 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:56:27 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
