"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. 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