Intellectual Property Law

[Jokodo]

Which opportunity? The opportunity to grant third parties access isn't stolen because the original owner still can do that. The opportunity for doing so exclusively is destroyed but not stolen because neither the perpetrator nor the original owner now has it.

- - - Updated - - -

Theft is a process by which ownership of / control over an item is illegitimately transferred from one person to another. We first have to ask, when you say you consider your book "all 126,780 words" and all your property, do you mean the text, or the exclusive right to control who gets access to the text? It will turn out that in neither case a copyright infringement qualifies for theft, but what exactly it is and whether it is any property crime at all depends on what you claim to own.

If you own the text, than making an illegitimate copy simply is no property crime at all. You still have the text afterwards, and can do with it whatever you were going to do with it without impediment.

If you own the right to control distribution, than arguably piracy is a form of vandalism but still no theft: You had something (ability to exclusively control distribution) which you no longer have - but the perpetrator does not gain that same thing through the act - even if he can now distribute the text, he never will be able to do so exclusively since you still can make copies available to everyone he's unwilling to do business with. It remains vandalism even when it's done commercially: The perpetuator gains something of value, but it's not the thing you lost, which is lost to everybody. An analogy might be burning your house down, filming the event, and getting rich from the page traffic that spectacular video generates. That would be a crime certainly, but theft it is not.

There are valid arguments for copyright, but "it's theft, and just like any other theft" isn't one of them.

The rationalization, "I didn't steal anything from you because what I took can't be protected and what can't be protected, can't be owned," is as good as any.

Good thing then that this has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.

Try again after reading my post maybe?

If your argument was valid, no one would mind if you snuck into a theater without paying for a ticket. The movie still exists.

First of all, I'm not even arguing that copyright and patents and and their enforcement are unjustified or don't serve any purpose. My argument is much more specific: That "intellectual property" is a misleading term because what IP laws attempt to achieve has literally nothing to do with any other kind of property protection. So even if sneaking into a cinema were parallel to downloading a movie, it doesn't follow that "no one would mind".

It isn't parallel though. In one case you take up a seat or block someone else's view etc., thus taking away from their experience or even making them unable to have the same experience. This is quite unlike illegally downloading the film at home and watching it on your own computer, which does not in any way affect other people's experience as they watch the same film. So it is in fact consistent to condemn sneaking into a cinema without condemning illegal downloads, just as it is consistent to condemn both without calling either "theft".

Copyright and patents have an obvious cost and an obvious benefit to society. The cost is that they slow down the distribution of ideas by restricting access. The benefit, to the extent that they are effective in granting creators sufficient revenues from their creative work to allow them to allocate more time to it than they would otherwise be able to, is that they accelerate the production of new ideas. Assuming that we can agree that society benefits most when many new ideas are broadly put to use (and further assuming that there is no workable model that assures the benefit without the cost), the ideal balance will include at least some degree of protection of copyright/patents. But the question of how to find that balance has to be addressed as such, not by appeals to broadly accepted principles of private property, because it has nothing, literally nothing, to do with the latter.

 

[Nexus]

I'm not convinced. I think most of this philosophical wrangling is what one sees when people who consider themselves to be good and moral discover a temptation which comes with little risk.

This is a classic strawman. You won't argue against the legal or philosophical arguments we have put forth about about the nature of intangible property and how one can't be disposed of it, but rather assert we just want to steal shit and not feel guilty.

 

[Bomb#20]

Just because someone argues that a particular course of action is not theft, does not make their argument one of support for that action.

If you were to claim that somebody punching you in the face was theft, then there would be plenty of people here to point out that you are wrong, regardless of whether they condone your being punched in the face, or indeed, punches in the face in general.

If someone buys your book, makes a copy, and sells that copy, then they have done you wrong. But they haven't committed theft, any more than they would have committed theft had they instead punched you in the face.

When you make that argument, keep in mind that you're telling it to the guy who had sex with Jeffrey Epstein's underage sex slave, tried to grab a policeman's gun away from him, and shot Edsel Ford; he's pretty much the forum expert on rationalizing.

 

[Bomb#20]

One must first ask, "what is property"? People are no longer considered (potential) property. Therefore, analogies relating to ANY kind of property and slavery is outdated and irrelevant in a conversation occurring this century.

That's a non sequitur.

Bomb, if not to have Tort Law protect the work others do, for the purpose of making a living, than what should protect such things?

Copyright infringement isn't a tort; where did you get the idea that it is? And what should protect such things is either a government-granted temporary monopoly or else a social program like the National Endowment for the Arts.

Are you proposing that non-physical creations have no ownership rights?

It's not about physical vs. nonphysical. Plenty of non-physical creations can be owned. Shares of corporations, for instance.

If you were in Greece in 800 BC, and a bard came to your village and sang the Iliad, and at the end everyone else cheered and the village gave him a banquet and a few bits of silver, but you stood up and called him a thief and a scoundrel, and told everyone the Iliad rightfully belonged to the son of the late Homer and no one else should be allowed to sing it, you'd get a reputation for being the village idiot.

This might be a good time to remind you of this forum's EULA / ToS. Apparently, you don't 'believe' in them either, since they protect a thing that has no mass.

Apparently you don't believe in reading for content, and instead react to posts by making up a motivation for them out of whole cloth to impute to the other poster.

How about your social security number. It has no physical manifestation... I cannot "steal' it. So, therefore, I can use it however I see fit..

Show your work.

get whatever loans I want with it.. right? If you personally fail to protect it then others have the RIGHT to it... That seems to me to follow from your argument.

It doesn't actually follow. So if it seems to you to follow, then you have abandoned logic.

 

[Togo]

My take on IP infringement, is that it's definitely an infringement on someone else, but to what extent is more problematic. Copying the latest commerical product and selling it is taking money for someone else's work, and that certainly seems wrong. Copying and distributing for free seems less so, although still wrong. It seems like you could come up with some kind of formula for how much you are costing the owner, and I find 'industry estimates' to be grossly overestimated, it seems like some kind of calculation coul produce a reasonable figure. Commerical violation of commerical copyright seems fairly straightforward.

It's the less clear cases that become a problem.

-Copyright is not obtainable.

I came across a computer game based on a book to which the copyright was not held - thus the game had been made in violation of the book's copyright. However, the game was made with the author's permission - the author helped write new marterial for it - and the copyright was held by a defunct company buried in a bankrupcy settlement that had been running for more than a decade. I felt no moral hazard in accepting a copy of the game.

-Copyright is shared or split so as to make gaining effective permission impractical.

Similarly, there's the question of Fanfic. Japanese animation has a large following that make their own music or amateur videos using footage and characters from the original as source material. In Japan these creations enjoy some support from the creators and publishing companies, who see it as promoting interest in their work and boosting sales. However, in the UK the equivalent copyright is held by a company with no such tradition. Should I feel bad for enjoying these videos on the internet? I'm not convinced I should, even though the legal situation is fairly unambiguous.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm not convinced. I think most of this philosophical wrangling is what one sees when people who consider themselves to be good and moral discover a temptation which comes with little risk.

This is a classic strawman. You won't argue against the legal or philosophical arguments we have put forth about about the nature of intangible property and how one can't be disposed of it, but rather assert we just want to steal shit and not feel guilty.

Did I not state my opinion clearly?

The fact that others construct a definition of intangible property which excludes it from the set of things which may be stolen, does not soothe my feelings when I feel someone has stolen from me. If such a person is uncomfortable with the label of thief, they are experiencing that intangible concept known as public morality, in which we care how others view our behavior.

I do call such a person, a thief. It puzzles me to see my opinion of them cause some consternation, as my opinion of what is and isn't my property held so little sway with them.

I have seen the arguments about the nature of intangible property applied in the real world, by friends who use pirated software. They happily admit their motive is to avoid paying for something, yet have use of it. There are various rationalizations, ranging from the Robin Hood Principle(they're rich and I'm poor) to the more pragmatic, "what can they do about it?"

 

[Togo]

This is a classic strawman. You won't argue against the legal or philosophical arguments we have put forth about about the nature of intangible property and how one can't be disposed of it, but rather assert we just want to steal shit and not feel guilty.

Did I not state my opinion clearly?

Yeah, but this is a philosophy board. We're expecting a bit more of substance than just that you feel it ought to be theft, or morally equivalent to theft.

There are several unsubtle differences between theft and copyright infringement, not least the lack of any sense in which possession has been denied to the original owner. Personally, I would have thought you'd feel more injured if someone ran off a couple hundred pirate copies of your book and sold them, than you would if someone stole of three printed copies you happen to have around the house.

 

[Kharakov]

The fact that others construct a definition of intangible property which excludes it from the set of things which may be stolen, does not soothe my feelings when I feel someone has stolen from me. If such a person is uncomfortable with the label of thief, they are experiencing that intangible concept known as public morality, in which we care how others view our behavior.

I do call such a person, a thief. It puzzles me to see my opinion of them cause some consternation, as my opinion of what is and isn't my property held so little sway with them.

I've seen it a lot- people don't like their (perceived) intellectual double standard to be exposed. Otherwise they'd find your calling them a thief amusing.

This doesn't mean the people have an intellectual double standard, they might or might not. In either case they haven't thought their position through and established that they do or do not have an intellectual double standard, which creates cognitive dissonance in someone who has certain beliefs.

 

[Juma]

There are several unsubtle differences between theft and copyright infringement, not least the lack of any sense in which possession has been denied to the original owner.

Having copyright = possession of every usage/sale of copies. If you infringe on my copyright then you rob me of my possession of usage/sale of copies.

I cannot see how this should be so hard to realize.

 

[Bronzeage]

Did I not state my opinion clearly?

Yeah, but this is a philosophy board. We're expecting a bit more of substance than just that you feel it ought to be theft, or morally equivalent to theft.

There are several unsubtle differences between theft and copyright infringement, not least the lack of any sense in which possession has been denied to the original owner. Personally, I would have thought you'd feel more injured if someone ran off a couple hundred pirate copies of your book and sold them, than you would if someone stole of three printed copies you happen to have around the house.

There are degrees in everything and I would be a bit more incensed if there were hundreds of copies stolen, instead of three. I hope nothing I posted gave you a different impression.

That is one of the problems of this philosophical discussions. Except in the case of some software piracies (photoshop $700, etc), the theft under contention is too small to warrant any attempt to recover the loss. When I stand in the street and cry, "Stop thief!" it's pretty close to total impotence, but it's really the extent of my options. Moral persuasion has its limits, especially when it is up against the philosophical precept of "because I can."

It appears people are more concerned with being seen as a thief than any great philosophical concern about the correct behavior when dealing with another person's property.

 

[fast]

Bronzeage, do you consider plagiarism theft?

For instance, if a college kid uses someone else's published and presumably copyrighted work and tries to pass it off as his own (for instance, in a term paper), do you consider their actions the stealing of someone else's work and trying to pass it off as a product of their own effort?

 

[Bronzeage]

Bronzeage, do you consider plagiarism theft?

For instance, if a college kid uses someone else's published and presumably copyrighted work and tries to pass it off as his own (for instance, in a term paper), do you consider their actions the stealing of someone else's work and trying to pass it off as a product of their own effort?

Most plagiarist are only borrowing the words and have all intentions of returning them after finals.

Why would it not be a form of theft? We can always parse the definition until plagiarism is pushed to one side or the other. Maybe we can create a category of microtheft, in which the purloined words are reduced below any countable monetary amount.

 

[fast]

Bronzeage, do you consider plagiarism theft?

For instance, if a college kid uses someone else's published and presumably copyrighted work and tries to pass it off as his own (for instance, in a term paper), do you consider their actions the stealing of someone else's work and trying to pass it off as a product of their own effort?

Most plagiarist are only borrowing the words and have all intentions of returning them after finals.

Why would it not be a form of theft? We can always parse the definition until plagiarism is pushed to one side or the other. Maybe we can create a category of microtheft, in which the purloined words are reduced below any countable monetary amount.

"All intentions of returning them"--that's funny. Yes, there are no intentions for continued use of them, I agree, but just as they can't return them, neither did they literally take them.

 

[Bronzeage]

Most plagiarist are only borrowing the words and have all intentions of returning them after finals.

Why would it not be a form of theft? We can always parse the definition until plagiarism is pushed to one side or the other. Maybe we can create a category of microtheft, in which the purloined words are reduced below any countable monetary amount.

"All intentions of returning them"--that's funny. Yes, there are no intentions for continued use of them, I agree, but just as they can't return them, neither did they literally take them.

That settles it, then. We have to go back and change those forfeited grades and restore the expelled students to good standing.

 

[Jokodo]

"All intentions of returning them"--that's funny. Yes, there are no intentions for continued use of them, I agree, but just as they can't return them, neither did they literally take them.

That settles it, then. We have to go back and change those forfeited grades and restore the expelled students to good standing.

No we don't. Just because it's not theft doesn't imply it's not objectionable. As bilby said earlier: punching you in the face is not theft either.

 

[Jokodo]

There are several unsubtle differences between theft and copyright infringement, not least the lack of any sense in which possession has been denied to the original owner.

Having copyright = possession of every usage/sale of copies. If you infringe on my copyright then you rob me of my possession of usage/sale of copies.

I cannot see how this should be so hard to realize.

If you infringe on my copyright, you don't take away something that previously existed, but you create something that previously didn't exist.

 

[Juma]

Having copyright = possession of every usage/sale of copies. If you infringe on my copyright then you rob me of my possession of usage/sale of copies.

I cannot see how this should be so hard to realize.

If you infringe on my copyright, you don't take away something that previously existed, but you create something that previously didn't exist.

So? If every such oportunity is mine then who creates it doesnt matter.

 

[Jokodo]

If you infringe on my copyright, you don't take away something that previously existed, but you create something that previously didn't exist.

So? If every such oportunity is mine then who creates it doesnt matter.

If I bulldoze your field in the spring, I am doing you wrong (vandalising your property), but I'm not stealing your grain which at this point doesn't exist. Yet by your logic, you'd have more of a case that I do, because you actually have a very reasonable expectation to come into possession of that grain by fall, unlike most of the time with copyright infringements were it is unlikely that most or all of the people who downloaded illegal copies would otherwise have purchased the item at its full cost.

If you want to argue for copyright protection on its own merit, please do so - and I'll probably agree with most of what you say because copyright does have its merits. If you keep equating copyright infringement with theft, you're selling your case under its worth, because that analogy fails on so many levels, and by zooming in on it you make it appear as though there were no independent arguments for copyright.

 

[Jokodo]

If you infringe on my copyright, you don't take away something that previously existed, but you create something that previously didn't exist.

So? If every such oportunity is mine then who creates it doesnt matter.

Negating/destroying an opportunity is not theft, otherwise bulldozing your field in the spring would be the same as stealing your grain in the fall, which it isn't (although both are wrongs), and marrying a woman in 2007 who found you quite attractive when she met you in 2014 would be the same as running off with your wife.

 

[Juma]

So? If every such oportunity is mine then who creates it doesnt matter.

Negating/destroying an opportunity is not theft, otherwise bulldozing your field in the spring would be the same as stealing your grain in the fall, which it isn't (although both are wrongs), and marrying a woman in 2007 who found you quite attractive when she met you in 2014 would be the same as running off with your wife.

But this example has nothing to do with what I am saying. You planting my seeds in my land and take the harvest is a better but still not correct example.