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