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