 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+theft&btnG=Search
"larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
"the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the
personal goods or property of another; larceny."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft
"a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and
removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner
of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"
It seems to me that theft occurs when you take something from someone
else; the owner is deprived of their property, which the thief then
enjoys possession of.
Unlawful copying doesn't seem to be theft by any of the above
definitions. The owner retains all rights, privileges and perks of the
property.
Of course, the legality of it is a completely different matter. But
this is just another example of how our legal system concerning
copyrights needs to be updated to reflect reality, because calling these
actions theft is just erroneous.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Unlawful copying doesn't seem to be theft by any of the above
> definitions. The owner retains all rights, privileges and perks of the
> property.
Except one major perk: being paid for that copy. Hypothetically,
person A gets paid for their time doing some menial labour that doesn't
create anything (say, being a waiter), then gives some of their money
for a copy of a CD to person B, whose only activity is creating CDs.
When person A makes a copy of the CD without paying for it, person B is
deprived of that money. Of course, it's entirely an artificial system
which revolves around people being given money for doing things which
are completely unnecessary to be done by a person so they can support
the people who do things which can only be done by a person. There are
many jobs out there which could well be automated, but it would result
in billions of people with no job, which is anathema to the status quo.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2009 7:08 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> Except one major perk: being paid for that copy. Hypothetically, person
> A gets paid for their time doing some menial labour that doesn't create
> anything (say, being a waiter), then gives some of their money for a
> copy of a CD to person B, whose only activity is creating CDs. When
> person A makes a copy of the CD without paying for it, person B is
> deprived of that money. Of course, it's entirely an artificial system
> which revolves around people being given money for doing things which
> are completely unnecessary to be done by a person so they can support
> the people who do things which can only be done by a person. There are
> many jobs out there which could well be automated, but it would result
> in billions of people with no job, which is anathema to the status quo.
I never said that it was right, or that there weren't economic
consequences. However, I'm having a harder and harder time seeing it as
"theft."
If anything, we need a new term for it, as "unauthorized copying" is too
unwieldy, and "theft" too inaccurate.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>> It seems to me that theft occurs when you take something from someone
> else; the owner is deprived of their property, which the thief then
> enjoys possession of.
IIRC, it also has to be done with the intention of not returning it. If you
borrow the neighbor's lawnmower, it's technically something other than
theft. IANAL.
> calling these actions theft is just erroneous.
>
calling these actions theft is just propaganda.
FTFY.
--
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 <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+theft&btnG=Search
> "larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
>...
> ...Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+theft&btnG=Search
> "larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
> "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the
> personal goods or property of another; larceny."
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft
> "a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and
> removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner
> of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"
>
> It seems to me that theft occurs when you take something from someone
> else; the owner is deprived of their property, which the thief then
> enjoys possession of.
>
> Unlawful copying doesn't seem to be theft by any of the above
> definitions. The owner retains all rights, privileges and perks of the
> property.
This is because you are interpreting all of these definitions to apply
strictly to physical property.
"Copyright" means the *exclusive* right to make copies. That right is
diminished whenever someone else, without the copyright holder's
permission, makes a copy. Unless corrected, the owner's right is no
longer *exclusive*, and thus he no longer retains all of the rights and
privileges that he had, preceding the violation. He certainly loses
some of the perks, because profiting from the copy is one of these
perks, which is rightfully his.
That's why it's called "copyright" and not "sellright," "takeright,"
"haveright," or other phrases.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/12/2009 4:12 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> "Copyright" means the *exclusive* right to make copies. That right is
> diminished whenever someone else, without the copyright holder's
> permission, makes a copy. Unless corrected, the owner's right is no
> longer *exclusive*, and thus he no longer retains all of the rights and
> privileges that he had, preceding the violation. He certainly loses some
> of the perks, because profiting from the copy is one of these perks,
> which is rightfully his.
>
> That's why it's called "copyright" and not "sellright," "takeright,"
> "haveright," or other phrases.
You're right about the exclusive right no longer being exclusive, of
course, but such a right is really more of a privilege than in inherent
right and rather an abstract concept anyway.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> "Copyright" means the *exclusive* right to make copies.
No it doesn't. It means the non-exclusive right to prevent other people from
making copies. Look it up. :-)
--
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 wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> "Copyright" means the *exclusive* right to make copies.
>
> No it doesn't. It means the non-exclusive right to prevent other people
> from making copies. Look it up. :-)
In particular, that's why you can have the DVD release of a movie held up by
either the studio or the musicians, if the contracts aren't clear. Both
parties have a copyright on the item, and one or the other isn't letting the
other one make copies.
--
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 <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> "a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and
> removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner
> of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"
Copyright is the property of someone, and copying something without his
permission is taking that property from him.
It fits perfectly under the definition of theft.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
