4 ms·

If I steal your car, I've deprived you of the use of your car. If I copy your program, have I deprived you of the use of your program? How is that a linguistic

If I steal your car, I've deprived you of the use of your car. If I copy your program, have I deprived you of the use of your program? How is that a linguistic argument?

stop_thief 10y ago
Because you're using an unreasonably narrow definition of theft that doesn't include intangibles.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Tell that to the SCOTUS: 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. By the way, the infringer was acquitted, since the court agreed he hadn't "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", despite even making money from his infringing activities.
  - stop_thief 10y ago
    A counterpoint to this interpretation of the Dowling verdict - http://lawtheories.com/?p=1881 http://lawtheories.com/?p=1881: > This lack of “physical removal,” as required by the statute, meant that Dowling’s infringing copies were not “the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment § 2314 makes criminal.” But this doesn’t mean that Dowling’s acts of infringement in creating the physical records were not themselves acts of theft or conversion.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Unconvincing argument. The court's statement, as I reproduced above, is not about the specifics of the statute, otherwise it would have said "it's theft, just not physical removal". The wording is very clear. The example of the other case (which, by the way, was only a District Court decision) also seems weak. AFAIK (IANAL), the fact that copyright law preempted state law doesn't mean the two are equal, it just means that both theft and copyright infringement occurred - which is easily seen to be the case, since physical plans were actually removed from a place.
- monochromatic 10y ago
  Let me know when your definition makes it into a legal dictionary.
- imtringued 10y ago
  Imagine there is a technology that could copy tangible goods such as cars. Now somebody makes a copy of your car. Your car was not stolen but you may not be happy with the fact that somebody now also has a copy of your personal belongings like a smartphone that was inside the car. This is where copyright law comes into play which only allows copying the car only under your rules. If somebody doesn't follow the rules that doesn't mean they stole your car but it still means they should receive some form of punishment to prevent future copyright infringement.
sah2ed 10y ago
You are correct. In fact the distinction between your two examples i.e the car (a tangible good) and the program (an intangible good) is what economists refer to as rivalry [0]. A car is a rivalrous good. A program is a non-rivalrous good. The main distinction is that the marginal cost of producing a non-rivalrous good is zero. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

If I steal your car, I've deprived you of the use of your car. If I copy your program, have I deprived you of the use of your program? How is that a linguistic argument?

stop_thief 10y ago

Because you're using an unreasonably narrow definition of theft that doesn't include intangibles.

icebraining 10y ago
Tell that to the SCOTUS: 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. By the way, the infringer was acquitted, since the court agreed he hadn't "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", despite even making money from his infringing activities.
- stop_thief 10y ago
  A counterpoint to this interpretation of the Dowling verdict - http://lawtheories.com/?p=1881 http://lawtheories.com/?p=1881: > This lack of “physical removal,” as required by the statute, meant that Dowling’s infringing copies were not “the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment § 2314 makes criminal.” But this doesn’t mean that Dowling’s acts of infringement in creating the physical records were not themselves acts of theft or conversion.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Unconvincing argument. The court's statement, as I reproduced above, is not about the specifics of the statute, otherwise it would have said "it's theft, just not physical removal". The wording is very clear. The example of the other case (which, by the way, was only a District Court decision) also seems weak. AFAIK (IANAL), the fact that copyright law preempted state law doesn't mean the two are equal, it just means that both theft and copyright infringement occurred - which is easily seen to be the case, since physical plans were actually removed from a place.
monochromatic 10y ago
Let me know when your definition makes it into a legal dictionary.
imtringued 10y ago
Imagine there is a technology that could copy tangible goods such as cars. Now somebody makes a copy of your car. Your car was not stolen but you may not be happy with the fact that somebody now also has a copy of your personal belongings like a smartphone that was inside the car. This is where copyright law comes into play which only allows copying the car only under your rules. If somebody doesn't follow the rules that doesn't mean they stole your car but it still means they should receive some form of punishment to prevent future copyright infringement.

sah2ed 10y ago

You are correct. In fact the distinction between your two examples i.e the car (a tangible good) and the program (an intangible good) is what economists refer to as rivalry [0]. A car is a rivalrous good. A program is a non-rivalrous good. The main distinction is that the marginal cost of producing a non-rivalrous good is zero. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)