 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
"’I wonder who this ship belongs to anyways,’ said Arthur.
‘Me,’ said Zaphod.
‘No. Who it really belongs to.’
‘Really me,’ insisted Zaphod, ‘look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft
is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?’"
- 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
I think if you stretched it, that might work if you were stealing his
copyright. But you're not. You're "stealing" a copy of the copyrighted
material. The copyright itself still rests with the original owner, which is
why you can be sued for violating it.
Copyright infringement is no more "theft" than violating your software's
license agreement is. Which is not to say it's a good thing. It's just a
different class of things.
If people insist on calling copyright violation "theft", it becomes very
difficult to come up with a reasonable balance of privileges between the
copyright holder and the licensee. Fair use makes no sense in the "copying
is theft" area, nor does limited time copyrights, nor moral rights. Calling
copyright "theft" is like calling prostitution "rape".
--
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 Wed, 13 May 2009 11:30:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Copyright is the property of someone, and copying something without
> his
> permission is taking that property from him.
"Copyright" technically isn't property, it's a set of rules concerning
the rights of the content owners.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"The exclusive right given by law for a certain term of years to an
author, composer, designer, etc. (or his assignee), to print, publish,
and sell copies of his original work."
IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
Then "copyright owner" is also wrong?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
> Then "copyright owner" is also wrong?
Not at all. The "owner" is the one who holds the rights to determine who
is permitted to make copies.
"property" (in this sense) is generally regarded to be something
physical. Rights aren't physical. But it is possible to own both
physical things (e.g. a desk) and things that do not have physical form
(e.g. copyrights).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0b24a4$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:30:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
> > Copyright is the property of someone, and copying something without
> > his
> > permission is taking that property from him.
>
> "Copyright" technically isn't property, it's a set of rules concerning
> the rights of the content owners.
>
> From the Oxford English Dictionary:
>
> "The exclusive right given by law for a certain term of years to an
> author, composer, designer, etc. (or his assignee), to print, publish,
> and sell copies of his original work."
>
> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
Why the term "intellectual property"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
> Then "copyright owner" is also wrong?
That's why it's "copyright holder", AFAIK.
BTW, "'theft' doesn't fit, and 'copyright violation' is too unwieldy" pretty
much sounds to me like someone trying to make a Beeblebrox-type of argument.
Something like, "we don't have a proper name for it, so it can't be outlawed."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/13/2009 1:52 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
> Why the term "intellectual property"?
Because the very idea is so vague that they had to invent a new term for it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/13/2009 1:56 PM, clipka wrote:
> Something like, "we don't have a proper name for it, so it can't be outlawed."
My original point, of course, is subtly (yet importantly!) different
from this.
More like, "We don't have a proper name for it, so we need a new name
rather than bastardizing an existing one."
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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.
*All* rights are abstract, in that there is no physical connection
between any person and that to which he has a right. This is one of the
chief excuses used by some to violate them; for want of some cosmic
umbilical cord connecting some man with his property, they claim that he
"really" has no right to it, and feel entitled to take it for some
noble-sounding purpose.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:38 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
> Why the term "intellectual property"?
Marketing + Lawyering = occasionally stupid terminology
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 5/13/2009 1:56 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Something like, "we don't have a proper name for it, so it can't be outlawed."
>
> My original point, of course, is subtly (yet importantly!) different
> from this.
>
> More like, "We don't have a proper name for it, so we need a new name
> rather than bastardizing an existing one."
>
> --
> ...Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
The re-use of terms where a new term's coining is warranted has always driven me
crazy. Usually the word with with the racier connotations leads people to avoid
the word to express the non-racy meaning. E.g. Thong.
I also had a great example of a new term which did *not* need coining, but I
can't think of it right at the moment.
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0c391a$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:38 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
> > Why the term "intellectual property"?
> Marketing + Lawyering = occasionally stupid terminology
I don't think it's stupid at all, unless you consider "ownership" as a whole
stupid. You do own the copyright (or patent or trademark... etc ), whichever
way you look at it, so it's natural to speak of those things as "property".
"Property" vs "right" is a false dichotomy - they are not in the same class:
Ownership *is* a right, property is something that you own. Sure, one can
easily imagine utopic (or tribal) societies where private ownership doesn't
exist as a right at all. But in most modern societies, it exists as such
(though not unlimited, i.e. there are certain things, material or
immaterial, that you cannot own). When you violate that right of an owner,
it's theft. 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:43:08 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0c391a$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:38 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> >> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
>> > Why the term "intellectual property"?
>
>> Marketing + Lawyering = occasionally stupid terminology
>
> I don't think it's stupid at all,
You're entitled to that view. I wasn't calling the concept stupid, I was
calling the name stupid. Big difference.
> unless you consider "ownership" as a
> whole stupid. You do own the copyright (or patent or trademark... etc ),
> whichever way you look at it, so it's natural to speak of those things
> as "property".
I don't think so. It's a right (ie, the right to control), not an object
or thing.
> "Property" vs "right" is a false dichotomy - they are not in the same
> class:
Precisely. But in the above quoted section (up two), you conflate the
two concepts.
> 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, violation of rights is a violation
of rights. Theft is very explicitly "the act of stealing; the wrongful
taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of another;
larceny."
From a legal definitions standpoint, larceny is "the crime of taking the
goods of another person without permission (usually secretly), with the
intent of keeping them."
In other words, if I steal a book from a bookstore, I have no intention
of returning it. The bookstore's inventory is -1 book.
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.
> 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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> When you violate that right of an owner, it's theft.
Can you back that assertion up? Because for the rest of the world, that just
isn't true. Or is this Prove By Repeated Assertion?
If a cop hits you over the head unnecessarily, is that 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" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0c8644$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:43:08 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a0c391a$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:38 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >
> >> >> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
> >
> >> > Why the term "intellectual property"?
> >
> >> Marketing + Lawyering = occasionally stupid terminology
> >
> > I don't think it's stupid at all,
>
> You're entitled to that view. I wasn't calling the concept stupid, I was
> calling the name stupid. Big difference.
>
> > unless you consider "ownership" as a
> > whole stupid. You do own the copyright (or patent or trademark... etc ),
> > whichever way you look at it, so it's natural to speak of those things
> > as "property".
>
> I don't think so. It's a right (ie, the right to control), not an object
> or thing.
>
> > "Property" vs "right" is a false dichotomy - they are not in the same
> > class:
>
> Precisely. But in the above quoted section (up two), you conflate the
> two concepts.
>
> > 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.
> 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.
> 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 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.
> taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of another;
> larceny."
Intellectual property is, well, property.
> 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.
I might claim cars are not property, since I believe they should not be
owned. 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.
> > 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.
Physicality doesn't matter. It's not godgiven that all physical things, and
only physical things can be owned - in fact, both statements are false.
People make up the rules.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Unless the right happens to be ownership right. Then violation of that right
> is theft.
Copyright isn't an ownership right. It's a right to prevent others from copying.
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?
Fred still owns the copyright. I still own the copy I bought. Fred knows
nothing about the new copy I just made, and indeed it may even be legal for
me to have made that copy even if copyright is enforced as it is in the USA.
So what does Fred own that I stole by making the copy?
>> Theft is very explicitly "the act of stealing;
>
> What is theft? Stealing. What is stealing? Theft. Dictionaries are not
> useful to explain the why.
Law dictionaries are, if you're talking about legal terms.
> Intellectual property is, well, property.
Not really. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate word for it.
> You may of course disagree. But so long as the law states that people can
> own copyrights, patents or trademarsks, they are property.
Yep. They're property. But nobody is talking about stealing copyrights,
trademarks, or patents.
> 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.
You're confusing the ownership of the copyright with the ownership of the
individual copies of the protected work. You're arguing that since a
copyright can be owned, making a copy of a protected work is theft. You're
mistaken in that.
Now, you can continue to insist that were you right, copyright violation
would be theft, but that's not really an interesting argument.
--
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 <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.
The car may be a physical object, but ownership is nothing physical. Only
posession is.
So even ownership of a car is an artificial construct.
Interestingly, there's not much debate that this particular artificial construct
is valid, and that taking possession of a currently unposessed car (i.e. one
which momemtarily has no person in the driver's seat) without consent of the
owner is generally theft.
So why should the artificial construct of ownership be invalid just because the
owned thing is something immaterial?
Of course with immaterial things, the definition of theft depends on a
definition of "posession of something" in this context: If you defined it
negatively as "deying others the benefit of the thing" or the like, copying
would not be theft. However, if you define it positively along the lines of
"taking benefit of the thing", unlicensed copying typically does fit the bill
of theft very well.
Everything else is not a question of legality, but one of moral: Is it ok for
the owner of a thing to deny others posession if it can be posessed by multiple
persons simultaneously?
But this question is beyond the scope of law & order. It is instead in the scope
of the "making" of laws.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Intellectual property is, well, property.
> Not really. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate word for it.
Intellectual property is a subset of property.
Just as red oaks are a subset of oak trees, or prime numbers a subset of
numbers.
But it's more specific, so there's a separate word for it.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> So even ownership of a car is an artificial construct.
Yep.
> Interestingly, there's not much debate that this particular artificial construct
> is valid, and that taking possession of a currently unposessed car (i.e. one
> which momemtarily has no person in the driver's seat) without consent of the
> owner is generally theft.
Yep.
> So why should the artificial construct of ownership be invalid just because the
> owned thing is something immaterial?
Because nobody is taking what the copyright holder owns. I'm not sure why
you think that's a difficult question.
What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away
when I copy a CD?
> Of course with immaterial things, the definition of theft depends on a
> definition of "posession of something" in this context: If you defined it
> negatively as "deying others the benefit of the thing" or the like, copying
> would not be theft. However, if you define it positively along the lines of
> "taking benefit of the thing", unlicensed copying typically does fit the bill
> of theft very well.
So does trespassing. That isn't theft either.
It's not *I* who defined theft as "denying others the benefit of the thing."
It's the people who defined theft that defined it as "denying others the
benefit of the thing." At least in the USA. You seem to think it's a
matter of opinion how the laws are written. Good luck with that if you ever
get caught doing something illegal. :-)
Does your country define theft differently?
> Everything else is not a question of legality,
We're talking about legality. We're not arguing that copying copyrighted
information is good. We're arguing that it's not theft, and that trying to
prevent people from doing that with the same mechanisms that prevent theft
is doomed to fail.
--
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:
> somebody wrote:
> > Unless the right happens to be ownership right. Then violation of that right
> > is theft.
>
> Copyright isn't an ownership right. It's a right to prevent others from copying.
Well, I guess it's the *right to copy* (hence the name), which you can *own*. If
you do own it, it is your exclusive right to decide who can execute and
therefore benefit from this right. Like it is your exclusive right to decide
who can drive and therefore benefit from a car that you own.
> 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.
(BTW, in Germany, AFAIK (IANAL) theft is actually not defined as "taking away
somehting from someone without their consent" or some such, but (roughly) along
the lines of "handling something in a way that is normally up to the owner to
decide, without their consent"; so for instance, immobilizing my neighbor's car
with a Denver Boot would be theft, even though I don't physically take the car
away - because under normal circumstances it is the owner's right to decide
whether to immobilize the car or not)
I guess the problem of understanding copyright is rooted in the conceptual
difference between ownership and posession. And that stealing from a copyright
owner is not stealing his work, but taking away from him the exclusive
privilege to decide what happens with it.
> > Intellectual property is, well, property.
>
> Not really. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate word for it.
That's not very logical. In the same manner you could argue that a sledge hammer
is not a hammer. But I guess we all agree that it is, and that it's just a
special kind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > So even ownership of a car is an artificial construct.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Interestingly, there's not much debate that this particular artificial construct
> > is valid, and that taking possession of a currently unposessed car (i.e. one
> > which momemtarily has no person in the driver's seat) without consent of the
> > owner is generally theft.
>
> Yep.
>
> > So why should the artificial construct of ownership be invalid just because the
> > owned thing is something immaterial?
>
> Because nobody is taking what the copyright holder owns. I'm not sure why
> you think that's a difficult question.
Heh, wait - that's not the answer to my question. I didn't ask about copyright
in particular there, just anything immaterial.
Besides, I don't think it's a difficult question. I think it's quite an easy
one, and absolutely rhethoric in nature, and expect the answer "it's no
different".
BTW, here's the catch again: Theft is not necessarily about physically taking
something somebody else owns.
That's how it is in the US, and that's how it is in Germany.
> What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away
> when I copy a CD?
That question is totally off the mark, and shows the problem: Ownership and
possession are too often mixed up. The question should instead be, "What does
the copyright holder own, as a SOMETHING HE OWNS, that I'm taking away when I
copy a CD?" (emphasis added).
Or, to pose a different question to highlight the problem:
"What does a car owner own, as a possession(!), that I'm taking away when I
drive off with the car he parked?"
As he's not in *possession* of the car while he's away from it, the answer is
"nothing" - and still it's theft beyond doubt, because he still retains the
ownership.
> > Of course with immaterial things, the definition of theft depends on a
> > definition of "posession of something" in this context: If you defined it
> > negatively as "deying others the benefit of the thing" or the like, copying
> > would not be theft. However, if you define it positively along the lines of
> > "taking benefit of the thing", unlicensed copying typically does fit the bill
> > of theft very well.
>
> So does trespassing. That isn't theft either.
I file this under "nitpicking", and won't even try to go into detail why
trespassing doesn't really fit the bill.
> It's not *I* who defined theft as "denying others the benefit of the thing."
> It's the people who defined theft that defined it as "denying others the
> benefit of the thing." At least in the USA. You seem to think it's a
> matter of opinion how the laws are written. Good luck with that if you ever
> get caught doing something illegal. :-)
You obviously got me wrong here.
> Does your country define theft differently?
Apparently, yes.
But also note that if I copy something without consent of the copyright holder,
I *am* denying him the benefit of *the copyright* - which is to decide who is
allowed to copy and who isn't. Although this benefit, again, is immaterial in
nature, it is a benefit nonetheless, and may well be "converted" into a
"classic" monetary benefit; for instance, the copyright holder might want to
demand incredibly high license fees, which he may be unable to obtain if too
many people make unauthorized copies; or he may want to exercise his right to
prevent any copying at all, in favor of a similar work he expects to sell at a
better margin.
> We're arguing that it's not theft, and that trying to
> prevent people from doing that with the same mechanisms that prevent theft
> is doomed to fail.
Well, *you* are arguing to this end. I'm arguing that you're wrong :P
And I think that as soon as the difference between ownership and possession is
sorted out, and likewise what exactly is taken away in a copyright
infringement, it is compelling that it *is* theft after all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> you do own it, it is your exclusive right to decide who can execute and
> therefore benefit from this right.
No, that's not correct either.
>> 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.
And, as I've said, copyright isn't the right to give people permission to
make copies. It's the right to stop people from making copies. 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.
> I guess the problem of understanding copyright is rooted in the conceptual
> difference between ownership and posession.
No, it's not.
> 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.
> And that stealing from a copyright
> owner is not stealing his work, but taking away from him the exclusive
> privilege to decide what happens with it.
Sure. It varies in different countries, as you say. But at least in the USA,
it's not theft. Nor is it *like* theft.
>>> Intellectual property is, well, property.
>> Not really. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate word for it.
>
> That's not very logical. In the same manner you could argue that a sledge hammer
> is not a hammer. But I guess we all agree that it is, and that it's just a
> special kind.
I said "not really", not "not at all." Intellectual property, tangible
property, and real property are all three kinds of property. It makes no
more sense to say "I stole your copyright by making a copy" than it does to
say "I stole your house by walking through it without permission."
--
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:
>>> So why should the artificial construct of ownership be invalid just because the
>>> owned thing is something immaterial?
>> Because nobody is taking what the copyright holder owns. I'm not sure why
>> you think that's a difficult question.
>
> Heh, wait - that's not the answer to my question. I didn't ask about copyright
> in particular there, just anything immaterial.
It depends on what kind of immaterial. If you want to change the question
and start saying rape is "theft of virginity" and trespassing is "theft of
... whatever", then you're going to start sounding like the libertarians[1].
> Besides, I don't think it's a difficult question. I think it's quite an easy
> one, and absolutely rhethoric in nature, and expect the answer "it's no
> different".
The difference isn't whether it's material or not. The difference is whether
I've affected you by doing what I did. Copyright isn't theft not because
copyright is immaterial, but because I didn't take anything away from you
that you had before, material or not.
> BTW, here's the catch again: Theft is not necessarily about physically taking
> something somebody else owns.
Well, sorry, but it is in the US. Maybe not in Germany.
All the more reason not to assert that copyright violation "is" theft. :-)
>> What does the copyright holder own, as a possession, that I'm taking away
>> when I copy a CD?
>
> That question is totally off the mark, and shows the problem: Ownership and
> possession are too often mixed up. The question should instead be, "What does
> the copyright holder own, as a SOMETHING HE OWNS, that I'm taking away when I
> copy a CD?" (emphasis added).
OK. What does a copyright holder own before I copy his CD that he doesn't
own after I copy a CD?
>>> Of course with immaterial things, the definition of theft depends on a
>>> definition of "posession of something" in this context: If you defined it
>>> negatively as "deying others the benefit of the thing" or the like, copying
>>> would not be theft. However, if you define it positively along the lines of
>>> "taking benefit of the thing", unlicensed copying typically does fit the bill
>>> of theft very well.
>> So does trespassing. That isn't theft either.
>
> I file this under "nitpicking", and won't even try to go into detail why
> trespassing doesn't really fit the bill.
Why not? I'm taking the benefit of the thing, while you still own it, and
without your permission. I'm not nitpicking, any more than you're nitpicking
by distinguishing possession and ownership.
>> Does your country define theft differently?
> Apparently, yes.
OK.
> But also note that if I copy something without consent of the copyright holder,
> I *am* denying him the benefit of *the copyright* - which is to decide who is
> allowed to copy and who isn't.
In the USA, the copyright holder doesn't get to decide who can make copies,
nor what they can do with them once the copies are made.
>> We're arguing that it's not theft, and that trying to
>> prevent people from doing that with the same mechanisms that prevent theft
>> is doomed to fail.
>
> Well, *you* are arguing to this end. I'm arguing that you're wrong :P
By "we" I meant the people here asserting that copyright violation isn't
"theft".
> And I think that as soon as the difference between ownership and possession is
> sorted out, and likewise what exactly is taken away in a copyright
> infringement, it is compelling that it *is* theft after all.
I disagree. I don't think copyright violation is theft anymore than rape or
trespass is theft.
[1] Libertarians tend to say individuals aren't allowed to initiate force
against another person. But then they define things like copyright
violations and trespass as "force", because they want to make it illegal.
--
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 5/14/2009 4:22 PM, somebody wrote:
>> Theft is very explicitly "the act of stealing;
>
> What is theft? Stealing. What is stealing? Theft. Dictionaries are not
> useful to explain the why.
Did you read my first post? Let me repeat:
"the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
Dictionaries are incredibly useful to explain why.
>> taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of another;
>> larceny."
>
> Intellectual property is, well, property.
Legally, IP is property. However, it has no physical substance and is,
well, rather abstract.
Can you own a number? According to current law you can, which is why my
repeating the hexadecimal number "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63
56 88 C0" is illegal breach of IP.
But it's just a number, and the idea of owning it is as absurd as your
owning the number "7", or Darren's owning the number Pi.
Don't get me wrong, IP is an incredibly useful concept, but the term is
misrepresentative.
> 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.
When have I ever said that IP owners do not actually own their IP? On
the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that, according to current law,
unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material (which is the idea
that started this whole conversation) is illegal.
Perhaps you should read things twice before you respond to them; as the
saying goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
to speak up and remove all doubt."
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/14/2009 7:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> BTW, here's the catch again: Theft is not necessarily about physically
>> taking
>> something somebody else owns.
>
> Well, sorry, but it is in the US. Maybe not in Germany.
>
> All the more reason not to assert that copyright violation "is" theft. :-)
You keep saying things like this, but IANAL, so I'd be interested in
hearing the actual legal definition :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
--
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:
> You keep saying things like this, but IANAL, so I'd be interested in
> hearing the actual legal definition :)
Given that a legal definition was posted as the very first post in the
thread, you should probably scroll up a bit and read 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Legally, real estate is also property. How do you steal it?
I don't know, but I've got a lovely bridge in Brooklyn for sale...
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/14/2009 9:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> You keep saying things like this, but IANAL, so I'd be interested in
>> hearing the actual legal definition :)
>
> Given that a legal definition was posted as the very first post in the
> thread, you should probably scroll up a bit and read it.
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.
[1] As an example, insanity is, I believe, legally defined as the state
of not being accountable for your own decisions and actions. This is
quite a different definition from the common one of, "Does crazy stuff" :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
