Intellectual Property Law

[Jokodo]

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.

It has everything to do with what you're saying. You're saying copyright infringement is theft because it's taking away an opportunity, so I provided examples of taking away an opportunity that are unambiguously not theft, which highlights a crucial flaw in your logic.

You can keep arguing that it's wrong, and I may not even disagree. You can even keep arguing that it's theft, but you'll have to think of something better than "it's taking away, e.g. stealing, an opportunity, that alone makes it theft".

 

[Togo]

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.

Nonsense. Most copyright holders don't even make their own copies, let alone 'possess' them. The legal right to make copies is something they can or can't dpo, or grant permission for. It's not an object they have lying around the house.

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

How? In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before? What exactly have you lost?

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

People shouldn't have to 'realise' it, it should logically inescapable from your arguments.

 

[Juma]

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

Since i have the copyright then I have the right to decide if a copy may be made. That decision is taken from me.

 

[fast]

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

Since i have the copyright then I have the right to decide if a copy may be made. That decision is taken from me.

Your decision isn't being taken away. It's just not being honored.

 

[Juma]

Since i have the copyright then I have the right to decide if a copy may be made. That decision is taken from me.

Your decision isn't being taken away. It's just not being honored.

Yes. The agreement that connects my decision to what actually happens to that copy is taken from me. Not the official right but the factual, and abstract, implementation of it.

 

[fast]

Your decision isn't being taken away. It's just not being honored.

Yes. The agreement that connects my decision to what actually happens to that copy is taken from me. Not the official right but the factual, and abstract, implementation of it.

I don't see that an agreement nor a right has being taken.

 

[Togo]

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

Since i have the copyright then I have the right to decide if a copy may be made. That decision is taken from me.

If you insist, but you haven't answered my question:

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

 

[Malintent]

I've posted this point maybe a dozen times throughout the years on this board and I know Bronzeage has seen it before but I'll do it again.

Copyright infringement is not theft. Certainly not legally in the US. Here is the case that established that fact Dowling v. United States.

Justice Blackmore gave compelling reasoning why its not theft.

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

The key word that defines theft is deprive. If you haven't deprived someone of something you can't have stolen from them. Just like you haven't stolen someone's house if you simply trespassed there while the owner was away.

The common argument here is that the unauthorized copy of protected material DEPRIVES the author of the revenue associated with what would have been an authorized copy. In the case of music downloads that are shared over peer to peer... the size of the group of people you share it with determines the extent of that loss (all those that would have bought the music, instead got it for free).

Of course, this begs the question, "would they have bought the material if not attainable (illegally) for free"? A nearly impossible question to answer. For me... it would be "no". If I would pay for something, then I do. If I wouldn't pay for it, it does not mean I wouldn't appreciate it for no cost. nor does it mean that there is automatically a loss... in fact, ME owning something may be GOOD for the author... my friends may never have heard of something before I introduce it to them... and then THEY may choose to buy.

 

[Togo]

My wife's local video store owner used to make illegal copies of his stock of Japanese anime and distribute it free to local schoolchildren. The result was a thriving market of people buying manga and anime.

 

[Juma]

Since i have the copyright then I have the right to decide if a copy may be made. That decision is taken from me.

If you insist, but you haven't answered my question:

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

A teacher has the right to rule the classroom. This is granted by headmaster. If a pupil starts to ignore what the teacher says he should to he has taken the might over what he should do from her. But she is still granted the right by the headmaster. He has then taken the command over his actions from the teacher. Thus he has taken something that is not his.

 

[Togo]

If you insist, but you haven't answered my question:

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

A teacher has the right to rule the classroom. This is granted by headmaster. If a pupil starts to ignore what the teacher says he should to he has taken the might over what he should do from her. But she is still granted the right by the headmaster. He has then taken the command over his actions from the teacher. Thus he has taken something that is not his.

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

I fail to see how a teacher's authority over a class pertains to this question.

 

[Juma]

A teacher has the right to rule the classroom. This is granted by headmaster. If a pupil starts to ignore what the teacher says he should to he has taken the might over what he should do from her. But she is still granted the right by the headmaster. He has then taken the command over his actions from the teacher. Thus he has taken something that is not his.

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

I fail to see how a teacher's authority over a class pertains to this question.

I have never stated that my right to male a copy diminished. As the teachers rights are granted by the headmaster these rights are not affected by pupils not following the teachers will.

 

[Togo]

In what sense do you have less right to make a copy than you did before?

I fail to see how a teacher's authority over a class pertains to this question.

I have never stated that my right to male a copy diminished.

So then, what has been 'stolen'? What did you have previous to the copyright violation, that you do not have now?

 

[Juma]

I have never stated that my right to male a copy diminished.

So then, what has been 'stolen'? What did you have previous to the copyright violation, that you do not have now?

The actual control of how that copy is used.

 

[Togo]

So then, what has been 'stolen'? What did you have previous to the copyright violation, that you do not have now?

The actual control of how that copy is used.

But you didn't have control over that copy before the copyright violation - the copy didn't exist! So what has been stolen?

 

[Juma]

The actual control of how that copy is used.

But you didn't have control over that copy before the copyright violation - the copy didn't exist! So what has been stolen?

Sigh...
The control over creation of the copy is included in control of the copy.

 

[Jokodo]

But you didn't have control over that copy before the copyright violation - the copy didn't exist! So what has been stolen?

Sigh...
The control over creation of the copy is included in control of the copy.

But the one who made the illegal copy doesn't have control over creation of copies either, since you're still able to make as many copies as you want. At best, using this logic, you could claim that copyright violations are vandalism, but theft requires a beneficiary who now has what you no longer have, a condition that clearly isn't met.

 

[Juma]

Sigh...
The control over creation of the copy is included in control of the copy.

But the one who made the illegal copy doesn't have control over creation of copies either, since you're still able to make as many copies as you want. At best, using this logic, you could claim that copyright violations are vandalism, but theft requires a beneficiary who now has what you no longer have, a condition that clearly isn't met.

The one making/handling the copy is the beneficiary and the conttol over that copy is what I has lost.

 

[Jokodo]

But the one who made the illegal copy doesn't have control over creation of copies either, since you're still able to make as many copies as you want. At best, using this logic, you could claim that copyright violations are vandalism, but theft requires a beneficiary who now has what you no longer have, a condition that clearly isn't met.

The one making/handling the copy is the beneficiary and the conttol over that copy is what I has lost.

Makes no sense. The copy didn't exist before, so you cannot have lost control over that copy. What you arguably did loose is control over all copies, but that the other person didn't gain.

 

[Juma]

The one making/handling the copy is the beneficiary and the conttol over that copy is what I has lost.

Makes no sense. The copy didn't exist before, so you cannot have lost control over that copy.

Creation of a copy is definitely one of those things that is included in handling of that copy.