composition) to print, copy, sell, license, distribute, transform to
> another medium, translate, record or perform or otherwise use (or not
> use) and to give it to another by will."
I think "exclusive right" doesn't mean it excludes others from holding a
copyright. It means you have the exclusive right on the work you created.
But if someone else creates a work based on yours, you don't get to
distribute theirs, and they don't get to distribute yours, so it's possible
you're deadlocked.
Which is important in this discussion.
>> Just like patents. If the device uses three different patented
>> technologies, any one of those patent holders can refuse to license you
>> their patent.
>
> Right, in which case you cannot produce the device.
Yes. Having a patent doesn't allow you to make the device. Having the patent
allows you to stop others from making the device.
> Clearly, though, the laws aren't clear, which is why there's such a
> debate about it. :-)
Oh, I think they're clear as any other if you're an IP lawyer. We just don't
have definitive resources, as well as living in different countries with
different laws.
--
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:
> If his decisions are moot because they aren't respected, instead of the
> privilege to make said decisions he now holds a worthless piece of shit.
If it was worthless, he wouldn't be able to sue you for damages. The value
of the copyright is that you can sue for damages when it's violated.
They're not moot even if they aren't respected, because the copyright gives
him the privilege to have people with guns make him stop copying and take
your money away.
> I said, "something along the lines of..."; I'm not sure about the actual
> wording, and in what way it doesn't make rape a form of theft.
Well, I'll disregard until you come up with an appropriate piece of text. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0d8dea$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> As Darren says, copyright != ownership.
>
> Ownership of *what*? One can certainly own the copyright, patent, trademark,
Yes. But I'm not stealing the copyright. That's the point.
You don't own the copy of the CD I created. I don't take away your ownership
of copyright.
>> It's the right to control who is permitted to legally copy a work.
> And that right *belongs* to ...
But I'm not taking away your ownership of that right, or your ability to do
with it what you'd like.
--
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 in message
news:4a0d91d6$1@news.povray.org...
> Once again, tell me what I took of yours that you no longer have when I
> violate your copyright.
For the nth time, you took away whatever was granted to me in that copyright
(i.e. my say about the conditions of copying of my work).
> As long as you keep changing the question in order
> to avoid answering it,
I've answered it several times, but you neither acknowledge nor counter it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:06:27 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:13:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> If I take copyrighted proprietary software and link it with
>>> copyrighted GPL'ed software, who can give me permission to distribute
>>> the result?
>>
>> Clearly nobody, because linking proprietary software with GPL'ed
>> software (that is not licensed under a dual license) violates the terms
>> of the GPL.
>
> That's exactly my point. Even the owner of the copyrights can't publish
> the result.
They can publish what they own rights to.
>> Copyright by definition is an exclusive right, though.
>
> I don't believe that's the case, once you start getting into work that
> is composed of multiple copyrightable elements. However, IANAL, so you
> might be right.
Everything that I've read that defines copyright defines it as an
exclusive right. Ultimately - in the eyes of the law - some one person
or entity has to be the decision maker.
> I can have a compilation copyright on a collection of individually
> copyrighted stories, if you want to talk about prose, yes?
Yes, provided that you have acquired the rights to the individual stories
from the authors/publishers of the individual stories.
Similarly, on many forums there is a "compilation copyright" held by the
forum operator. The rights to the individual messages are granted as
part of the terms of service for the use of the forums.
That permits a forum operator to publish a compilation of all the posts
without explicitly going to each forum member and asking for explicit
permission to publish each individual message they posted as a part of
the compilation.
>> The director/studio has a compilation copyright in cases where they've
>> sought permission of the copyright holder for the music they've
>> included (assuming it's not covered under fair use, but that's another
>> discussion).
>
> Right. But without the license, they can't make copies even tho they
> hold the compilation copyright.
Well, no, because the compilation copyright would be infringing on the
rights of the individual "contributors", so it wouldn't be a valid
copyright.
>>> This sort of
>>> thing held up numerous releases when rental DVDs first started getting
>>> popular, because nobody had pre-negotiated with the band for DVD
>>> rights.
>>
>> Right, but at the same point the work is not released to the public
>> because the rights are not properly licensed.
>
> That's my point. You have multiple entities with copyright on the work.
> It's not the case that anyone with a copyright on the work may make
> copies. It's the case that anyone with a copyright on the work may
> *prevent* copies.
Well, no, you have multiple entities with copyrighted content in the
work, and if the "compiler" of the works doesn't seek permission to use
them, then their copyright is invalid for the work as a whole (it would
be valid for the parts they created or got rights to use), but if they
don't have clear use rights to all of the content in their work, then
they can't distribute it.
>> Legally, copyright is "the exclusive right of the author or creator of
>> a literary or artistic property (such as a book, movie or musical
>> composition) to print, copy, sell, license, distribute, transform to
>> another medium, translate, record or perform or otherwise use (or not
>> use) and to give it to another by will."
>
> I think "exclusive right" doesn't mean it excludes others from holding a
> copyright. It means you have the exclusive right on the work you
> created. But if someone else creates a work based on yours, you don't
> get to distribute theirs, and they don't get to distribute yours, so
> it's possible you're deadlocked.
>
> Which is important in this discussion.
By definition, the "exclusive" means "not shared". If someone creates a
work based on mine (a "derivative work"), the copyright they hold to that
derivative work is contingent upon my granting them the rights to use my
work (or a portion thereof where it's not covered by fair use doctrine).
If I do not do that for whatever reason (I decide not to, they don't seek
it, etc), then the work infringes my rights to my original work and I can
sue them for infringement (but back to the point of the original topic
here, I don't believe I can sue them for theft).
>>> Just like patents. If the device uses three different patented
>>> technologies, any one of those patent holders can refuse to license
>>> you their patent.
>>
>> Right, in which case you cannot produce the device.
>
> Yes. Having a patent doesn't allow you to make the device. Having the
> patent allows you to stop others from making the device.
A patent is legally defined as "an exclusive right to the benefits of an
invention or improvement granted by the U.S. Patent Office, for a
specific period of time, on the basis that it is novel (not previously
known or described in a publication), "non-obvious" (a form which anyone
in the field of expertise could identify), and useful."
Thus, it allows you to exclusively benefit from the invention and to
define the terms under which others can. The benefit could be a
licensing fee, for example.
>> Clearly, though, the laws aren't clear, which is why there's such a
>> debate about it. :-)
>
> Oh, I think they're clear as any other if you're an IP lawyer. We just
> don't have definitive resources, as well as living in different
> countries with different laws.
While I don't disagree that it is complicated by international
boundaries, I think there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to the
question of "is copyright infringement theft?".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a0d964a$1@news.povray.org...
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > somebody wrote:
> >> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> >> news:4a0cb7e8@news.povray.org...
> >>
> >>> What does the copyright holder own,
> >> Copyright.
> >>
> >>> as a possession, that I'm taking away
> >>> when I copy a CD?
> >> You are taking away his right to control (of how / by who / under what
> >> conditions... etc) his work can be copied. That is, you are taking away
> >> *whatever priviledges* were granted to him *in* the copyright.
> >
> > So if I copy a CD, I take away his right to control how his work can be
> > copied, and then everyone can start copying, because he doesn't have the
> > right to control it anymore? What the hell?
>
> And of course, since you've taken that right to control away, he can't
come
> after you legally for making copies, because he doesn't control it any
more.
> Yes?
Still going after a red herring I see. It's not the right that's stolen,
it's what that right grants the holder.
Same with "material" things. If I steal a car, I'm not stealing the
ownership. For if I could steal ownership by simply stealing a car, I could
go register the car and drive it legally. It doesn't work that way, nobody
claims copyright works that way either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:33:39 -0600, somebody wrote:
> you took away whatever was granted to me in that copyright (i.e. my say
> about the conditions of copying of my work).
That's called "infringement", not "theft".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:49:48 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:33:39 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> you took away whatever was granted to me in that copyright (i.e. my say
>> about the conditions of copying of my work).
>
> That's called "infringement", not "theft".
And your right wasn't taken away, otherwise you wouldn't be able to sue
the infringer for infringement, since you'd no longer have that right.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0d91d6$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Once again, tell me what I took of yours that you no longer have when I
>> violate your copyright.
>
> For the nth time, you took away whatever was granted to me in that copyright
> (i.e. my say about the conditions of copying of my work).
So you no longer have your say about the conditions of copying my work? If I
took that away, and you no longer have it, then what gives you the ability
to come after me for copyright infringement?
>> As long as you keep changing the question in order
>> to avoid answering it,
>
> I've answered it several times, but you neither acknowledge nor counter it.
And I'm trying to explain why your answer is wrong.
--
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 wrote:
>> I can have a compilation copyright on a collection of individually
>> copyrighted stories, if you want to talk about prose, yes?
>
> Yes, provided that you have acquired the rights to the individual stories
> from the authors/publishers of the individual stories.
Yes, but obviously I'm talking about the case where you didn't aquire those
licenses.
Anyway, I don't know that I'm knowlegable enough to resolve this, so I'll
defer it to you.
>> Right. But without the license, they can't make copies even tho they
>> hold the compilation copyright.
>
> Well, no, because the compilation copyright would be infringing on the
> rights of the individual "contributors", so it wouldn't be a valid
> copyright.
Sure it would. I can put together five of your stories and call it a
compilation. I don't get to publish it, because I didn't get a license from
you. You don't get to take my work, tho, and make copies either.
> Well, no, you have multiple entities with copyrighted content in the
> work, and if the "compiler" of the works doesn't seek permission to use
> them, then their copyright is invalid for the work as a whole (it would
> be valid for the parts they created or got rights to use), but if they
> don't have clear use rights to all of the content in their work, then
> they can't distribute it.
I'm not sure that invalidates the copyright, tho. I think it just means they
don't have license to publish it, and I think that's a separate thing.
I could be wrong, tho.
> By definition, the "exclusive" means "not shared". If someone creates a
> work based on mine (a "derivative work"), the copyright they hold to that
> derivative work is contingent upon my granting them the rights to use my
> work (or a portion thereof where it's not covered by fair use doctrine).
See, I don't think that's the case. I think they can apply for and obtain a
copyright on the work, and I think that *you* don't have the copyright on
their derivative work.
If you write a series of stories about Meteor Man, and then I write a new
story about Meteor Man without your permission, who owns the copyright on
*my* story, if anyone? You? It's my story. Me? It's your character.
Nobody? It's public domain and you can't control the copying. Both of us?
Neither of us can publish without the other's permission, which I think is
the right answer.
> While I don't disagree that it is complicated by international
> boundaries, I think there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to the
> question of "is copyright infringement theft?".
Possibly. I think the US supreme court has indeed said that copyright
infringement isn't 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:21:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Yes, but obviously I'm talking about the case where you didn't aquire
> those licenses.
In those cases, then your copyright wouldn't be valid because it contains
infringing material (at least at the points at which there is infringing
material).
> Anyway, I don't know that I'm knowlegable enough to resolve this, so
> I'll defer it to you.
I was thinking the same thing (ie, that I don't know that I'm
knowledgeable enough to resolve this). :-)
>> Well, no, because the compilation copyright would be infringing on the
>> rights of the individual "contributors", so it wouldn't be a valid
>> copyright.
>
> Sure it would. I can put together five of your stories and call it a
> compilation. I don't get to publish it, because I didn't get a license
> from you. You don't get to take my work, tho, and make copies either.
"As soon as a work is created and is in a tangible form (such as writing
or taping) the work automatically has federal copyright protection. On
any distributed and/or published work a notice should be affixed stating
the word copyright, copy or ©, with the name of the creator and the date
of copyright (which is the year of first publication)."
...Hmmm, OK, I guess that agrees with what you're saying. :-)
>> Well, no, you have multiple entities with copyrighted content in the
>> work, and if the "compiler" of the works doesn't seek permission to use
>> them, then their copyright is invalid for the work as a whole (it would
>> be valid for the parts they created or got rights to use), but if they
>> don't have clear use rights to all of the content in their work, then
>> they can't distribute it.
>
> I'm not sure that invalidates the copyright, tho. I think it just means
> they don't have license to publish it, and I think that's a separate
> thing.
>
> I could be wrong, tho.
Indeed, we both could be. :-)
>> By definition, the "exclusive" means "not shared". If someone creates
>> a work based on mine (a "derivative work"), the copyright they hold to
>> that derivative work is contingent upon my granting them the rights to
>> use my work (or a portion thereof where it's not covered by fair use
>> doctrine).
>
> See, I don't think that's the case. I think they can apply for and
> obtain a copyright on the work, and I think that *you* don't have the
> copyright on their derivative work.
I think we're saying the same thing. A license to use copyrighted
material isn't the same as transfer of the copyright. Their right to
distribute (which is a right I can confer by my ownership of the
copyright) their derivative work is dependent on my granting them a
license to use my work within theirs.
> If you write a series of stories about Meteor Man, and then I write a
> new story about Meteor Man without your permission, who owns the
> copyright on *my* story, if anyone? You? It's my story. Me? It's your
> character. Nobody? It's public domain and you can't control the copying.
> Both of us? Neither of us can publish without the other's permission,
> which I think is the right answer.
I see what you're saying. You would own the right on the story, but the
rights holders for the character would be able to shut you down. Similar
in some ways to the book that was released about something in the Harry
Potter universe which Rowling sued over.
>> While I don't disagree that it is complicated by international
>> boundaries, I think there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to the
>> question of "is copyright infringement theft?".
>
> Possibly. I think the US supreme court has indeed said that copyright
> infringement isn't theft.
:-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0dafef$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:49:48 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:33:39 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >
> >> you took away whatever was granted to me in that copyright (i.e. my say
> >> about the conditions of copying of my work).
> >
> > That's called "infringement", not "theft".
>
> And your right wasn't taken away, otherwise you wouldn't be able to sue
> the infringer for infringement, since you'd no longer have that right.
So it's not theft when someone takes my car without my permission because I
can get it back if he is apprehended, as my ownership wasn't really taken
away?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:20:26 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0dafef$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:49:48 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:33:39 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> >
>> >> you took away whatever was granted to me in that copyright (i.e. my
>> >> say about the conditions of copying of my work).
>> >
>> > That's called "infringement", not "theft".
>>
>> And your right wasn't taken away, otherwise you wouldn't be able to sue
>> the infringer for infringement, since you'd no longer have that right.
>
> So it's not theft when someone takes my car without my permission
> because I can get it back if he is apprehended, as my ownership wasn't
> really taken away?
I've explained the difference several times, and will not explain it
again. You can go back and reread what I've written previously.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a0db0fb@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a0d91d6$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> Once again, tell me what I took of yours that you no longer have when I
> >> violate your copyright.
> >
> > For the nth time, you took away whatever was granted to me in that
copyright
> > (i.e. my say about the conditions of copying of my work).
> So you no longer have your say about the conditions of copying my work? If
I
> took that away, and you no longer have it, then what gives you the ability
> to come after me for copyright infringement?
OK, since couple people here have the same difficulty, let me type it slower
this time so it can be understood:
You own a car.
I take it away without your permission.
Is it theft?
Let's follow your reasoning above:
You say no. Because, you claim, the fact that you can come after me (or that
the police will return the car to you if I am apprehended) means you still
own the car. And since you still own the car, it's not been stolen, there's
no theft.
Do you seriously not see the fallacy?
Yes I cannot remove your legal right to owning the car by illegal means
(i.e. via stealing) [*]. You are still the rightful owner (sans
liabilities). However, you no longer have the ability to exercise your right
of ownership, you cannot enjoy the benefit of ownership.
It's exactly the same situation with copyright. I did not wish for you to
have copies of my work, and I had the right to not have you copies of my
work. You have illegally taken away my ability to exercise those benefits
and rights. What is being taken away is not the piece of paper (car title or
copyright statement), but whatever rights are granted to the rightful owner
*on* that piece of paper.
> >> As long as you keep changing the question in order
> >> to avoid answering it,
> > I've answered it several times, but you neither acknowledge nor counter
it.
> And I'm trying to explain why your answer is wrong.
You'll have to try harder.
[*] I could of course forge the documents, serial number... etc, just as one
can forge IP papers. But that's a different topic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:36:31 -0600, somebody wrote:
> OK, since couple people here have the same difficulty, let me type it
> slower this time so it can be understood:
>
> You own a car.
>
> I take it away without your permission.
>
> Is it theft?
>
> Let's follow your reasoning above:
>
> You say no. Because, you claim, the fact that you can come after me (or
> that the police will return the car to you if I am apprehended) means
> you still own the car. And since you still own the car, it's not been
> stolen, there's no theft.
>
> Do you seriously not see the fallacy?
The removal of the car constitutes theft because the physical object is
no longer there and the owner can no longer exercise their rights as the
owner.
Copying *content* does not constitute theft because there is no physical
object that has been removed. The copyright holder CAN continue to
exercise their rights as the copyright holder.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0dc4f4$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:36:31 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > OK, since couple people here have the same difficulty, let me type it
> > slower this time so it can be understood:
> >
> > You own a car.
> >
> > I take it away without your permission.
> >
> > Is it theft?
> >
> > Let's follow your reasoning above:
> >
> > You say no. Because, you claim, the fact that you can come after me (or
> > that the police will return the car to you if I am apprehended) means
> > you still own the car. And since you still own the car, it's not been
> > stolen, there's no theft.
> >
> > Do you seriously not see the fallacy?
> The removal of the car constitutes theft because the physical object is
> no longer there and the owner can no longer exercise their rights as the
> owner.
Ah, I see. That argument hit a dead end, so we are back to square one with
the arbitrary "non-physical" defense.
> Copying *content* does not constitute theft because there is no physical
> object that has been removed.
I don't know if you are aware, but you are talking about two different
things here: Removal and physicality, and one doesn't necessarily imply the
other. Let's first try to clarify this. Consider, for instance that
I have a personal file on my drive (maybe addresses, passwords, phone
numbers.. etc, or it can also be the sourcecode of my application that I
sell - in any case, something that's clearly of value to me and that I do
not wish to share with others). If you copy that file for your use without
my permission, would you consider it theft if
1a) ... you keep the original on my disk?
1b) ... delete the original?
For the second part, imagine that I have a physical binder with printed
sheets of the same content. Would you consider it theft to
2a) ... use a digital camera to take snapshots of all pages?
2b) ... simply walk away with it?
If you consider 2b theft, would you downgrade it to something else (what?)
if you later learn that
2b1) ... I have an exact backup copy of the binder somewhere else?
Please provide simple, straight answers, so we can engage in a meaningful
discussion for the next step.
I am aware this is not necessarily about copyright specifically but about
intellectual property in general. It's s such by design, because I want to
clarify the criteria of "removal" and "physicality" that you use for the
general case first.
> The copyright holder CAN continue to
> exercise their rights as the copyright holder.
Since their very right was being in control over copying of the *content*,
over which they lost control (with respect to one party at least) how can
they be said to be exercising their right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:42:27 -0600, somebody wrote:
> Ah, I see. That argument hit a dead end, so we are back to square one
> with the arbitrary "non-physical" defense.
<sigh> I see no point in continuing this discussion. I've explained it
several times already, and you refuse to understand. Don't know how I
can explain it any more simply.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> So it's not theft when someone takes my car without my permission because I
> can get it back if he is apprehended, as my ownership wasn't really taken
> away?
You can stretch the analogy all you want. That doesn't mean it's a good idea
to do so.
In the USA at least, copyright infringement isn't 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:4a0e0037$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:42:27 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > Ah, I see. That argument hit a dead end, so we are back to square one
> > with the arbitrary "non-physical" defense.
> <sigh> I see no point in continuing this discussion. I've explained it
> several times already, and you refuse to understand. Don't know how I
> can explain it any more simply.
How about answering the four or five questions I asked above with simple yes
or no?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/15/2009 9:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Where the record labels, MPAA, etc get into "stealing" is not the
> stealing of the work, but they contend that every time someone infringes
> their copyright, they are denied profits (ie, the profits are stolen).
>
> In order for that argument to hold water, you have to assume that
> everyone who infringes the copyright of the rights holder would have paid
> for the product, otherwise there's no theft of profits (since there would
> have been no purchase made without the infringement).
This makes me wonder if a person who has downloaded, say, 100,000,000
songs off the internet without paying for them, was sued, could they
defend themselves by saying they wouldn't have paid for the music anyway?
Certainly they would still be guilty of copyright infringement, but I
don't think there would be any theft involved.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/15/2009 12:36 PM, somebody wrote:
> You own a car.
> I take it away without your permission.
> Is it theft?
>
> Let's follow your reasoning above:
Let's look at this with a better example, since cars are such a poor
analogy (they aren't generally covered by copyrights).
You purchase (legally!) a CD of my music.
You make a copy (illegally!) of said CD.
Is it theft?
No. Because you haven't taken anything away from me.
I originally owned the copyright. I still own the copyright. You
didn't take it.
I never owned the copy of the CD you purchased. So that isn't theft either.
I still retain the copyright after you have made your copy. Nothing has
been taken away from me, so it isn't theft.
It IS infringement of the copyright, and I CAN sue you for it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/15/2009 9:13 AM, Darren New wrote:
> A
> license gives you permission to make copies, not copyright.
Speaking of licenses, my favorite definition of a license is "a promise
not to sue." :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 5/15/2009 9:13 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> A
>> license gives you permission to make copies, not copyright.
>
> Speaking of licenses, my favorite definition of a license is "a promise
> not to sue." :)
Surprisingly, laws work a lot better when you actually make them more like
math. When you say "this law cancels that law", it works better than when
you say "this law allows X" or "that law prohibits Y." In part, because if
you have "allows" then you have an implicit denial (the exception proves the
rule). And if you have "prohibits" then it doesn't really prohibit - it just
allows you to recover some sort of damages.
--
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 Fri, 15 May 2009 20:04:21 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> This makes me wonder if a person who has downloaded, say, 100,000,000
> songs off the internet without paying for them, was sued, could they
> defend themselves by saying they wouldn't have paid for the music
> anyway?
I can honestly say that I wouldn't want to be the test case for that,
because it'd be difficult to prove that they wouldn't have.
Well, scratch that, it might be easy to prove - look at their income,
look at how much the songs would retail for, and see if they could
possibly have afforded it.
> Certainly they would still be guilty of copyright infringement, but I
> don't think there would be any theft involved.
Theft probably would be difficult to prove, infringement would be easy
enough to prove and given the ability to have unreasonable punitive
damages assigned for the infringement activity, any theft charge - even
if proven - would be inconsequential. The infringement charges would be
more than enough to bankrupt the perp.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:14:52 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0e0037$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:42:27 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> > Ah, I see. That argument hit a dead end, so we are back to square one
>> > with the arbitrary "non-physical" defense.
>
>> <sigh> I see no point in continuing this discussion. I've explained
>> it several times already, and you refuse to understand. Don't know how
>> I can explain it any more simply.
>
> How about answering the four or five questions I asked above with simple
> yes or no?
Because we've been round and round on the same topic already. Answering
the questions is not a matter of a "simple yes or no" because you will
then ask questions about my answers and the cycle will start all over
again.
And I'm tired of repeating myself.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> It's exactly the same situation with copyright. I did not wish for you to
> have copies of my work, and I had the right to not have you copies of my
> work. You have illegally taken away my ability to exercise those benefits
> and rights. What is being taken away is not the piece of paper (car title or
> copyright statement), but whatever rights are granted to the rightful owner
> *on* that piece of paper.
Hmm... So let's say that I administer a gym run by the city (it's
public). I don't like you, so I don't let you in. I have illegally taken
away your ability to exercise your benefits and rights.
Is that theft?
I don't serve a white person in my restaurant because of his race. Is
that theft?
--
Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming
only things that are good for you.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> This makes me wonder if a person who has downloaded, say, 100,000,000
> songs off the internet without paying for them, was sued, could they
> defend themselves by saying they wouldn't have paid for the music anyway?
Downloading is one thing. Sharing is another. If he did both (and
that's how it works with most p2p), then that excuse has little bearing.
--
Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming
only things that are good for you.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a0ecfce$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > It's exactly the same situation with copyright. I did not wish for you
to
> > have copies of my work, and I had the right to not have you copies of my
> > work. You have illegally taken away my ability to exercise those
benefits
> > and rights. What is being taken away is not the piece of paper (car
title or
> > copyright statement), but whatever rights are granted to the rightful
owner
> > *on* that piece of paper.
> Hmm... So let's say that I administer a gym run by the city (it's
> public). I don't like you, so I don't let you in. I have illegally taken
> away your ability to exercise your benefits and rights.
>
> Is that theft?
No because it doesn't involve anything I own.
> I don't serve a white person in my restaurant because of his race. Is
> that theft?
No because it doesn't involve anything I own.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
