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