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