4 ms·

Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. ht

Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...

dangerlibrary 6y ago
Wow, I mean, what a counterintuitive coincidence. Trafficking in copyrighted works constitutes theft, but a private equity firm buying a company with debt, transferring the debt onto the company's balance sheet, allowing it to go into bankruptcy because of enormous debt load, and paying themselves huge bonuses along the way is not theft. If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. federal code as it exists in June of 2020 is the definitive source of ethical and moral definitions, I would think that maybe something _untoward_ might be going on.
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  Seems coherent to me: you are not taking ownership of something without a contractual basis. It would I think constitute 'misuse of corporate assets' though.
enriquto 6y ago
> Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that freeing slaves legitimately bought is defined as stealing property under US law.
- WaltPurvis 6y ago
  That's not cute. It's incredibly appalling to compare the institution of slavery to people who pirate books simply because they want the benefits of authors' work without compensating those authors.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    I'm not making that comparison. I'm not even saying that I disagree with your view on copyright. I'm just setting up this correspondence to show that the argumentation that you use is not valid.
    - WaltPurvis 6y ago
      Fine, but there is nothing at all invalid about my argument, because all I argued is that infringing copyrights is defined as stealing property under US law. That's not even an argument; it's simply a statement of fact. Unless you're talking about my statement that musings about how it shouldn't be considered stealing are irrelevant to the fact that it is, which is also not an argument, just a statement of fact. (Those musings are misguided as well as irrelevant, but I didn't advance any argument about them being misguided.)
      - enriquto 6y ago
        Your rhetoric tricks are a bit tiring. The question is not settled by saying that something is illegal. Of course book sharing is illegal under the current law, that's the whole point. The law in question is stupid. People who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws are outraged by this, and want to use the legal system to change this stupid law. Repeating that "book sharing is illegal" as you do leads nowhere.
        WaltPurvis 6y ago
        > People who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws are outraged by this, and want to use the legal system to change this stupid law. Some people. Other "people who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws" are outraged by the Internet Archive's infringement of copyright for no justifiable purpose and want to use the legal system to make sure copyright laws are followed. I don't know what you mean by rhetoric tricks. I've done nothing but explain the current status of copyright law. You're the one who resorted to some trick (which I still don't understand) comparing copyright to slavery. I agree this is tiresome, though.
ByteJockey 6y ago
Why should the federal government be taken as the authority on the definition in terms in a non-legal context (most of the conversation here is about an ethical argument)?
- austhrow743 6y ago
  Topic is a legal battle. I would think the onus is on people wanting to use words that have both legal and non-legal meanings in their non-legal way to specify it.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    The post I responded to explicitly acknowledged it wasn't a legal argument. At least using the phrase "philosophical musings" seems that way to me. Unless you want to make the argument that a philosophical argument and a legal argument are equivalent (which I would actually be quite interested in seeing).
6502nerdface 6y ago
My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the very section of US code to which you link does not mean that copyright infringement is 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...

dangerlibrary 6y ago

Wow, I mean, what a counterintuitive coincidence. Trafficking in copyrighted works constitutes theft, but a private equity firm buying a company with debt, transferring the debt onto the company's balance sheet, allowing it to go into bankruptcy because of enormous debt load, and paying themselves huge bonuses along the way is not theft. If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. federal code as it exists in June of 2020 is the definitive source of ethical and moral definitions, I would think that maybe something _untoward_ might be going on.

ArnoVW 6y ago
Seems coherent to me: you are not taking ownership of something without a contractual basis. It would I think constitute 'misuse of corporate assets' though.

enriquto 6y ago

> Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that freeing slaves legitimately bought is defined as stealing property under US law.

WaltPurvis 6y ago
That's not cute. It's incredibly appalling to compare the institution of slavery to people who pirate books simply because they want the benefits of authors' work without compensating those authors.
- enriquto 6y ago
  I'm not making that comparison. I'm not even saying that I disagree with your view on copyright. I'm just setting up this correspondence to show that the argumentation that you use is not valid.
  - WaltPurvis 6y ago
    Fine, but there is nothing at all invalid about my argument, because all I argued is that infringing copyrights is defined as stealing property under US law. That's not even an argument; it's simply a statement of fact. Unless you're talking about my statement that musings about how it shouldn't be considered stealing are irrelevant to the fact that it is, which is also not an argument, just a statement of fact. (Those musings are misguided as well as irrelevant, but I didn't advance any argument about them being misguided.)
    - enriquto 6y ago
      Your rhetoric tricks are a bit tiring. The question is not settled by saying that something is illegal. Of course book sharing is illegal under the current law, that's the whole point. The law in question is stupid. People who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws are outraged by this, and want to use the legal system to change this stupid law. Repeating that "book sharing is illegal" as you do leads nowhere.
      - WaltPurvis 6y ago
        > People who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws are outraged by this, and want to use the legal system to change this stupid law. Some people. Other "people who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws" are outraged by the Internet Archive's infringement of copyright for no justifiable purpose and want to use the legal system to make sure copyright laws are followed. I don't know what you mean by rhetoric tricks. I've done nothing but explain the current status of copyright law. You're the one who resorted to some trick (which I still don't understand) comparing copyright to slavery. I agree this is tiresome, though.

ByteJockey 6y ago

Why should the federal government be taken as the authority on the definition in terms in a non-legal context (most of the conversation here is about an ethical argument)?

austhrow743 6y ago
Topic is a legal battle. I would think the onus is on people wanting to use words that have both legal and non-legal meanings in their non-legal way to specify it.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  The post I responded to explicitly acknowledged it wasn't a legal argument. At least using the phrase "philosophical musings" seems that way to me. Unless you want to make the argument that a philosophical argument and a legal argument are equivalent (which I would actually be quite interested in seeing).

6502nerdface 6y ago

My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the very section of US code to which you link does not mean that copyright infringement is 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...