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